Steven Rueda

Age as a Risk Factor in Abdominoplasty

Background: Recent studies reviewing large patient databases suggested that age may be an independent risk factor for abdominoplasty. However, these investigations by design considered only short‐term major complications. Objectives: The purpose of this investigation was: (1) to compare the safety of abdominoplasty in an elderly and younger patient population; (2) to determine the complication rates across all spectrums: major, minor, local, and systemic; and (3) to evaluate complications occurring both short and long term. Methods: Abdominoplasty procedures performed from 2010 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Subjects were divided into two groups: ≤59 years old and ≥60 years old. Major, minor, local, and systemic complications were analyzed. Patient demographics, comorbidities, perioperative details, adjunctive procedures were also assessed. Results: A total of 129 patients were included in the study: 43 in the older and 86 in the younger age group. The median age of the elderly and young groups was 65.0 and 41.5 years, respectively (P < .001). No statistically significant differences in major, minor, local, or systemic complications were found when both age groups were compared. Major local, major systemic, minor local, and minor systemic in the elderly were 6.9%, 2.3%, 18.6%, and 2.3%, while in the younger patients were 9.3%, 4.7%, 10.5%, and 0.0%, respectively (P > .05). Median follow‐up time of the elderly (4.0 months) was no different than the younger (5.0 months) patients (P > .07). Median procedure time in the elderly (4.5 hours) was no different than the younger group (5.0 hours) (P = .4). The elderly exhibited a greater American Society of Anesthesiologist score, median body mass index (28.7 vs 25.1 kg/m2), and number of comorbidities (2.7 vs 0.9) (P < .001). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in either major or minor complications between the two groups. This suggests that with proper patient selection, abdominoplasty can be safely performed in the older age patient population. Level of Evidence: 2 Figure. No caption available.

Determining the False-Negative Rate Using Fluorescence Image-Assisted Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Cutaneous Melanoma

Introduction Despite the advances in cutaneous melanoma management, the false-negative rates (FNRs) of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) are still high. These rates are dependent not only on the technique but also on definitional terms and percentage of head/neck melanoma (highest false-negative SLNB). Fluorescence imaging technology is well acquainted in plastic surgery and other specialties. Having demonstrated that fluorescence-assisted SLNB is effective in melanoma, we are interested in determining its FNR. Methods We obtained institutional review board approval to follow up prospectively all patients with cutaneous melanoma who underwent radioisotope/fluorescence-assisted SLNB with the intent to capture 100 negative SLNB patients. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria; (2) an SLNB report; (3) at least 24 months of follow-up in the negative SLNB group. The outcome variables were FNR and adjusted FNR of SLNB, considering the criterion standard of assessing the accuracy of SNLB. The FNR was defined as the proportion of patients with false-negative SLNB to patients with true-positive and false-negative SLNB [false negative/(false negative + true positive)]. Adjusted FNR refers to the previously described false-negative SLNB, but in the absence of local/in-transit recurrence or distant metastases. Furthermore, false-negative incidence (false-negative/negative SLNB patients) was also calculated. Length of follow-up was date of surgery to the date of last follow-up/death. Results A total of 125 participants, with 52.0% being male and 48.0% being female, were included. One hundred patients had an SLNB negative for metastases, whereas the rest had positive SLNB results. Median follow-up time of the cohort and that of the negative SLNB group were 36.7 (2.6–58.5) and 37.9 (24.0–58.5) months, respectively. A relatively high number (24.8%) of head/neck melanoma were included. We identified 2 cases of false-negative SLNB, with one having in-transit metastases. Thus, the FNR and adjusted FNR were 7.4% and 3.7%, respectively. The false-negative incidence and adjusted false-negative incidence were 2.0% and 1.0%, respectively. Conclusions This is the first prospective study examining the FNR of fluorescence-assisted SLNB for patients with cutaneous melanoma. Our study reveals that this technique has one of the lowest FNRs published, especially considering the large percentage of participants with head/neck melanoma involved.