Ali Al-Attar

Keloid pathogenesis and treatment

Background: Keloid management can be difficult and frustrating, and the mechanisms underlying keloid formation are only partially understood. Methods: Using original and current literature in this field, this comprehensive review presents the major concepts of keloid pathogenesis and the treatment options stemming from them. Results: Mechanisms for keloid formation include alterations in growth factors, collagen turnover, tension alignment, and genetic and immunologic contributions. Treatment strategies for keloids include established (e.g., surgery, steroid, radiation) and experimental (e.g., interferon, 5-fluorouracil, retinoid) regimens. Conclusion: The scientific basis and empiric evidence supporting the use of various agents is presented. Combination therapy, using surgical excision followed by intradermal steroid or other adjuvant therapy, currently appears to be the most efficacious and safe current regimen for keloid management.

Clinical approach to wounds: Débridement and wound bed preparation including the use of dressings and wound-healing adjuvants

Summary: This is a clinical review of current techniques in wound bed preparation found to be effective in assisting the wound-healing process. The process begins with the identification of a correct diagnosis of the wound’s etiology and continues with optimizing the patient’s medical condition, including blood flow to the wound site. Débridement as the basis of most wound-healing strategies is then emphasized. Various débridement techniques, including surgery, topical agents, and biosurgery, are thoroughly discussed and illustrated. Wound dressings, including the use of negative pressure wound therapy, are then reviewed. To properly determine the timing of advance therapeutic intervention, the wound-healing progress needs to be monitored carefully with weekly measurements. A reduction in wound area of 10 to 15 percent per week represents normal healing and does not mandate a change in the current wound-healing strategy. However, if this level of wound area reduction is not met consistently on a weekly basis, then alternative healing interventions should be considered. There is a growing body of evidence that can provide guidance on the appropriate use of such adjuvants in the problem wound. Several adjuvants are discussed, including growth factor, bioengineered tissues, and hyperbaric medicine.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy for prophylactic and therapeutic indications.

Background: Nipple-sparing mastectomy remains controversial and its adoption has been slow because of oncologic and surgical concerns. Methods: A retrospective study evaluated all nipple-sparing mastectomies performed at a single institution for therapeutic or prophylactic indications for which records were available. Results: Between 1989 and 2010, 162 nipple-sparing mastectomies were performed in 101 women. Forty-nine (30 percent) were performed for therapeutic purposes on 48 patients. A subareolar biopsy specimen was taken in 39 of 49 breasts (80 percent); four (10 percent) revealed ductal carcinoma in situ, and the nipple or nipple-areola complex was later removed. Four of 49 breasts (8 percent) in the therapeutic group had ischemic complications involving the nipple-areola complex, one of which (2 percent) was excised. With a mean follow-up of 2 years 6 months (range, 5 months to 9 years 5 months), no patients developed cancer in the nipple-areola complex. The remaining 113 mastectomies (70 percent) were performed prophylactically on 80 patients. The subareolar tissue was biopsied in 80 breasts (71 percent). One biopsy revealed lobular carcinoma in situ; none had ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive cancer. Two nipple-areola complexes (1.8 percent) were ischemic and excised. With a mean follow-up of 3 years 7 months (range, 5 months to 20 years 6 months), no patients developed new primary cancers in the nipple-areola complex. Conclusions: Nipple-sparing mastectomy can be safe in properly selected patients. A subareolar biopsy can effectively identify nipple-areola complexes that may harbor cancerous cells. Ischemic complications resulting in nipple loss can be minimized, and long-term follow-up suggests that this technique deserves further investigation in properly selected patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Prophylactic mastectomy and reconstruction: clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate both clinical outcomes and satisfaction in patients who have undergone prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Methods: A 5-year retrospective analysis of the senior author’s (S.L.S.) experience with breast reconstruction following prophylactic mastectomy was performed. Timing, type of mastectomy and reconstruction, complications, and cancer occurrence/recurrence were examined. Patients reported their level of satisfaction and willingness to undergo the procedure again. Aesthetic outcomes were graded by an independent and blinded group of surgeons. Results: There were 101 breast reconstructions performed in 74 patients following prophylactic mastectomy. With a mean follow-up of 31 months, there were three breast-site complications in this group (3 percent). Forty-seven patients in the study had a unilateral prophylactic mastectomy; on the contralateral side with cancer, there were five breast-site complications in reconstructions following therapeutic mastectomy (10 percent). Aesthetic outcome ratings by surgeons were higher in the bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and reconstruction patients compared with the cancer patients who had undergone a therapeutic mastectomy and reconstruction along with a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance. Patient satisfaction was higher in the bilateral prophylactic group, with all of the patients completing the survey stating they would undergo the procedure again. Conclusions: Breast reconstruction following prophylactic mastectomy was as safe as or more safe than that following therapeutic mastectomy, which has been shown in other studies to result in a high percentage of patient satisfaction. Although not statistically significant, the results from reconstruction after prophylactic mastectomy trended toward improved aesthetic outcome with a lower complication rate compared with reconstruction after therapeutic mastectomy.

Late seromas after breast implants: theory and practice.

Background: Late seromas surrounding breast implants are becoming an increasingly important issue in breast surgery. The authors report their experience with late seromas and describe their previous management options. Methods: A multicenter retrospective review of patients who developed late seromas (clinically presenting seromas without evidence of overt or documented infection more than 1 year after implant operation) was performed. Management, surgical technique, outcomes, complications, culture findings, and cytology results were recorded. Results: Between 2005 and 2010, 28 late seromas were identified in 25 patients. The average interval from the patients last surgery to seroma onset was 4.7 years; 27 of 28 breasts (96 percent) had a Biocell textured device in place at the time of seroma development. The late seromas in the series were managed as follows: 15 (53.6 percent) by complete capsulectomy, seroma drainage, and new implant placement; three (10.7 percent) by seroma drainage and new implant placement but without capsulectomy; two (7.1 percent) by complete capsulectomy and seroma drainage but without implant replacement; five (17.9 percent) by only ultrasound-guided seroma drainage without the need for surgical intervention; and three (10.7 percent) by antibiotic therapy alone. All cultures and cytology studies were negative for malignancy or infection; 27 of 28 seromas (96 percent) were treated successfully by one of the described approaches. Conclusions: Biocell textured implants were more likely to be associated with late seromas than were smooth shell implants. The overwhelming majority of late seromas appear to be idiopathic, without clear evidence of infection or malignancy. A graduated approach, including several different management strategies, was used to successfully manage these patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

The importance of limb preservation in the diabetic population

OBJECTIVE Limb salvage in the diabetic population is complex, controversial, costly and variable throughout the world. Within the diabetic population, the indications and morbidity surrounding major leg amputation have not been well defined. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A retrospective study of the Georgetown Limb Salvage Registry was conducted to determine outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing proximal forefoot/midfoot (PF/M) amputations and to help define the indications for major leg amputation in ambulatory diabetic patients. RESULTS Of the 937 ambulatory diabetic patients identified during this time period, 808 who presented with superficial ulcers or distal forefoot disease and who did not go on to PF/M or higher amputation were eliminated. Records of 88 patients (92 limbs) in the PF/M amputation group and 25 patients in the below the knee amputation (BKA) group were reviewed (no above knee amputations were performed). At 2 years in the PF/M amputation group, 80% (70/88) of patients were still alive, 73% (68/92) of the limbs remained intact, and 64% of patients (56/88) were ambulatory. In contrast, in the BKA population at 2 years, 52% (13/25) of patients were deceased and 64% (16/25) were ambulating with a prosthetic limb (or had been ambulating at the time of death). The only statistically significant difference between these two groups was the presence of Charcot collapse and rear-foot disease in the BKA group. CONCLUSION Aggressive efforts at salvage with PF/M amputation procedures should be entertained prior to higher level amputations due to the increased morbidity and mortality evidenced.

Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix (Strattice™) in Primary and Revision Cosmetic Breast Surgery

Background: Although acellular dermal matrix materials have been in use for over a decade in primary and secondary breast reconstruction and in some cosmetic breast surgery, little has been published on the outcomes of these materials for cosmetic applications. Methods: A retrospective institutional review board–approved review was conducted of all patients who had a specific acellular dermal matrix, Strattice, used for cosmetic breast surgery performed by the senior author (S.L.S.). Patient demographics, indications, surgical findings, and postoperative course were collected and data analyzed using descriptive statistical tools. Results: Between 2008 and 2012, Strattice was used in 43 cosmetic breast operations (75 breasts) performed by the senior author (S.L.S.). Sixty-nine of the 75 breasts (92 percent) were revision operations. Indications included inferior pole support [39 breasts (52 percent)], fold malpositions [28 breasts (37 percent)], capsular contracture [25 breasts (33 percent)], and rippling/palpability [six breasts (8 percent)]. Three patients (six breasts) had Strattice placed during primary augmentation/mastopexy. Seventy-four of the 75 breasts (98.7 percent) had successfully achieved the indication for which the Strattice was placed; one breast (1.2 percent) had some degree of relapse. The global complication rate for all patients in this study is 5.3 percent—two breasts (2.7 percent) had postoperative malposition, one breast (1.2 percent) had bottoming out, and one breast (1.2 percent) developed an infection that resulted in temporary device explantation. Conclusions: The use of Strattice is safe and may be helpful in the management of certain situations in cosmetic breast surgery, including needed lower pole support, capsular contracture, rippling, and implant malposition. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Microvascular free flap failure caused by unrecognized hypercoagulability.

Background: Microvascular free flap techniques have improved over the past two decades such that flap failure rates have dropped to under 3 percent in most large series of high-volume centers. However, despite technical and patient-selection advances, some components of free flap failure might be attributable to undiagnosed patient factors. Methods: In this clinicopathologic conference article, the authors present four patients with major free flap microvascular complications who were later diagnosed with multiple risk factors for hypercoagulability and biochemical abnormalities, and present the characteristic associated findings. Results: Previously undiagnosed hypercoagulability was present in four patients with major free flap microvascular complications. Hematologic consultation and laboratory investigation revealed the biochemical abnormalities. Conclusions: In certain patients undergoing microvascular free flap reconstruction, undiagnosed hypercoagulability risk factors can be a source of free flap failure that is independent of patient selection or technical factors. Diagnosis, management, patient counseling, and initiation of deep venous thromboembolism prophylaxis measures are critical clinical components of care of these patients.

Algorithm for treatment of postoperative incisional groin pain after cesarean delivery or hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the low mortality and morbidity of major obstetric and gynecologic surgeries (including hysterectomy and cesarean delivery), women undergoing these procedures occasionally suffer from intractable postoperative suprapubic and groin pain. We present seven patients whose intractable pain lasted longer than 6 months and was not due to gynecologic disease or other obvious pathology. METHODS: Neuromas of the ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, and/or genitofemoral nerves were suspected clinically and confirmed intraoperatively. RESULTS: After neuroma resection, all patients reported complete and durable pain relief. CONCLUSION: Intractable pain after obstetric or gynecologic surgery can be due to neuroma formation, and resection is therapeutic. We suggest an algorithm for the management of women with chronic intractable suprapubic or groin pain after major obstetric and gynecologic surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-3

Classification and management of the postoperative, high-riding nipple.

Background: Postoperative nipple malposition can be an aesthetically devastating problem for patients and a formidable challenge for surgeons. The authors’ aim was to identify the common antecedent events leading to high-riding nipples, provide a classification system for these problems, and discuss management. Methods: A retrospective review of medical records was conducted for patients who presented to the senior surgeon (S.L.S.) for management of a postoperative, excessively high nipple-areola complex over an 8-year period from January of 2004 to March of 2012. Demographic information, medical histories, operative details, and office records were reviewed for each patient. The high nipple-areola complex was classified as mild, moderate, or severe depending on the distance from the superior breast border to the top of the nipple-areola complex in relation to the vertical breast height. Results: Twenty-five women met study criteria, with 41 breasts determined to have an excessively high nipple-areola complex. The average patient was aged 44.3 years and had undergone 2.5 ± 1.3 operations before the development of a notably high nipple-areola complex, including nipple-sparing mastectomy (32 percent), augmentation/mastopexy (29 percent), augmentation (27 percent), mastopexy (10 percent), and skin-sparing mastectomy with nipple reconstruction (2 percent). Patients were classified as having mild (27 percent), moderate (56 percent), or severe (17 percent) nipple-areola complex displacement; surgical correction was attempted in 54 percent of cases. Conclusions: A high-riding nipple-areola complex can develop following aesthetic or reconstructive surgery. Although many patients may not need or choose correction, there are surgical options that may be helpful in improving the nipple-areola complex position.