Short-Term Quality of Life after Autologous Compared with Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to evaluate whether autologous breast reconstruction (BR) leads to lower short-term quality of life (QoL) compared with alloplastic BR, due to the more physically demanding surgery and increased risk of severe complications of autologous BR. METHODS: Changes in QoL after BR were measured in this prospective multicenter study using the BREAST-Q questionnaire, which was administered preoperatively and at 6 weeks and 6 months postoperatively. Characteristics and complications, classified according to Clavien-Dindo, were compared between alloplastic and autologous groups. Profile plots and generalized linear regression models were constructed to analyze the BREAST-Q subscales over time for both BR groups. RESULTS: Preoperatively, women undergoing autologous BR scored lower on all BREAST-Q scales compared with women undergoing alloplastic BR, regardless of whether they underwent immediate or delayed BR. Women undergoing autologous BR scored higher at 6 weeks and 6 months postoperatively on the Satisfaction with Breasts ( P = 0.001), Psychosocial Well-Being ( P = 0.024), and Sexual Well-Being ( P = 0.007) subscales. Postoperative Physical Well-Being: Chest score was similar between the groups ( P = 0.533). Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications occurred more often among women in the autologous group (27% versus 12%, P = 0.042). Complications were not associated with worse BREAST-Q scores on any of the subscales. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the authors' expectations, and despite the higher incidence of severe complications and lower preoperative breast satisfaction and QoL scores, women undergoing autologous BR had higher levels of breast satisfaction and psychosocial and sexual well-being, both at 6 weeks and 6 months after BR, compared with women undergoing alloplastic BR. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Acceptance of contralateral reduction mammoplasty after oncoplastic breast conserving surgery: A semi-structured qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (BCS) frequently induces asymmetry. Contralateral reduction mammoplasty (CRM) is therefore part of the oncoplastic approach. Our patients frequently declined CRM when offered as a second-stage procedure after the completion of adjuvant treatments. This qualitative interview study was conducted to explore the factors involved in patient decision-making about CRM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the prospective hospital database of patients who underwent oncoplastic BCS for stage I-III breast cancer since 2010, 25 patients were sampled using stratified purposeful sampling on age, preoperative cup size, and time elapsed since the completion of adjuvant treatments. Nine had undergone CRM. Individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted at the hospital or at patients' homes. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically. Data saturation occurred after analysis of the fifth interview, although variability within the data kept expanding until the last interview was coded. RESULTS: Eighteen patients reported postoperative breast asymmetry. Breast symmetry was important to our patients and information provision about CRM had been adequate. The following factors motivated patients to choose CRM: perceivable asymmetry, satisfaction with the outcome of oncoplastic BCS, and the wish for breast reduction before cancer diagnosis. Patients weighed these considerations against their concerns about surgery risks and recovery time. Reluctance to have nonessential surgery to the unaffected breast was an important reason to decide against CRM. CONCLUSION: Breast asymmetry is often tolerated after oncoplastic BCS because of concerns about surgery risks and recovery time and reluctance to have nonessential surgery to the healthy breast.

Clinical considerations in face transplantation.

Severe facial burns cause significant deformities that are technically challenging to treat. Conventional treatments almost always result in poor aesthetic and functional outcomes. This is due to the fact that current treatments cover or replace the delicate anatomical facial tissues with autologus grafts and flaps from remote sites. The recent introduction of clinical composite tissue allotransplantation (CTA) that uses healthy facial tissue transplanted from donors to reconstruct the damaged or non-existing facial tissues with original tissues makes it possible to achieve the best possible functional and aesthetic outcomes in these challenging injuries. The techniques required to perform this procedure, while technically challenging, have been developed over many years and are used routinely in reconstructive surgery. The immunosuppressive regimens necessary to prevent transplanted facial tissue from rejecting (tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil/steroid) were developed for and have been used successfully in solid organ transplants for many years. The psychosocial and ethical issues associated with this new treatment have some nuances but generally have many similarities with solid organ and more recently hand transplantation, both of which have been performed clinically for 40 and 10+ years respectively. Herein, we will discuss the technical and immunological aspects of facial tissue transplantation. The psychosocial and ethical issues will be discussed separately in another article in this issue.

Abdominal Wall Reconstruction in a Trauma Setting.

According to the World Health Organization "Global burden of disease study", future demographics of trauma are expected to show an increase in morbidity and mortality. In the past few decades, the field of trauma surgery has evolved to provide global and comprehensive care of the injured. While the modern day trauma surgeon is well trained to deal with multitrauma patients with injuries involving several systems, the ever-increasing nature and variety of multitrauma has left lacuna in certain areas. One such area is the management of abdominal wall injuries, which has been the domain of both plastic and reconstructive and general surgeons. The trauma surgeon is adept at treating the contents of the abdomen but not always the container. If not managed properly complications associated with abdominal wall injuries can lead to increased morbidity and mortality. In considering reconstruction of the abdominal wall in multitrauma patients proper evaluation, scrupulous planning, appropriate, and meticulous technique improve the chances for success with minimal complications. In the present article, we provide a brief description of the most commonly used procedures, and more importantly we outline the principles and guidelines applied to abdominal wall reconstruction in order to inform the trauma surgeon of different available treatment options. In doing so, we hope that this review will assist trauma surgeons in their overall care of patients that present with abdominal injuries.

Microvascular Reconstruction of the Upper Extremity.

BACKGROUND: Upper extremity composite tissue defects may result from trauma, tumor resection, infection, or congenital malformations. When reconstructing these defects the ultimate objectives are to provide adequate soft tissue protection of vital structures, and to provide optimal functional and esthetic outcomes. The development of clinical microsurgery has added a large number of treatment options to the trauma surgeon's armamentarium - primarily replantation of amputated tissues and transplantation of vascularized tissues from distant donor sites. Since the early 1970s, considerable refinement in microsurgical tools and techniques together with a better understanding of the anatomy and physiology of microcirculatory tissue perfusion led to the introduction of a variety of thin, pliable and versatile-free flap designs. METHODS: Sources for this manuscript include a comprehensive literature search using the PUBMED and EMBASE databases along with relevant text books, Selected Readings in Plastic Surgery(®), and personal experiences of upper extremity reconstruction and microsurgery. RESULTS: In this manuscript, we describe the primary microsurgical techniques used to reconstruct upper extremity tissue defects and discuss the basis for selecting one technique over another. CONCLUSION: Where possible, the best results may be achieved by reattaching the amputated original tissues (microsurgical replantation). In noninfected, uncontaminated traumatic injuries resulting in composite soft tissue defects, Early free flap reconstruction of the upper extremities has important advantages over delayed (72 h-3 months) or late wound closure (3 months-2 years). In recent years, thin, pliable, and versatile fasciocutaneous flaps such as the anterolateral thigh (ALT) and lateral arm (LA) free flaps have been increasingly used with great success to reconstruct the upper extremity. The use of "spare parts" and functional reconstructions using osteomyocutaneous free flaps or toe to thumb transfers complete the armamentarium of the upper limb reconstructive microsurgeon.