Longevity of Outcomes Following Reduction Mammoplasty.

Background: Reduction mammoplasty has been shown to provide wide-ranging benefits for patients including improved quality of life in terms of physical function and mental health. However, most existing studies have been limited to the 1-year postoperative period. The aim of this study was to investigate long-term outcomes after reduction mammoplasty. Methods: Patients who underwent reduction mammoplasty at a single institution were identified retrospectively and grouped into 3 categories based on time since surgery: (i) 5 to 10 years, (ii) 10 to 15 years, and (iii) more than 15 years. A telephone survey was administered to measure satisfaction and symptom relief following reduction mammoplasty. Results: A total of 124 patients completed the survey and were included in the study. The majority of patients in all 3 groups reported marked symptoms relief (75% vs 82% vs 82%, P = .84). Overall satisfaction after reduction mammoplasty was high in all 3 subgroups and did not significantly decrease over time (4.16 vs 3.97 vs 3.7, P = .216) despite high proportions of patients reporting an increase in breast size since surgery (40% vs 70% vs 51%, P = .0297). Conclusions: Overall, reduction mammoplasty has long-lasting benefits for patients with macromastia. Overwhelmingly, patients report satisfaction with the procedure and marked symptom relief that is sustained for as long as 15 years after surgery.

Performance on the Plastic Surgery In-Service Examination Can Predict Success on the American Board of Plastic Surgery Written Examination.

BACKGROUND: Originally developed for resident self-assessment, the Plastic Surgery In-Service Examination has been administered for over 45 years. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires that at least 70 percent of graduates pass the American Board of Plastic Surgery Written Examination on their first attempt. This study evaluates the role of In-Service Exam scores in predicting Written Exam success. METHODS: In-Service Exam scores from 2009 to 2015 were collected from the National Board of Medical Examiners. Data included residency training track, training year, and examination year. Written Exam data were gathered from the American Board of Plastic Surgery. Multivariate analysis was performed and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to identify optimal In-Service Exam score cut-points for Written Exam success. RESULTS: Data from 1364 residents were included. Residents who failed the Written Exam had significantly lower In-Service Exam scores than those who passed (p < 0.001). Independent residents were 7.0 times more likely to fail compared with integrated/combined residents (p < 0.001). Residents who scored above the optimal cut-points were significantly more likely to pass the Written Exam. The optimal cut-point score for independent residents was the thirty-sixth percentile and the twenty-second percentile for integrated/combined residents. CONCLUSIONS: Plastic Surgery In-Service Exam scores can predict success on the American Board of Plastic Surgery Written Exam. Residents who score below the cut-points are at an increased risk of failing. These data can help identify residents at risk for early intervention.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons' Knowledge and Comfort of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Survey of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

Background: Despite limited oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates have increased in the United States over the past 15 years. CPM is often accompanied by breast reconstruction, thereby requiring an interdisciplinary approach between breast and plastic surgeons. Despite this, little is known about plastic surgeons' (PS) perspectives of CPM. The purpose of this study was to assess PS practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to 2,642 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). Questions assessed demographics, practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Results: ASPS response rate was 12.5% (n = 329). Most responders worked in private practice (69%), were male (81%) and had been in practice for ≥15 years (60%). The median number of CPM reconstructions performed per month was 2-4. Fifty-five percent of PS reported routine attendance at a breast multidisciplinary conference. Responders reported CPM discussion was most likely to be initiated by the patient (51%) followed by the breast surgeon (38%), and plastic surgeon (7.3%). According to PS, the most common reason patients choose CPM is a perceived increased contralateral cancer risk (86%). Most plastic surgeons (63%) assessed the benefits of CPM as worth the risk of additional surgery and the majority (53%) estimated the complication rate at 2X the risk of unilateral surgery. The majority (61%) of PS estimated risk of contralateral cancer in an average risk patient between <2 and 5% over 10 years, which is consistent with data reported from the current literature. Most plastic surgeons (87%) reported that there was no evidence or limited evidence for breast cancer specific survival benefit with CPM. A minority of PS (18.5%) reported discomfort with a patient's choice for CPM. Of those surgeons reporting discomfort, the most common reasons for their reservations were a concern with the risk/benefit ratio of CPM and with lack of patient understanding of expected outcomes. Common reasons for PS comfort with CPM were a respect for autonomy and non-oncologic benefits of CPM. Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first survey reporting PS perspectives on CPM. According to PS, CPM dialogue appears to be patient driven and dominated by a perceived increased risk of contralateral cancer. Few PS reported discomfort with CPM. While many PS acknowledge both the limited oncologic benefit of CPM and the increased risk of complications, the majority have the opinion that the benefits of CPM are worth the additional risk. This apparent contradiction may be due to an appreciation of the non-oncologic benefits CPM and a desire to respect patients' choices for treatment.

Evidence-based medicine: reduction mammaplasty.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After reading this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Accurately state the indications for breast imaging prior to breast reduction; 2. List the modifiable risk factors in a woman considering breast reduction. 3. Use perioperative antibiotics in an evidence based fashion. 4. Identify factors that are associated with higher rates of perioperative complications. 5. Describe the risks and benefits of breast infiltration with epinephrine. 6. Describe the pros and cons of using drains following breast reduction. 7. Describe the incidence of invasive breast cancer in surgical specimens compared to autopsy specimens. 8. Identify common questionnaires that can be used to track short and long-term outcomes following breast reduction. 9. List at least three current practices that are now evolving and changing based on evidence based medicine. SUMMARY: This paper is designed to summarize key evidence based steps in the care of women undergoing reduction mammaplasty. In addition, the authors identify gaps between how plastic surgeons practice breast reduction and what the best evidence supports. The article was prepared to accompany practice-based assessment with ongoing surgical education for the Maintenance of Certification Program of the American Board of Plastic Surgery.