A 10-Year Retrospective Review on the Use of Prophylactic Spinal Reconstruction in Spinal Surgery Involving High-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Spinal surgeries are being offered to a broader patient population who are both medically and surgically complex. History of prior spinal surgery, advanced age, and presence of comorbidities, such as obesity, malnutrition, steroid use, and tobacco use, are risk factors for postoperative complications. Prophylactic spinal reconstruction at the time of spinal surgery has been shown to have improved outcomes and decreased wound complications; however, outcomes focusing specifically on complex patients with a history of previous spinal surgery (or surgeries) have not been well described. METHODS: This is a retrospective study performed at the University of Maryland Medical Center (Baltimore, MD) of high-risk patients who underwent complex spinal surgery with prophylactic spinal reconstruction from 2011 to 2022. One hundred forty-three consecutive surgeries from 136 patients were included in the study. Patients younger than 17 years or who had an incomplete medical record were excluded. RESULTS: Most patients were female (63.6%) versus male (31.5%). The average American Society of Anesthesiologists score was 3. All but 6 patients (11%) had a history of at least 1 spinal surgery, with nearly half of patients having had between 2 and 5 spinal surgeries. Reconstruction was performed with paraspinous flaps in most cases (n = 133 [93%]). The overall complication rate was 10.5%, with surgical site infection being the most common complication. Seventeen patients (12.5%) underwent reoperation within 90 days of initial surgery. Average length of follow-up was 4.18 months (range, 0.03-40.53 months). CONCLUSIONS: In appropriately selected patients, prophylactic spinal reconstruction offers improved outcomes with decreased wound complications compared with salvage. For large defects, paraspinous flaps are recommended over other reconstructive options. Prolonged drain placement is felt to be protective against complications.

Outcomes of Nipple-sparing Mastectomy with Reconstruction after Recent Oncoplastic Wise-pattern Reduction.

For patients with large and/or ptotic breasts, a planned staged approach to nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been described. Less is known about surgical outcomes of unplanned staged NSM for management of positive margins after partial mastectomy with oncoplastic reduction. It is not clear from earlier studies whether an interval of less than 10 weeks between oncoplastic reduction and NSM is feasible, when a shorter interval is important for oncologic reasons. Methods: This is a single institution analysis of patients from 2018 to 2021 with a diagnosis of invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ who underwent NSM after oncoplastic breast reduction for positive margins or nodes. The primary endpoint measured was nipple loss. Secondary outcomes were need for operative re-intervention and wound complications. Results: Nine patients (14 breasts) underwent partial mastectomy with oncoplastic Wise-pattern breast reduction, followed by NSM. Three patients underwent intersurgery chemotherapy. The average interval between oncoplastic reduction and NSM was 11.3 weeks when excluding patients undergoing chemotherapy (range 8-13 weeks). Thirteen breasts (93%) underwent pre-pectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction. One breast (7%) received autologous reconstruction. One breast required reoperation for seroma. The rate of partial or total nipple loss was 0%, with an average follow-up of 1.6 years. Conclusions: Our experience demonstrates excellent outcomes from NSM after oncoplastic breast reduction, with the majority of patients undergoing single-stage pectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Overall, patients had a shorter intersurgery interval, compared with prior studies, with no cases of nipple loss. An intersurgery interval of 8 weeks may be feasible when avoiding delays is important for oncologic reasons.

Is Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Reliable After Recent Oncoplastic Breast Reduction?

An oncoplastic breast reduction may disrupt normal lymphatic drainage and make subsequent identification of the sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) unreliable. There are little data on the success rate of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after recent oncoplastic breast reduction, and there is no agreement on whether SLNB should be done at the time of the partial mastectomy and reduction for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The primary goals of this study were to evaluate the identification rate of SLNB after recent oncoplastic or functional breast reduction and to examine recurrence rates in this setting. Results reveal SLNB is feasible in this setting. At least one SLN was found in all patients, and there were no recurrences with an average follow-up of 34 months.

Outcomes of Margin Reexcision after Oncoplastic Breast Reduction.

Tissue rearrangement after an oncoplastic breast reduction may complicate identification of margins during reexcision. Little is known about outcomes of reoperation in this setting. Methods: This is a single-institution, retrospective analysis of outcomes of margin reexcisions after lumpectomy with concurrent oncoplastic Wise-pattern reduction from 2015 to 2020. Outcomes assessed were the rate of successful breast conservation, in-breast recurrence, wound issues or complications, effect on cosmesis, and delay to onset of adjuvant therapy. Results: From 2015 to 2020, 649 patients underwent lumpectomy with oncoplastic Wise-pattern reduction. Forty-seven patients (7.2%) had greater than or equal to one positive margin(s); of these, 28 went directly to mastectomy, and 19 underwent margin reexcision. Residual disease was found in seven of 19 patients (37%) at reexcision. The rate of successful breast-conserving therapy was 95% with a mean follow-up of 31 months. There was one (5%) in-breast recurrence (invasive ductal carcinoma [IDC] occurring 30 months after the original operation); this patient had a mastectomy for treatment of her recurrence. The overall complication rate was 37%. Radiation was administered to 18 patients (95%), and two patients (11%) had delay of radiation past 6 weeks due to wound complications. Of the 14 patients with photographs available, 12 of 14 patients (86%) were blindly assessed to have equivalent or better cosmesis after margin reexcision (versus initial lumpectomy). Conclusion: Margin reexcision after oncoplastic breast reduction with Wise-pattern is feasible and effective, and can be done without compromising the initial cosmetic results.

Rinse But Don't Repeat: Single Application V.A.C. VERAFLO Salvages Infected Breast Prostheses.

INTRODUCTION: Existing salvage protocols for infected breast prostheses using negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell (NPWTi-d) require multiple returns to the operating room and prolonged length of stay. We present our expedited salvage protocol and discuss outcomes and associated costs savings. METHODS: Using a retrospective review, we identified 25 consecutive patients (27 breasts) with peri-prosthetic breast infection. Nine patients (10 breasts) underwent removal of infected breast prostheses followed by autologous or staged implant-based reconstruction. Sixteen patients (17 breasts) underwent our single application salvage protocol. A cost analysis was performed comparing the two groups, and an economic model was used to project the cost savings associated with using single application NPWTi-d protocol. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 16 patients (94%) who underwent single application NPWTi-d had successful implant salvage. Average duration of NPWTi-d was 2 days, 7 hours, and average length of stay was 4.43 days. Compared to control, patients who received the single application protocol required significantly fewer hospitalizations and office visits. A total savings of $58,275 could have been achieved by using the single application NPWTi-d protocol in the patients who did not undergo NPWTi-d. CONCLUSIONS: Single application of NPWTi-d is a simple, safe, and cost-effective technique for salvage of breast prostheses, with 94% success rate, even in immunocompromised patients and severe infection. Compared to previous protocols, ours requires fewer trips to the operating room, shorter length of stay, and more permanent implants placed during salvage. Our protocol is also associated with fewer office visits and fewer returns to the operating room.