Remote Symptom Monitoring with Clinical Alerts Following Mastectomy: Do Early Symptoms Predict 30-Day Surgical Complications.

BACKGROUND: Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) for real-time remote symptom monitoring facilitate early recognition of postoperative complications. We sought to determine whether remote, electronic, patient-reported symptom-monitoring with Recovery Tracker predicts 30-day readmission or reoperation in outpatient mastectomy patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of breast cancer patients who underwent outpatient (< 24-h stay) mastectomy with or without reconstruction from April 2017 to January 2022 and who received the Recovery Tracker on Days 1-10 postoperatively. Of 5,130 patients, 3,888 met the inclusion criteria (2,880 mastectomy with immediate reconstruction and 1,008 mastectomy only). We focused on symptoms concerning for surgical complications and assessed if symptoms reaching prespecified alert levels-prompting a nursing call-predicted risk of 30-day readmission or reoperation. RESULTS: Daily Recovery Tracker response rates ranged from 45% to 70%. Overall, 1,461 of 3,888 patients (38%) triggered at least one alert. Most red (urgent) alerts were triggered by pain and fever; most yellow (less urgent) alerts were triggered by wound redness and pain severity. The 30-day readmission and reoperation rates were low at 3.8% and 2.4%, respectively. There was no statistically significant association between symptom alerts and 30-day reoperation or readmission, and a clinically relevant increase in risk can be excluded (odds ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval 0.8-1.46; p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy with or without reconstruction in the ambulatory setting have a low burden of concerning symptoms, even in the first few days after surgery. Patients can be reassured that symptoms that do present resolve quickly thereafter.

Reducing Disparities: Regional Anesthesia Blocks for Mastectomy with Reconstruction Within Standardized Regional Anesthesia Pathways.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest disparities in receipt of regional anesthesia prior to breast reconstruction. We aimed to understand factors associated with block receipt for mastectomy with immediate tissue expander (TE) reconstruction in a high-volume ambulatory surgery practice with standardized regional anesthesia pathways. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate TE reconstruction from 2017 to 2022 were included. All patients were considered eligible for and were offered preoperative nerve blocks as part of routine anesthesia care. Interpreters were used for non-English speaking patients. Patients who declined a block were compared with those who opted for the procedure. RESULTS: Of 4213 patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate TE reconstruction, 91% accepted and 9% declined a nerve block. On univariate analyses, patients with the lowest rate of block refusal were white, non-Hispanic, English speakers, patients with commercial insurance, and patients undergoing bilateral reconstruction. The rate of block refusal went down from 12 in 2017 to 6% in 2022. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that older age (p = 0.011), Hispanic ethnicity (versus non-Hispanic; p = 0.049), Medicaid status (versus commercial insurance; p < 0.001), unilateral surgery (versus bilateral; p = 0.045), and reconstruction in earlier study years (versus 2022; 2017, p < 0.001; 2018, p < 0.001; 2019, p = 0.001; 2020, p = 0.006) were associated with block refusal. CONCLUSIONS: An established preoperative regional anesthesia program with blocks offered to all patients undergoing mastectomy with TE reconstruction can result in decreased racial disparities. However, continued differences in age, ethnicity, and insurance status justify future efforts to enhance preoperative educational efforts that address patient hesitancies in these subpopulations.

Methods in regression analysis in surgical oncology research-best practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Using real working examples, we provide strategies and address challenges in linear and logistic regression to demonstrate best practice guidelines and pitfalls of regression modeling in surgical oncology research. METHODS: To demonstrate our best practices, we reviewed patients who underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction between 2019 and 2021. We assessed predictive factors that affect BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being of the Chest (PWB-C) scores at 2 weeks with linear regression modeling and overall complications and malrotation with logistic regression modeling. Model fit and performance were assessed. RESULTS: The 1986 patients were included in the analysis. In linear regression, age [ß = 0.18 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.28); p < 0.001], single marital status [ß = 2.6 (0.31, 5.0); p = 0.026], and prepectoral pocket dissection [ß = 4.6 (2.7, 6.5); p < 0.001] were significantly associated with PWB-C at 2 weeks. For logistic regression, BMI [OR = 1.06 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.08); p < 0.001], age [OR = 1.02 (1.01, 1.03); p = 0.002], bilateral reconstruction [OR = 1.39 (1.09, 1.79); p = 0.009], and prepectoral dissection [OR = 1.53 (1.21, 1.94); p < 0.001] were associated with increased likelihood of a complication. CONCLUSION: We provide focused directives for successful application of regression techniques in surgical oncology research. We encourage researchers to select variables with clinical judgment, confirm appropriate model fitting, and consider clinical plausibility for interpretation when utilizing regression models in their research.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Reconstruction: How Do We Choose?

Aspects of a patient's lifestyle, their state of health, breast size, and mastectomy skin flap quality are factors that influence the suggested plane of dissection in implant-based breast reconstruction. This article aims to review developments in prosthetic breast reconstruction and provide recommendations to help providers choose whether prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction in the best approach for each of their patients.

A Cohort Analysis of Early Outcomes After AlloDerm, FlexHD, and SurgiMend Use in Two-Stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently utilized in prepectoral breast reconstruction, but few studies have examined the role of ADM type in complication risk. OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to determine the impact of ADM type on early complication rates in 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction. METHODS: We performed a cohort examination of all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction with ADM support at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2018 to 2021. ADM types utilized included AlloDerm (LifeCell Corporation, Branchburg, NJ), FlexHD (MTF Biologics, Edison, NJ), and SurgiMend (Integra LifeSciences Corporation, Princeton, NJ). Complication rates based on the number of tissue expanders (TEs) were determined for each ADM type. Performance of multivariate logistic regression determined the impact of ADM type on complication risk after accounting for confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 726 patients (1054 TEs: 194 AlloDerm, 93 FlexHD, 767 SurgiMend) were included. The 3 cohorts differed in terms of mastectomy type (nipple-sparing: 23.5% of AlloDerm, 33.3% of FlexHD, 19.1% of SurgiMend, P = .038); ADM perforation (perforated: 94.8% of AlloDerm, 98.2% of FlexHD, 100% of SurgiMend, P < .001); and ADM size (AlloDerm: 153.2 cm2 [37.6], SurgiMend: 198.7 cm2 [10.4], FlexHD: 223.7 cm2 [37.9], P < .001). On univariate examination, no differences existed between ADM types for seroma, infection, exposure, malposition, or TE loss. Additionally, after adjustment for confounders with multivariate regression, no ADM type had higher odds of TE loss. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of prepectoral reconstruction patients, ADM type did not significantly affect the risk of complications. Additional prospective studies are warranted to better evaluate ADM choice for prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Surgical Management of Textured Breast Implants: Assessing Risk and Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Textured implants have been linked to breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. Patients who undergo explantation have options for reconstruction, but data on safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is limited. The purpose of this study was to classify complications and PROs in patients opting for surgical management of textured implants. METHODS: Complication rates and BREAST-Q scores were compared between (i) asymptomatic patients who underwent conversion from textured to smooth implants (n=224), (ii) symptomatic patients who underwent conversion from textured to smooth implants (n=83), (iii) patients who underwent explantation without replacement (n=44), and (iv) patients who underwent replacement with autologous reconstruction (n=33). Linear regression examined PROs controlling for clinical and surgical variables. RESULTS: Overall complication rates in 384 patients (637 implants) differed across groups (p=0.034) with the highest rate (25%) in patients who underwent explantation without replacement. These patients were specifically more impacted by minor complications, notably seroma. Capsulectomy extent did not significantly impact complications. Asymptomatic and symptomatic smooth implant patients had improvements in satisfaction with breasts (<0.05). Autologous reconstruction patients had significant improvements in satisfaction with breasts sustained after 3 months postoperative (p<0.01) and sexual well-being sustained after 6-months postoperative (p<0.05). Patients who underwent removal without replacement had lower physical well-being of the chest scores at ≥1 year than the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Replacement of textured implants with smooth implants or flaps is safe and is associated with improved satisfaction with breasts and quality of life. The degree of capsulectomy does not appear to impact the incidence of perioperative complications.