Autologous Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer

Use of Ambient Light Compatible Fluorescence-Guided Surgical Technology for Objective Assessment of Flap Perfusion in Autologous Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

 Decreased autologous flap vascular perfusion can lead to secondary procedures. Fluorescence angiography during surgery reduces the probability of repeat surgery but suffers from interpretation variability. Recently, the OnLume Avata System was developed, which evaluates real-time vascular perfusion in ambient light. This study aims to predict complications in autologous breast reconstruction using measures of relative intensity (RI) and relative area (RA).

METHODS

 Patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction underwent intraoperative tissue perfusion assessment using the OnLume Avata System. Post-hoc image annotation was completed by labeling areas of the flap interpreted to be "Well Perfused," "Questionably Perfused," and "Under Perfused." RIs and RAs were calculated for the marked areas. Primary complications of interest were overall complication rate, fat and mastectomy skin flap necrosis, and surgical revision. Logistic regression was applied to determine the odds of developing a complication based on RI and RA for each image.

RESULTS

 A total of 25 patients (45 flaps) were included. In total, 17 patients (68%) developed at least one complication. Patients who developed any complication (p = 0.02) or underwent a surgical revision for complications (p = 0.02) had statistically lower RI of under-perfused portions of the flap. Patients with greater areas of under-perfused flap had a significantly higher risk of developing fat necrosis (odds ratio [OR]: 5.71, p = 0.03) and required a revision operation (OR: 1.10, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

 Image-based interpretation using the OnLume Avata System correlated with the risk of developing postoperative complications that standard fluorescence imaging systems may not appreciate. This information can benefit surgeons to improve perfusion assessment and intraoperative decision-making.

The Cost-effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocols in Abdominally Based Autologous Breast Reconstruction

Background

The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction. Further, we reviewed the use of liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks in abdominal autologous reconstruction.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus were used for literature review, and PRISMA guidelines were followed. Included articles had full-text available, included cost data, and involved use of TAP block. Reviews, case reports, or comparisons between immediate and delayed breast reconstruction were excluded. Included articles were reviewed for data highlighting treatment cost and associated length of stay (LOS). Cost and LOS were further stratified by treatment group (ERAS versus non-ERAS) and method of postoperative pain control (TAP versus non-TAP). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to compare the impact of the above treatments on cost and LOS.

Results

Of the 381 initial articles, 11 were included. These contained 919 patients, of whom 421 participated in an ERAS pathway. The average ICER for ERAS pathways was $1664.45 per day (range, $952.70-$2860). Average LOS of ERAS pathways was 3.12 days versus 4.57 days for non-ERAS pathways. The average ICER of TAP blocks was $909.19 (range, $89.64-$1728.73) with an average LOS of 3.70 days for TAP blocks versus 4.09 days in controls.

Conclusions

The use of ERAS pathways and postoperative pain control with liposomal bupivacaine TAP block during breast reconstruction is cost-effective. These interventions should be included in comprehensive perioperative plans aimed at positive outcomes with reduced costs.

Review: Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Studies Comparing Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) Versus Without ADM

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the world's most prevalent cancer, and many breast cancer patients undergo mastectomy as the choice of treatment, often with post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) use has become a method to improve outcomes of reconstruction for these patients. We aimed to compare postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes, which are still poorly characterized, between groups utilizing acellular dermal matrix during reconstruction and those without.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched electronic databases from inception to 16 June 2022 for randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies comparing the outcomes of patients who have and have not received acellular dermal matrix in implant-based breast reconstruction. The results were quantitatively combined and analyzed using random-effects models.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were included, representing 3161 breasts. There was no significant difference in postoperative outcomes, such as seroma formation (p = 0.51), hematomas (p = 0.20), infections (p = 0.21), wound dehiscence (p = 0.09), reoperations (p = 0.70), implant loss (p = 0.27), or skin necrosis (p = 0.21). Only two of the studies included evaluated patient-reported outcomes between the use and non-use of ADM in implant-based breast reconstruction using BREAST-Q questionnaire, as well as self-reported pain. There was no reported significant difference in BREAST-Q or pain scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis shows comparable short- and long-term outcomes between ADM and non-ADM breast reconstruction, suggesting that the use of ADM may not be necessary in all cases given their additional cost. However, there is a paucity of data for patient-reported outcomes, and further research is required to determine whether ADM use affects patient-reported outcomes.

Latex-Infused Porcine Abdominal Model: A Novel Microsurgery Simulator for Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Dissection

BACKGROUND

 Perforator dissection and flap elevation are routinely performed for microsurgical reconstruction; however, there is a steep learning curve to mastering these technical skills. Though live porcine models have been utilized as a microsurgical training model, there are significant drawbacks that limit their use, including cost, limited ability for repetition, and obstacles associated with animal care. Here we describe the creation of a novel perforator dissection model using latex augmented non-living porcine abdominal walls. We provide anatomic measurements that demonstrate valuable similarities and differences to human anatomy to maximize microsurgical trainee practice.

METHODS

 Six latex-infused porcine abdomens were dissected based on the deep cranial epigastric artery (DCEA). Dissection was centered over the abdominal wall mid-segment between the second and fourth nipple line. Dissection steps included exposure of lateral and medial row perforators, incision of anterior rectus sheath with perforator dissection, and dissection of DCEA pedicle. DCEA pedicle and perforator measurements were compared with deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEA) data in the literature.

RESULTS

 An average of seven perforators were consistently identified within each flap. Assembly of the model was performed quickly and allowed for two training sessions per specimen. Porcine abdominal walls demonstrate similar DCEA pedicle (2.6 ± 0.21 mm) and perforator (1.0 ± 0.18 mm) size compared with a human's DIEA (2.7 ± 0.27 mm, 1.1 ± 0.85 mm).

CONCLUSION

 The latex-infused porcine abdominal model is a novel, realistic simulation for perforator dissection practice for microsurgical trainees. Impact on resident comfort and confidence within a microsurgical training course is forthcoming.

Outcomes of patients in rural communities undergoing autologous breast reconstruction: A comparison of cost and patient demographics with implications for rural health policy

BACKGROUND

Patients with breast cancer living in rural areas are less likely to undergo breast reconstruction. Further, given the additional training and resources required for autologous reconstruction, it is likely that rural patients face barriers to accessing these surgical options. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine if there are disparities in autologous breast reconstruction care among rural patients on the national level.

METHODS

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database was queried from 2012 to 2019 using ICD9/10 codes for breast cancer diagnoses and autologous breast reconstruction. The resulting data set was analyzed for patient, hospital, and complication-specific information with counties comprised of less than 10,000 inhabitants classified as rural.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2019, 89,700 weighted encounters for autologous breast reconstruction involved patients who lived in non-rural areas, while 3605 involved patients from rural counties. The majority of rural patients underwent reconstruction at urban teaching hospitals. However, rural patients were more likely than non-rural patients to have their surgery at a rural hospital (6.8% vs. 0.7%). Rural-county residing patients had lower odds of receiving a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap compared to non-rural-county residing patients (OR 0.51 CI: 0.48-0.55, p < .0001). Further, rural patients were more likely to experience infection and wound disruption than urban patients (p < .05), regardless of where they underwent surgery. Complication rates were similar among rural patients who received care at rural hospitals versus urban hospitals (p > .05). Meanwhile, the cost of autologous breast reconstruction was higher (p = .011) for rural patients at an urban hospital ($30,066.2, SD19,965.5) than at a rural hospital ($25,049.5, SD12,397.2).

CONCLUSION

Patients living in rural areas face disparities in health care, including lower odds of being potentially offered gold-standard breast reconstruction treatments. Increased microsurgical option availability and patient education in rural areas may help alleviate current disparities in breast reconstruction.

Autologous Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer

Background

Women undergoing autologous reconstruction (AR) after mastectomy for breast cancer and their surgeons must make decisions regarding timing of the AR and choose among various flap types. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of (1) timing of AR relative to chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and (2) various flap types for AR.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies, from inception to March 23, 2021, without language restriction. We assessed risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods.

Results

We screened 15,936 citations. Twelve mostly high risk of bias studies, including three randomized controlled trials and nine nonrandomized comparative studies met criteria (total N = 31,833 patients). No studies addressed timing of AR relative to chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Six flap types were compared, but conclusions were feasible for only the comparison between transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous (TRAM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps. The choice of either flap may result in comparable patient satisfaction with breasts and comparable risk of necrosis (low SoE for both outcomes), but TRAM flaps probably pose a greater risk of harm to the area of flap harvest (abdominal bulge/hernia and need for surgical repair) (moderate SoE).

Conclusions

Evidence regarding details for AR is mostly of low SoE. New high-quality research among diverse populations of women is needed for the issue of timing of AR and for comparisons among flap types.