Reconstruction of a massive chest wall defect using a free anterolateral-lower medial thigh flaps: a case report.

Critical defects of the chest wall require robust soft tissue coverage to protect the thoracic viscera. We define massive chest wall defects as larger than two-thirds of the chest wall. For such defects, classic flaps like the omentum, latissimus dorsi and anterolateral thigh flaps are usually insufficient. In our patient, a bilateral total mastectomy for locally advanced breast cancer resulted in a massive chest wall defect (40 by 30 cm). Soft tissue coverage was achieved with a combined anterolateral-lower medial thigh flaps. Revascularization of the anterolateral thigh and lower medial thigh components was via the internal mammary and thoracoacromial vessels, respectively. Post-operative recovery was uneventful and the patient received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in a timely manner. The total follow up was 24-months. We illustrate the novel use of the lower medial thigh territory in extending the size of the anterolateral thigh flap to reconstruct massive chest wall defects.

A Preliminary Experience of Endoscopic Total Mastectomy With Immediate Free Abdominal-Based Perforator Flap Reconstruction Using Minimal Incisions, and Literature Review.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic total mastectomy (ETM) is predominantly performed with reconstruction using prostheses, lipofilling, omental flaps, latissimus dorsi flaps, or a combination of these techniques. Common approaches include minimal incisions, e.g., periareolar, inframammary, axillary, or mid-axillary line, which limit the technical ability to perform autologous flap insets and microvascular anastomoses, as such the ETM with free abdominal-based perforator flap reconstruction has not been robustly explored. METHODS: We studied female patients with breast cancer who underwent ETM and abdominal-based flap reconstruction. Clinical-radiological-pathological characteristics, surgery, complications, recurrence rates, and aesthetic outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: Twelve patients underwent ETM with abdominal-based flap reconstruction. The mean age was 53.4 years (range 36-65). Of the patients, 33.3% were surgically treated for stage I, 58.4% for stage II, and 8.3% for stage III cancer. Mean tumor size was 35.4 mm (range 1-67). Mean specimen weight was 458.75 g (range 242-800). Of the patients, 92.3% successfully received endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and 7.7% underwent intraoperative conversion to skin-sparing mastectomy after carcinoma was reported on frozen section of the nipple base. Mean operative time for ETM was 139 minutes (92-198), and the average ischemic time was 37.3 minutes (range 22-50). Fifty percent of patients underwent deep inferior epigastric perforator, 33.4% underwent MS-2 transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM), 8.3% underwent MS-1 TRAM, and 8.3% underwent pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction. No cases required re-exploration, no flap failure occurred, margins were clear, and no skin or nipple-areolar complex ischemia/necrosis developed. In the aesthetic outcome evaluation, 16.7% were excellent, 75% good, 8.3% fair, and none were unsatisfactory. No recurrences were observed. CONCLUSION: ETM through a minimal-access inferior mammary or mid-axillary line approach, followed by immediate pedicled TRAM or free abdominal-based perforator flap reconstruction, can be a safe means of achieving an "aesthetically scarless" mastectomy and reconstruction through minimal incisions.

Defining the optimal time to appendectomy: A step toward precision surgery.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the association between time from admission to appendectomy on perioperative outcomes in order to determine optimal time-to-surgery windows. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all the appendectomies performed between July 2018 to May 2020. We first compared the perioperative outcomes using preselected time-to-surgery cut-offs, then determined optimal safe windows for surgery, and finally identified subgroups of patients who may require early intervention. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-one appendectomies were performed in the time period. The patients with a time-to-surgery of ≥12 hours had a significantly longer length of stay (median 2 days [interquartile range 1-3] vs 3 days [interquartile range 2-4], mean difference = 0.74 [95% confidence interval 0.32-1.17, P = .0006]) and higher 30-day readmission risk (odds ratio 2.58, 95% confidence interval 1.12-5.96, P = .0266) versus those with a time-to-surgery of <12 hours. These differences persisted when the time-to-surgery was dichotomized by <24 or ≥24 hours. A time-to-surgery beyond 25 hours was associated with a 3.34-fold increased odds of open conversion (P = .040), longer operation time (mean difference 15.8 mins, 95% confidence interval 3.4-28.3, P = .013) and longer postoperative length of stay (mean difference 10.3 hours, 95% confidence interval 3.4-20.2, P = .042) versus a time-to-surgery of <25 hours. The patients with time-to-surgery beyond 11 hours had a 1.35-fold increased odds of 30-day readmission (95% confidence interval 1.02-5.43, P = .046) compared with those who underwent appendectomy before 11 hours. Older patients, patients with American Society of Anesthesiologist score II to III, and individuals with long duration of preadmission symptoms had higher risk of prolonged operation time, open conversion, increased length of stay, and postoperative morbidity with increasing time-to-surgery. CONCLUSION: This study identified the safe windows for appendectomy to be 11 to 25 hours from admission for most perioperative outcomes. However, certain patient subgroups may be less tolerant of surgical delays.

COVID-19 not detected in peritoneal fluid: a case of laparoscopic appendicectomy for acute appendicitis in a COVID-19-infected patient.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 greatly affected millions and affected the way we practice with heightened posture in the way we treat surgical patients. Surgical consensus guidelines are recommending caution in the use of laparoscopy for the theoretical possibility of viral transmission from aerosolization of tissue and peritoneal fluid during surgery. However, there has yet to be proof of COVID-19 being present in peritoneal fluid, justifying the consensus statements. We aim to assess the presence of COVID-19 in peritoneal fluid. METHODS: We performed a laparoscopic appendicectomy for a COVID-19-infected patient with acute appendicitis. Peritoneal fluid and peritoneal washings were collected and sent for COVID-19 PCR. RESULTS: The peritoneal fluid sample collected on entry and at the end of the operation was negative for COVID-19 on PCR. The patient had an uneventful recovery from surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This case revealed that COVID-19 was not detected in peritoneal fluid and peritoneal washings in a patient infected with COVID-19. This study provides novel preliminary data in the investigation of COVID-19 transmission from laparoscopy-related aerosolization.