Alfred P. Yoon

The effect of prior abdominal surgery on abdominally based free flaps in breast reconstruction.

Background: The abdomen has long remained the preferred donor site in breast reconstruction. Over time, the flap has evolved to limit morbidity with reduced muscular harvest. Previous abdominal operations, however, may limit the ability to perform a muscle- or fascia-sparing flap. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes in women who had prior abdominal operations and underwent abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction. Methods: All patients who underwent abdominally based breast free flap reconstruction between 2004 and 2009 were reviewed. A study group of patients with previous open abdominal surgery were compared to patients with no prior abdominal surgery. Patient demographics, operative details, and flap and donor-site complications were analyzed. Results: A total of 539 patients underwent abdominally based breast free flap reconstruction. The study group consisted of 268 patients (341 flaps) and the control group consisted of 271 patients (351 flaps). Prior abdominal surgery led to greater muscular harvest, as 19.9 percent in the study group versus 12.0 percent required muscle-sparing 1–type harvest (p < 0.01). Both groups presented similar overall complications, with the exception of lower partial flap loss and increased wound healing complications in the study group (p < 0.05). Abdominal wall laxity became less frequent with increasing number of prior abdominal operations. Conclusions: Abdominally based flaps for breast reconstruction, including muscle-sparing 3 (deep inferior epigastric perforator) flaps, can be performed safely in patients with prior abdominal surgery. These patients should be informed, however, of an increased chance of muscular harvest and wound healing complications. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Implant-based immediate breast reconstruction in the previously augmented patient

BACKGROUND Millions of women have undergone augmentation mammaplasty with implants and breast cancer continuing to be the most common non-cutaneous malignancy in female patients. Reconstructive surgeons will inevitably encounter breast cancer patients with prior augmentation. Implant-based techniques represent the most common form of breast reconstruction overall and remains a common option among those who were previously augmented. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to evaluate outcomes of implant-based reconstruction in previously augmented women. METHODS A retrospective review from September 2004 to December 2009 was performed. 38 women (63 breasts) with a history of prior augmentation (PA) who underwent implant-based reconstruction were identified and compared to a non-prior augmented (NPA) control group (77 patients; 138 breasts). Normative data, augmentation details, reconstruction method, complication rates, and revision rates were evaluated. RESULTS The total complication rate was significantly different between the two groups with 18 complications (28.6%) occurring in 9 PA breasts and 20 complications (14.5%) in 19 NPA breasts (p-value 0.037). When analyzed by specific complication subtypes, capsular contracture was the only complication that bordered significance between the two cohorts (p-value 0.057). Complication rates were otherwise similar regardless of augmentation or reconstruction type. CONCLUSION Implant-based reconstruction is a safe option for previously augmented patients that is able to provide outcomes similar to non-augmented patients. Results are not affected by the location of previous implants or the implant-based reconstruction method. There may be a higher incidence of capsular contracture in the previously augmented patient that warrants further investigation and preoperative discussion.

Abstract 27. The Use of Liposomal Bupivacaine in Patients Undergoing Abdominally-Based Autologous and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

CONCLUSION: Despite their similarities in clinical and radiographic presentation, pediatric JE phalangeal fractures are a distinct entity from SH2 fractures. Presenting with significantly more radiographic angulation and clinical instability, JE fractures more frequently required operative fixation compared to SH2 fractures. This distinction is important when determining the treatment strategy employed (operative fixation versus nonoperative management) as well as potential length and degree of immobilization/stabilization for nonoperative management to increase the success of treatment.

Reverse Radial Forearm Flap to Provide Arterial Inflow to a Toe Transfer

Background: Toe-to-thumb transfer has become the gold standard for thumb reconstruction, but in badly mutilated hands, additional soft tissue coverage may be required or a suitable recipient artery may not be available. There are only 3 case reports describing the successful use of a reverse radial forearm flap for coverage of a soft tissue defect around the thumb as well as providing arterial inflow for a toe transfer, performed either simultaneously or secondarily. Methods: A single surgeon’s experience of all toe-to-hand transfers performed in conjunction with a reverse radial forearm flap between 1995 and 2014 was reviewed, including patient demographics, type of toe transfer and vascular pedicle, whether immediate or secondary, follow-up, and complications. Results: Eight toe-to-hand transfers were performed in 7 patients—3 children (age range, 3-15 years) and 4 adults (age range, 19-39 years). Three patients underwent primary toe-to-thumb transfer simultaneously with a reverse radial forearm flap, and 5 patients underwent secondary toe-to-hand transfer between 4 months and 2½ years after an initial reverse radial forearm flap. All toe transfers survived completely. Average follow-up was 5.1 years. All patients were satisfied with the function and appearance of their reconstructed thumb. Conclusion: The reverse radial forearm flap is a very reliable procedure as a “Sister” or “Siamese” flap to provide immediate arterial inflow to a simultaneous toe-to-thumb transfer, or to provide primary soft tissue coverage on the radial aspect of the hand and subsequently provide a recipient arterial inflow for a secondary toe transfer.

Abstract: Liposomal Bupivacaine Reduces Postoperative Narcotic Use in Patients Undergoing Abdominal-Based Autologous and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

PurPose: Treatment of post-operative pain after breast reconstruction remains a significant challenge for plastic surgeons. Liposomal bupivacaine (LB, Exparel Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Parsippany, NJ) has been proven to effectively relieve pain in the immediate postoperative period. The purpose of our study is to explore the effects of intraoperatively delivered LB on postoperative narcotic use in women undergoing autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction.

Impact of Prior Tissue Expander/Implant on Postmastectomy Free Flap Breast Reconstruction.

Background: Implant-based breast reconstructions can result in unsatisfactory results requiring surgical revision or salvage reconstructive surgery with autologous tissue. This study compares the outcomes and complications of salvage (tertiary) flap reconstruction after failed prosthesis placement to those of primary/secondary flap reconstruction. Methods: All patients undergoing free flap breast reconstruction after failed prosthesis between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2014, were identified. A matched number of patients who underwent a de novo free flap breast reconstruction were selected randomly for review. The indication for prosthesis removal, demographic and operative data, flap type and inset, and complication rates were evaluated. Results: Eighty-nine women with a history of failed implant-based reconstruction required free flap reconstruction for salvage in 121 breasts. Capsular contracture was the most common indication for prosthesis removal (62.0 percent). Recipient vessel scarring was 5.23 times more likely to occur in the prior prosthesis group (p < 0.001). Alternate flap types other than deep inferior epigastric perforator and transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps were more frequently used in this cohort. Major complications requiring operative management were more common in the experimental group (17.4 percent versus 8.1 percent; p = 0.035). No difference was noted in flap loss rates, operative take back, or operative time. Conclusions: Salvage breast reconstruction with autologous tissue after failed prosthesis can be safely performed, with success rates similar to those of primary free flap breast reconstruction. However, these procedures may have increased complexity because of recipient vessel scarring, higher rates of prior radiation therapy, and major complications, which may warrant appropriate preoperative planning and patient counseling. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.