Comparison of immediate postoperative pain in implant-based breast reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based techniques represent the most common form of breast reconstruction. However, substantial postoperative pain has been associated with implant-based breast reconstruction. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate immediate postoperative pain in implant-based breast reconstruction. METHODS: We reviewed 378 patients who underwent implant-based reconstruction between January 2004 and December 2012. Each patient's visual analog scale (VAS) score, pain medication, and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) attempts were used to assess in-hospital postoperative pain. We evaluated timing of reconstruction post mastectomy, tissue expander (TE) designed fill volume, TE initial fill volume, and single-stage immediate implant (II) versus TE reconstruction. RESULTS: No significant differences in pain parameters were noted between the immediate and delayed postmastectomy reconstruction cohorts. TEs with larger (>300 cc) designed volumes required significantly more narcotic use (p = 0.02) and PCA attempts (p < 0.01). Narcotic use was higher in the larger (>250-cc) TE initial fill group starting on postoperative day 2, but overall differences in VAS score and PCA attempts were not significant. Morphine equivalence (p < 0.01) and non-opioid oral analgesic use (average p = 0.03) of the TE cohort were significantly higher than those of the II cohort. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing TE-based implant reconstruction show greater analgesic use than those with single-stage II-based reconstruction. This may indicate a higher immediate postoperative pain in TE procedures than in II procedures. Furthermore, higher initial fill and designed volume of TE require more morphine equivalence postoperatively. These findings may warrant further preoperative discussion for better pain management and patient satisfaction.

Comparison of postoperative pain control in autologous abdominal free flap versus implant-based breast reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: Women who undergo mastectomy and breast reconstruction are shown to express more pain than those who undergo mastectomy alone. The authors evaluated postoperative pain outcomes following breast reconstruction. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary implant-based (n = 1038) or flap-based (n = 837) reconstructions from 2004 to 2012 at the University of California, Los Angeles, were evaluated. Postoperative pain was measured using the visual analogue scale, total narcotic use, and number of patient-controlled analgesia attempts. Narcotic dosage was standardized to morphine equivalents per kilogram. The authors modeled postoperative narcotic use, patient-controlled analgesia attempts, and visual analogue scale scores over time using spline graphs for comparison between the two reconstruction methods. RESULTS: Both total narcotic use and patient-controlled analgesia attempts were higher in the implant-based group throughout the immediate postoperative period. Implant-based reconstruction patients had significantly higher visual analogue scale scores (p < 0.0001) and total narcotic use (p < 0.0001) through postoperative day 3 compared with autologous tissue-based reconstruction patients. When controlling for reconstruction method, bilateral procedures were more painful (visual analogue scale score and patient-controlled analgesia attempts, both p < 0.001). When controlling for laterality, unilateral implant-based and autologous reconstructions had comparable visual analogue scale scores (p = 0.38) and patient-controlled analgesia attempts. However, unilateral implant-based procedures required more narcotic use than unilateral autologous tissue-based procedures (p = 0.0012). CONCLUSION: Although commonly perceived as a less distressing operation, implant-based breast reconstruction may be more painful during the immediate postoperative hospitalization than abdominally based free tissue transfer. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Predictive factors in identifying subspecialty fellowship applicants who will have academic practices.

BACKGROUND: The challenge of subspecialty fellowship directors is to recruit surgeons who are motivated to continue the tradition of teaching by entering academic medicine. The authors looked for predictive factors to help with more accurate selection of applicants. METHODS: Application and follow-up data from plastic surgery subspecialty fellows in craniofacial surgery, hand surgery, and microsurgery from the University of California, Los Angeles were reviewed for the years 1987 through 2002 (n = 62). Fellows were divided into three groups as follows: group 1, full-time academic; group 2, part-time clinical faculty; and group 3, private practice at 1 year and 5 years after fellowship. Common factors of fellows within the three groups were listed. RESULTS: Although a majority of applicants (95 percent) indicated an aspiration to practice academic medicine, only one-third remained in full-time academics 5 years after their subspecialty training. There was a trend toward leaving academic practice: the rates at 1 year were 74 percent for group 1 (academic) and 5 percent for group 3 (private practice), but by 5 years this had equalized (group 1, 34 percent; group 3, 32 percent). Group 1 (academic) showed more academic productivity publications per year, academic titles, editorial boards, and active participation in medical societies compared with group 3 (private practice). The factors that were more common to group 1 were married or married with children, five or more publications, one or more years of research, and 7 or more years of training. CONCLUSION: Plastic surgery fellowship directors may look at the following predictive factors of applicants if they would like their graduates to carry on the tradition of teaching future plastic surgeons: (1) previous dedicated research training, (2) more years of clinical training, and (3) more scientific publications.