Patrick B. Garvey

Primary Fascial Closure with Mesh Reinforcement Is Superior to Bridged Mesh Repair for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

BACKGROUND Many surgeons believe that primary fascial closure with mesh reinforcement should be the goal of abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR), yet others have reported acceptable outcomes when mesh is used to bridge the fascial edges. It has not been clearly shown how the outcomes for these techniques differ. We hypothesized that bridged repairs result in higher hernia recurrence rates than mesh-reinforced repairs that achieve fascial coaptation. STUDY DESIGN We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with 1 year or more of follow-up, who underwent midline AWR between 2000 and 2011 at a single center. We compared surgical outcomes between patients with bridged and mesh-reinforced fascial repairs. The primary outcomes measure was hernia recurrence. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors predictive of or protective for complications. RESULTS We included 222 patients (195 mesh-reinforced and 27 bridged repairs) with a mean follow-up of 31.1 ± 14.2 months. The bridged repairs were associated with a significantly higher risk of hernia recurrence (56% vs 8%; hazard ratio [HR] 9.5; p < 0.001) and a higher overall complication rate (74% vs 32%; odds ratio [OR] 3.9; p < 0.001). The interval to recurrence was more than 9 times shorter in the bridged group (HR 9.5; p < 0.001). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis identified bridged repair and defect width > 15 cm to be independent predictors of hernia recurrence (HR 7.3; p < 0.001 and HR 2.5; p = 0.028, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Mesh-reinforced AWRs with primary fascial coaptation resulted in fewer hernia recurrences and fewer overall complications than bridged repairs. Surgeons should make every effort to achieve primary fascial coaptation to reduce complications.

Optimal timing of delayed free lower abdominal flap breast reconstruction after postmastectomy radiation therapy

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal timing of delayed abdominal free flap breast reconstruction following postmastectomy radiation therapy. The authors evaluated the association between timing of delayed abdominal free flap breast reconstruction following postmastectomy radiation therapy and postoperative complications. Methods: The authors reviewed a prospectively maintained database of delayed abdominal free flap breast reconstruction performed between July of 2005 and December of 2009. Data regarding demographics, operative variables, and clinical outcomes were collected. Patients were classified as having undergone reconstruction less than 12 months after postmastectomy radiation therapy (group I) or 12 months or more after postmastectomy radiation therapy (group II). Complications were compared between groups, including microvascular thrombosis, flap loss, reoperation, wound dehiscence, and fat necrosis. Results: One hundred eighty-nine patients were identified, 82 (43.4 percent) in group I and 107 (56.6 percent) in group II. The total flap loss rate was 2.6 percent, with all flap losses occurring in group I (p = 0.014). The reoperation rate was higher in group I (14.6 percent versus 4.7 percent; p = 0.022). In addition, group I patients trended toward a higher incidence of microvascular thrombosis, infection, and wound dehiscence. Conclusions: Patients who underwent delayed abdominal free flap breast reconstruction after 12 months from the completion of postmastectomy radiation therapy developed fewer complications, including microvascular thrombosis and total flap loss, than those who underwent delayed abdominal free flap breast reconstruction within 12 months of completing postmastectomy radiation therapy. Allowing an interval of 12 months between the completion of postmastectomy radiation therapy and delayed abdominal free flap breast reconstruction will likely minimize complications and optimize outcomes in free flap breast reconstruction in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation.

The advantages of free abdominal-based flaps over implants for breast reconstruction in obese patients

Background: The authors hypothesized that, for obese patients, delayed abdominal-based free flap (rather than implant-based and immediate) breast reconstruction would result in fewer overall complications and reconstruction losses. Methods: The authors retrospectively analyzed consecutive implant- and abdominal-based free flap breast reconstructions performed in obese patients between 2005 and 2010 by utilizing the World Health Organization obesity classifications: class I, 30.0 to 34.9 kg/m2; class II, 35.0 to 39.9 kg/m2; and class III, ≥40 kg/m2. Primary outcome measures included flap failures and overall complications. Logistic regression analysis identified associations among patient, defect, and reconstructive characteristics and surgical outcomes. Results: The analysis included 990 breast reconstructions (548 flaps versus 442 implants) in 700 patients. Mean follow-up was 17 months. Age, smoking, medical illness, and body mass index greater than 37 predicted overall complications on regression analysis. Implants demonstrated a higher failure rate (15.8 percent) than flaps (1.5 percent). Although failure rates were similar for immediate and delayed flap reconstructions overall (1.3 versus 1.9 percent) and among obesity classifications, there was a trend toward more implant failures in immediate rather than delayed reconstructions (16.8 versus 5.3 percent). Differences between immediate implant versus flap reconstruction failure rates were highest among more obese patients [class II (24.7 versus 1.3 percent) and class III (25.4 versus 0 percent) compared with class I (11.7 versus 1.4 percent)]. Conclusions: Obese patients (particularly class II and III) experience higher failure rates with implant-based breast reconstruction, particularly immediate reconstruction. Free flap techniques or delayed implant reconstruction may be warranted in this population. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Lipofilling of the Breast Does Not Increase the Risk of Recurrence of Breast Cancer: A Matched Controlled Study.

Background: Although many plastic surgeons perform autologous fat grafting (lipofilling) for breast reconstruction after oncologic surgery, it has not been established whether postoncologic lipofilling increases the risk of breast cancer recurrence. The authors assessed the risk of locoregional and systemic recurrence in patients who underwent lipofilling for breast reconstruction. Methods: The authors identified all patients who underwent segmental or total mastectomy for breast cancer (719 breasts) (i.e., cases) or breast cancer risk reduction or benign disease (305 cancer-free breasts) followed by breast reconstruction with lipofilling as an adjunct or primary procedure between June of 1981 and February of 2014. They also then identified matched patients with breast cancer treated with segmental or total mastectomy followed by reconstruction without lipofilling (670 breasts) (i.e., controls). The probability of locoregional recurrence was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Mean follow-up times after mastectomy were 60 months for cases, 44 months for controls, and 73 months for cancer-free breasts. Locoregional recurrence was observed in 1.3 percent of cases (nine of 719 breasts) and 2.4 percent of controls (16 of 670 breasts). Breast cancer did not develop in any cancer-free breast. The cumulative 5-year locoregional recurrence rates were 1.6 percent and 4.1 percent for cases and controls, respectively. Systemic recurrence occurred in 2.4 percent of cases and 3.6 percent of controls (p = 0.514). There was no primary breast cancer in healthy breasts reconstructed with lipofilling. Conclusions: The study results showed no increase in locoregional recurrence, systemic recurrence, or second breast cancer. These findings support the oncologic safety of lipofilling in breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Reconstructive outcomes in patients undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy

Background: As the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in breast cancer patients increases, more women are seeking immediate bilateral breast reconstruction. The authors evaluated complication rates in the index and prophylactic breasts in patients undergoing bilateral immediate reconstruction. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of all consecutive patients undergoing immediate postmastectomy bilateral reconstruction for an index breast cancer combined with a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy between 2005 and 2010. Patient, tumor, reconstruction, and outcome characteristics were compared between the index and prophylactic breasts in the same patient. Patients were classified by reconstruction method: implant, abdominal flap, or latissimus dorsi flap/implant. Regression models evaluated patient and reconstruction characteristics for potential predictive or protective associations with postoperative complications. Results: Of 497 patients included, 334 (67.2 percent) underwent implant reconstruction, 142 (28.6 percent) had abdominal flap reconstruction, and 21 (4.2 percent) had latissimus dorsi flap/implant reconstruction. Index reconstructions had a complication rate (22.5 percent) equivalent to that of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy reconstructions (19.1 percent; p = 0.090). Overall, 101 patients (20.3 percent) developed a complication in one reconstructed breast, and 53 (10.7 percent) developed complications in both breasts. Of the 154 patients who developed complications, 42 (27.3 percent) developed a complication in the prophylactic breast. Conclusions: Immediate index and contralateral prophylactic breast reconstructions appear to have equivalent outcomes, both overall and across reconstruction classifications. Together, patients, reconstructive surgeons, and extirpative surgeons should carefully consider the oncologic benefits of a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in light of the risk of increased surgical morbidity of this type of mastectomy and reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

U.s. Epidemiology of Breast Implant–associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

Background: Breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) is a distinctive type of T-cell lymphoma that arises around breast implants. Although rare, all cases with adequate history have involved a textured breast implant. The objective of this study was to determine the U.S. incidence and lifetime prevalence of breast implant–associated ALCL in women with textured breast implants. Methods: This is a retrospective review of documented cases of breast implant–associated ALCL in the United States from 1996 to 2015. The incidence and prevalence were determined based on a literature and institutional database review of breast implant–associated ALCL cases and textured breast implant sales figures from implant manufacturers’ annualized data. Results: One hundred pathologically confirmed breast implant–associated ALCL cases were identified in the United States. Mean age at diagnosis was 53.2 ± 12.3 years. Mean interval from implant placement to diagnosis was 10.7 ± 4.6 years. Forty-nine patients had breast implants placed for cosmetic reasons, 44 for mastectomy reconstruction, and seven for unknown reasons. Assuming that breast implant–associated ALCL occurs only in textured breast implants, the incidence rate is 2.03 per 1 million person-years (203 per 100 million person-years), which is 67.6 times higher than that of primary ALCL of the breast in the general population (three per 100 million per year; p < 0.001). Lifetime prevalence was 33 per 1 million persons with textured breast implants. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a statistically significant association between textured breast implants and breast implant–associated ALCL. Although women with a textured breast implant have a low risk of developing breast implant–associated ALCL, the current U.S. incidence is significantly higher than that of primary ALCL of the breast in the general population.

Tracking the Learning Curve in Microsurgical Skill Acquisition

Background: Despite advances in surgical training, microsurgery is still based on an apprenticeship model. To evaluate skill acquisition and apply targeted feedback to improve their training model, the authors applied the Structured Assessment of Microsurgery Skills to the training of microsurgical fellows. They hypothesized that subjects would demonstrate measurable improvement in performance throughout the study period and consistently across evaluators. Methods: Seven fellows were evaluated during 118 microsurgical cases by 16 evaluators over three 1-month evaluation periods in 1 year (2010 to 2011). Evaluators used the Structured Assessment of Microsurgery Skills questionnaire, which measures dexterity, visuospatial ability, operative flow, and judgment. To validate the data, microsurgical anastomoses in rodents performed by the fellows in a laboratory at the beginning and end of the study period were evaluated by five blinded plastic surgeons using the same questionnaire. Primary outcomes were change in scores between evaluation periods and interevaluator reliability. Results: Between the first two evaluation periods, all skill areas and overall performance improved significantly. Between the second two periods, most skill areas improved, but only a few improved significantly. Operative errors decreased significantly between the first and subsequent periods (81 versus 36; p < 0.05). In the laboratory study, all skills were significantly (p < 0.05) or marginally (0.05 < p < 0.10) improved between time points. The overall interevaluator reliability of the questionnaire was acceptable (&agr; = 0.67). Conclusions: The Structured Assessment of Microsurgery Skills questionnaire is a valid instrument for assessing microsurgical skill, providing individualized feedback with acceptable interevaluator reliability. Use of the questionnaire is anticipated to enhance microsurgical training. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Bovine versus porcine acellular dermal matrix for complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

Background: Abdominal wall reconstruction with bioprosthetic mesh is associated with lower rates of mesh infection, fistula formation, and mesh explantation than reconstruction with synthetic mesh. The authors directly compared commonly used bioprosthetic meshes in terms of clinical outcomes and complications. Methods: A database of consecutive patients who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction with porcine or bovine acellular dermal matrix and midline musculofascial closure at their institution between January of 2008 and March of 2011 was reviewed. Surgical outcomes were compared. Results: One hundred twenty patients were identified who underwent a nonbridged, inlay abdominal wall reconstruction with porcine [69 patients (57.5 percent)] or bovine acellular dermal matrix (51 patients (42.5 percent)]. The mean follow-up time was 21.0 ± 9.9 months. The overall complication rate was 36.6 percent; the porcine matrix group had a significantly higher complication rate (44.9 percent) than the bovine matrix group (25.5 percent; p = 0.04) and statistically equivalent surgical complications (29.2 percent versus 21.6 percent; p = 0.34). There were no significant differences in rates of recurrent hernia (2.9 percent versus 3.9 percent; p = 0.99) or bulge (7.2 percent versus 0 percent; p = 0.07). However, the rate of intraoperative adverse events in the porcine matrix group [seven events (10.1 percent)] was significantly higher than that in the bovine matrix group (0 percent; p = 0.02). Conclusions: In patients who undergo complex abdominal wall reconstruction, both bovine and porcine acellular dermal matrix are associated with similar rates of postoperative surgical complications and appear to result in similar outcomes. Porcine acellular dermal matrix may be prone to intraoperative device failure. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Perfusion-related complications are similar for DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps harvested on medial or lateral deep inferior epigastric artery branch perforators for breast reconstruction

Background: Anatomical studies suggest that the deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEA) medial branch perfuses more tissue across the midline than the lateral branch. The authors hypothesized that unilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and muscle-sparing free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps based on medial branch perforators would have fewer perfusion-related complications. Methods: The authors evaluated consecutive DIEP or muscle-sparing TRAM free flaps definitively harvested from a single DIEA branch. Flaps were grouped by tissue volume (hemiflaps, cross-midline flaps, or total flaps). Primary outcome measures were fat necrosis and partial flap necrosis. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between patient and reconstruction characteristics and outcomes. Results: There were 228 patients, with 120 medial (52.6 percent) and 108 lateral (47.4 percent) branch flaps. Mean follow-up was 33.2 months. Cross-midline flaps (79.8 percent) were the most common design. Medial and lateral branch flaps had similar rates of fat necrosis (8.3 percent and 13.0 percent, respectively; p = 0.26) and partial flap necrosis (3.3 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively; p = 1.0). There was no difference in the incidence of fat necrosis between DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps (10.2 percent and 11.3 percent, respectively; p = 0.81) or in partial necrosis (3.2 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively; p = 1.0). Medial and lateral branch flap perfusion-related complications were also similar among the flap volume classifications. Conclusions: The authors suggest that surgeons base their decisions regarding DIEA branch harvest on the clinical assessment of perforator perfusion quality rather than relying on the theoretical benefit of medial branch perforator harvest. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Violation of the rectus complex is not a contraindication to component separation for abdominal wall reconstruction.

BACKGROUND Component separation (CS) is an effective technique for reconstructing complex abdominal wall defects. Violation of the rectus abdominis complex is considered a contraindication for CS, but we hypothesized that patients have similar outcomes with or without rectus complex violation. STUDY DESIGN We retrospectively studied all consecutive patients who underwent CS for abdominal wall reconstruction during 8 years and compared outcomes of patients with and without rectus violation. Primary outcomes measures included complications and hernia recurrence. Logistic regression analysis identified potential associations between patient, defect, and reconstructive characteristics and surgical outcomes. RESULTS One hundred sixty-nine patients were included: 115 (68%) with and 54 (32%) without rectus violation. Mean follow-up was 21.3 ± 14.5 months. Patient and defect characteristics were similar, except for the rectus violation group having a higher body mass index. Overall complication rates were similar in the violation (24.3%) and nonviolation (24.0%) groups, as were the respective rates of recurrent hernia (7.8% vs 9.2%; p = 0.79), abdominal bulge (3.5% vs 5.6%; p = 0.71), skin dehiscence (20.0% vs 22.2%; p = 0.74), skin necrosis (6.1% vs 3.7%; p = 0.72), cellulitis (7.8% vs 9.2%; p = 0.75), and abscess (12.3% vs 9.2%; p = 0.58). Regression analysis demonstrated body mass index to be the only factor predictive of complications. CONCLUSIONS CS surgical outcomes were similar whether or not the rectus complex was violated. To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the effects of rectus violation on surgical outcomes in CS patients. Surgeons should not routinely avoid CS when the rectus complex is violated.