Pain Control after Reduction Mammaplasty with Combination Bupivacaine and Dexamethasone Regional Block: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

There are many approaches to pain control in reduction mammaplasty. Preoperative bupivacaine regional blocks control pain relatively inexpensively ($0.07/mL), but last only 8 hours. A liposomal bupivacaine formulation lasts 72 hours but can be costly ($17.21/mL). Orthopedic and thoracic operations have demonstrated that dexamethasone ($0.44/mL) plus bupivacaine can prolong analgesia. The authors conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to determine whether dexamethasone plus bupivacaine regional block improves postoperative pain control, reduces inpatient narcotic use, and improves patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Female patients were randomized into control and experimental groups. Both groups received preoperative modified block of the pectoral nerves: bupivacaine plus saline (control group) or bupivacaine plus dexamethasone (experimental group). Postoperative pain regimens were standardized. Vital signs, pain scores, narcotic consumption, and antiemetic use were recorded throughout the hospitalization. Quality-of-life surveys were distributed at the first postoperative visit.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients completed the study: 25 control and 26 experimental group patients. The experimental group averaged lower pain scores, although there was no statistically significant difference overall or at each 4-hour interval. Postoperative narcotic use was significantly lower in the experimental group (mean, 23.2 oral morphine equivalents versus 36.6 oral morphine equivalents per patient; P = 0.026). There were no differences in 4-hour interval vital signs, antiemetic use, or length of stay. Survey results showed enhanced quality of life in the experimental group, but this was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of dexamethasone to bupivacaine in the preoperative modified block of the pectoral nerves block before bilateral reduction mammaplasty resulted in significantly less narcotic consumption in the hospital. This can be a cost-effective adjunct for postoperative pain control.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Cancer screening and management in the transgender population: Review of literature and special considerations for gender affirmation surgery

BACKGROUND

Literature focused on cancer screening and management is lacking in the transgender population.

AIM

To action to increase contributions to the scientific literature that drives the creation of cancer screening and management protocols for transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of PubMed on January 5th, 2022, with the following terms: "TGNC", OR "transgender", OR "gender non-conforming", OR "gender nonbinary" AND "cancer screening", AND "breast cancer", AND "cervical cancer", AND "uterine cancer", AND "ovarian cancer", AND "prostate cancer", AND "testicular cancer", AND "surveillance", AND "follow-up", AND "management". 70 unique publications were used. The findings are discussed under "Screening" and "Management" categories.

RESULTS

Screening: Current cancer screening recommendations default to cis-gender protocols. However, long-term gender-affirming hormone therapy and loss to follow-up from the gender-specific specialties contribute to a higher risk for cancer development and possible delayed detection. The only known screening guidelines made specifically for this population are from the American College of Radiology for breast cancer. Management: Prior to undergoing Gender Affirmation Surgery (GAS), discussion should address cancer screening and management in the organs remaining in situ. Cancer treatment in this population requires consideration for chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and/or reconstruction. Modification of hormone therapy is decided on a case-by-case basis. The use of prophylactic vs aesthetic techniques in surgery is still debated.

CONCLUSION

When assessing transgender individuals for GAS, a discussion on the future oncologic risk of the sex-specific organs remaining in situ is essential. Cancer management in this population requires a multidisciplinary approach while the care should be highly individualized with considerations to social, medical, surgical and gender affirming surgery related specifications. Special considerations have to be made during planning for GAS as surgery will alter the anatomy and may render the organ difficult to sample for screening purposes. A discussion with the patient regarding the oncologic risk of remaining organs is imperative prior to GAS. Other special considerations to screening such as the conscious or unconscious will to unassociated with their remaining organs is also a key point to address. We currently lack high quality studies pertinent to the cancer topic in the gender affirmation literature. Further research is required to ensure more comprehensive and individualized care for this population.

Significant Reduction in Length of Stay in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction With Implementation of Multimodal ERAS Protocol

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) implementation achieves earlier recovery, reduced hospital length of stay (LOS) and improved outcomes in patients undergoing deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flaps. We sought to review our ERAS protocols and their impact on our patients' LOS compared with the literature.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience from 2017 to 2021 of patients undergoing DIEP free-flap breast reconstruction with LOS as the primary outcome. Complication rates and patient demographics are described as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-one patients underwent DIEP free-flap breast reconstruction. After adapting ERAS protocols, there has been a 0.98 [SD, 0.17; confidence interval [CI], -1.3 to -0.64; P < 0.001) day decrease in length of stay comparing pre-ERAS to post-ERAS implementation. Length of stay has routinely decreased from an average discharge on day 4.17 (SD, 1.1; range, 3-8 days) in 2017 to discharge on day 2.91 (SD, 1.1; range, 1-5 days) in 2021. Seventy-five percent of patients in 2021 were hospitalized for 3 or fewer days compared with 75% of patients in 2017 hospitalized for 4 or more days. One patient experienced a flap failure. Our study supports successful discharge on postoperative days 2-3 compared with postoperative days 3-4 in the current literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of our ERAS protocol for DIEP free-flap breast reconstruction has resulted in a shorter LOS compared with contemporary literature. The ERAS protocols can be efficiently adopted in microsurgical DIEP breast reconstruction to achieve a shorter LOS without jeopardizing patient outcomes.