A single center prospective study of bilateral breast reconstruction with free abdominal flaps: a critical analyses of 144 patients.

BACKGROUND: Bilateral breast reconstruction utilising autologous free tissue transfer is a complex procedure with multiple options for donor tissue available. Autogenous breast reconstruction techniques have evolved over the last three decades to meet this goal. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of patients undergoing bilateral breast reconstruction with DIEAP, TRAM or SIEA flaps. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective study was performed in our Interdisciplinary Breast Centre from July 2004 until December 2011 in 144 patients. Demographic information, diabetes mellitus type I status, tobacco use, tumor stage, primary/secondary reconstruction, operative technique, adjuvant therapy received, length of follow-up, and complications were evaluated. Complications were divided into donor site and recipient site. To investigate which risk factors were independently related to flap loss (complete or partial), multiple linear regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: The study identified 144 patients who had bilateral breast reconstruction with DIEAP, TRAM or SIEA flaps. For all flaps (n=248), outcome included 98.4% survival and 0.7% vein microanastomosis revision. Recipient site complications included 1.6% complete flap loss, 0.8% fat necrosis, 2.9% partial skin loss/dehiscence flap necrosis and 2.0% haematoma rate. Donor site complications included 3.7% partial skin loss/dehiscence. There was evidence of abdominal bulges in TRAM patients (1.1%) but no hernias in any patients. BMI is a major determinant of flap loss (complete or partial) in these patients. CONCLUSIONS: The primary goal of bilateral breast reconstruction is to provide a treatment option that can create a natural, symmetric breast mounds with minimal donor-site morbidity following bilateral mastectomies. These results support weight loss therapy prior to bilateral breast reconstruction.

Current trends in local anesthesia in cosmetic plastic surgery of the head and neck: results of a German national survey and observations on the use of ropivacaine.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to evaluate at the national level the current practice in the use of local anesthetics in cosmetic head and neck surgery and to compare the results with the novel local anesthesia technique used in the authors' department over the past 2 years. METHODS: A questionnaire was posted to all 211 board-certified members of the Association of German Plastic Surgeons. The questions related to the daily practice in rhinoplasty, blepharoplasty, otoplasty, face lift, and forehead lift. The focus was laid on anesthesia techniques, local anesthetics, vasoconstricting agents, dosages, activity onset, observed side effects, mean duration of each procedure type, and surgeon satisfaction with the anesthetic used. RESULTS: A total of 86 questionnaires (40.8 percent) were returned. The overall analysis revealed that local anesthetics were used in 88.9 percent of all cosmetic procedures of the head and neck. Prilocaine 1% (Xylonest; AstraZeneca, Wedel, Germany) was the most frequently used local anesthetic (32.0 percent), followed by lidocaine 1% (Xylocaine; AstraZeneca) and mepivacaine 1% (Scandicaine; AstraZeneca). Ropivacaine 0.2% (Naropin; AstraZeneca) was used only by 1.1 percent and ropivacaine 0.75% only by 0.9 percent (including two of the authors). Approximately half of the respondents (47.2 percent) used epinephrine 1:100,000 for vasoconstriction. In face lifts, the necessity of repeated "top-up" infiltration was reported in more than half (54.7 percent) of the procedures. Ten percent of surgeons surpassed the maximum recommended dosages when working without ropivacaine. Overall adverse cardiovascular effects were reported in 5.9 percent of rhinoplasties and 8.1 percent of face lifts performed mostly with prilocaine and lidocaine. No adverse cardiovascular reactions or overdoses were noticed with the use of ropivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: The survey showed a clear trend toward the increasing use of local anesthetics in cosmetic surgery of the head and neck. Although the use of prilocaine and lidocaine prevailed, adverse cardiovascular reactions in up to 8.1 percent seem high for cosmetic procedures. Furthermore, the need of additional intraoperative top-up infiltration adds to an uncontrolled cumulative effect and patient discomfort. On the basis of their positive 2 years of experience with ropivacaine, the authors strongly believe that ropivacaine offers significant advantages, both in efficacy and prolonged duration of analgesia, while reducing the risk for adverse side effects due to lesser toxicity. This observation deserves further investigation in an established comparative study.