Economic Trends in Commonly Used Drugs for Spinal Fusion and Brain Tumor Resection: An Analysis of the Medicare Part D Database.

With the incidence of central and peripheral nervous system disorders on the rise, neurosurgical procedures paired with the careful administration of select medications have become necessary to optimize patient outcomes. Despite efforts to decrease the over-prescription of common addictive drugs, such as opioids, prescription costs continue to rise. This study analyzed temporal trends in medication use and cost for spinal fusion and brain tumor resection procedures. The Medicare Part B Database was queried from 2016 to 2020 for data regarding spinal fusion and brain tumor resection procedures, while the Part D Database was used to extract data for two commonly prescribed medications for each procedure. Pearson's correlation coefficient and linear regression were completed for the analyzed variables. The results showed a significant negative correlation between the number of spinal procedure beneficiaries and the cost of methocarbamol, as well as between the annual percent change in spinal beneficiaries and the annual percent change in oxycodone cost. Linear regression revealed that oxycodone cost was the only parameter with a statistically significant model. Moving forward, it is imperative to combat rising drug costs, regardless of trends seen in their usage. Further studies should focus on the utilization of primary data in a multi-center study.

Drain Removal Time in Pre-pectoral versus Dual Plane Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction following Nipple-sparing Mastectomy.

Pre-pectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has become a popular approach compared with the dual plane technique. Our objective was to determine if there was a difference in time to postoperative breast drain removal in direct-to-implant or tissue expander reconstruction following NSM when comparing pre-pectoral with dual plane technique. Methods: A total of 200 patients (335 breasts) received NSM followed by implant or expander reconstruction at our institution between the years 2009 and 2020. Direct-to-implant reconstruction had 113 pre-pectoral versus 67 dual plane, and tissue expander reconstruction had six pre-pectoral versus 149 dual plane. Our analysis included age at mastectomy, body mass index, history of preoperative breast radiation, and smoking history. Case complications included seroma or hematoma, breast or axillary infection requiring antibiotics or operative washout, device replacement due to extrusion or infection, skin necrosis, and capsular contracture. Statistical analysis was completed with Pearson chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and the two-sample T-test using IBM SPSS Statistics 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y.). Results: The average time until breast drain removal in dual plane implant patients was significantly less than in pre-pectoral implant patients (9.42 versus 14.01 days). The average time until breast drain removal in dual plane expander patients was significantly less than in pre-pectoral expander patients (11.47 versus 20.30 days). Conclusion: In both implant and expander reconstruction following NSM, patients receiving dual plane device placement had a shorter postoperative time until breast drain removal when compared with patients receiving pre-pectoral device placement.

The Impact Oncoplastic Reduction Has on Long-Term Recurrence in Breast Conservation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The use of oncoplastic reduction techniques have many proven benefits over lumpectomy alone in the management of women with breast cancer. The impact it has on tumor recurrence is unclear. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the incidence of recurrence in patients who underwent oncoplastic reduction techniques compared to lumpectomy alone. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of patients at Emory Hospital who underwent oncoplastic reduction techniques at the time of tumor resection was queried. These patients were compared to a series of patients who had lumpectomy alone over a similar period. For inclusion in the study, patients were at least 10 years since the time of the tumor resection. The main outcome of interest was tumor recurrence. RESULTS: There were 97 patients in the lumpectomy-only group and 95 patients in the oncoplastic reduction group, with an average follow-up of 7.8 years and 8.5 years, respectively. Patients in the oncoplastic group were younger (lumpectomy only, 61.4 years; oncoplastic reduction, 51.6 years; p < 0.001) and had larger tumors (lumpectomy only, 1.1 cm; oncoplastic reduction, 1.6 cm; p < 0.001). Local recurrence was 13 percent in the lumpectomy-only group and 9 percent in the oncoplastic reduction group (p = 0.34), and overall recurrence rates were similar (lumpectomy only, 15 percent; oncoplastic reduction, 24 percent; p = 0.13). Overall, surgical intervention (lumpectomy alone versus oncoplastic reduction) was not associated with local recurrence or any recurrence on univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: Despite the oncoplastic reduction patients having a higher risk of recurrence and a more generous tumor resection, the long-term recurrence rates were equivalent when compared to breast-conserving therapy alone. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Preventing Infection in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: Evaluating the Evidence for Common Practices and Standardized Protocols.

Infection following implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) results in increased rates of hospital readmission, reoperation, patient and hospital expenses, and reconstructive failure. IBBR is a complex, multistep procedure, and there is a relative lack of high-quality plastic surgery evidence regarding "best practices" in the prevention of implant infections. In the absence of strong data, standardizing procedures based on available evidence can reduce error and improve efficacy and outcomes. Methods: We performed a focused literature review of the available evidence supporting specific interventions for infection prevention in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care that are applicable to IBBR. In addition, we examined previously published standardized perioperative protocols for implant reconstruction. Results: Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative planning and organization is crucial in IBBR. Preoperative planning involves skin decolonization in advance of surgery with either chlorhexidine gluconate or mupirocin. Intraoperative methods that have shown potential benefit include double-gloving, breast pocket irrigation, separate closing instruments, and the utilization of "no-touch" techniques. In the postoperative period, the duration of drain removal and postoperative antibiotic administration play an important role in the prevention of surgical site infection. Conclusions: There is a crucial need to establish an evidence-based set of "best practices" for IBBR, and there exists a paucity of evidence in the breast literature. These data can be utilized to develop a standardized protocol as part of a rigorous quality improvement methodology.

Preoperative Body Image Factors Are Associated with Complications after Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Psychological factors are broadly understood to contribute to overall health, but their contribution to wound healing is less well defined. Limited data exist on the association of preoperative psychological factors such as body image and postoperative complications. The present study analyzed the association between preoperative body image factors and postoperative complications following breast reconstruction. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of 302 breast cancer patients undergoing breast reconstruction from 2011 to 2015. All patients completed the BREAST-Q; demographics, surgical details, and postoperative complications were recorded. The association of body image factors by means of the BREAST-Q and postoperative complications was analyzed. RESULTS: On univariate analysis, patients who reported lower preoperative satisfaction with how they appeared in the mirror unclothed, or felt less self-confident or attractive, were significantly more likely to develop an infection postoperatively. Preoperative satisfaction scores were not associated with complications when analyzed in a multivariate fashion. On binomial logistic regression analysis, after controlling for age, body mass index, reconstruction technique, and use of radiotherapy, patients who reported less preoperative satisfaction with how comfortably bras fit or how they appeared in a mirror unclothed were at an increased risk for delayed wound healing. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lower preoperative body satisfaction were found to have an increased incidence of infections and delayed wound healing. Although postoperative outcomes are multifactorial, the data suggest that baseline psychological factors such as body image may play a role in postoperative outcomes. Broader use of prehabilitative therapies, targeted at psychosocial factors, may warrant further investigation to optimize postoperative outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

The Incidence of Occult Malignant and High-Risk Pathologic Findings in Breast Reduction Specimens.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine the incidence of occult malignancy and high-risk breast pathologic findings in patients who undergo breast reduction procedures. METHODS: Medical records of consecutive patients who underwent reduction mammaplasty performed by the senior authors (A.L. and G.W.C.) at Emory University Hospital between 1997 and 2018 were reviewed. Data regarding patient demographics, personal or family history of malignancy, operative technique, pathologic findings, and follow-up were extracted. Patients were categorized into two groups, those with and those without breast cancer. Group A patients underwent reduction for symptomatic macromastia, and group B underwent contralateral reduction for unilateral breast cancer treated with oncoplastic partial or total breast cancer reconstruction. Pathologic findings were divided into four groups; normal, benign, high-risk, and malignant. RESULTS: A total 1014 patients (1419 breast reductions) were included in the study. Comparing groups A and B, mean age was 37.8 ± 16.2 years versus 54.5 ± 11.1 years (p < 0.001), mean body mass index was 34.1 ± 7.6 kg/m2 versus 33.3 ± 7.4 kg/m2 (p = 0.2), and average reduction weight was 875.6 ± 491 g versus 723.7 ± 438 g (p < 0.001). The incidence of high-risk or malignant lesions was 1.8 percent (n = 15) in group A and 8 percent (n = 49) in group B (p < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, age and personal history of breast cancer were positive predictors for high-risk and malignant lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of abnormal pathologic findings in breast reduction specimens is not uncommon, and occult malignancy or high-risk lesions can be found, especially in patients with contralateral breast cancer. Appropriate specimen orientation, diligence with checking the pathologic findings, and open communication with the pathologist are crucial. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Ischemic Complications After Bilateral Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Implant-based Reconstruction: A Critical Analysis.

PURPOSE: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has a higher incidence of mastectomy skin flap necrosis (MSFN) than skin-sparing mastectomy. The purpose of this study is to analyze predisposing factors for nipple and skin necrosis after bilateral NSM with immediate implant reconstruction. METHODS: Sixty-two consecutive patients (124 breasts) from a single breast/plastic surgeon underwent bilateral NSM with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction were included. Factors influencing MSFN were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age was 45.7 years, and mean body mass index was 22.9. Reconstructive methods were as follows: tissue expander (TE), 76 (61.3%); and direct to implant, 48 (38.7%). Mastectomy skin flap necrosis occurred in 39 (31.5%) breasts, nipple necrosis 38 and skin flap necrosis 19. Thirty-seven breasts healed uneventfully, and 2 (1.6%) required reoperation. Cancer pathology, mastectomy weight greater than 279 g, TE reconstruction, and nipple-notch (N-N) distance greater than 23 cm were predictive of nipple necrosis on univariate analysis. The mean mastectomy weight (380.1 g vs 220.7 g, P < 0.0001), N-N distance greater than 23 cm (30 vs 0, P < 0.0001), and mean implant size (490 cm3 vs 373 cm3, P < 0.0001) were greater in the TE group. On logistic regression model controlling for all significant variables, predictors of MSFN were as follows: diagnosis of cancer (odds ratio [OR], 3.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-8.03; P = 0.006), TE reconstruction (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.03-8.03; P = 0.04), and N-N distance (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03-1.66; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Mastectomy skin flap necrosis after NSM and implant reconstruction is common. In this series, only 2 (1.6%) cases required surgical intervention with no implant loss. Treatment of breast cancer, TE reconstruction, and increasing N-N notch distance were positive predictors of MSFN.

Secondary Surgeries After Oncoplastic Reduction Mammoplasty.

PURPOSE: The oncoplastic reduction approach is a popular option for women with breast cancer and macromastia. Although the benefits of this approach are numerous, data on the need for secondary surgeries are limited. We evaluated the need for all secondary surgeries after oncoplastic reduction in an attempt to understand the incidence and indications. METHODS: All patients with breast cancer who underwent an oncoplastic breast reduction at the time of the tumor resection were queried from a prospectively maintained database from 1998 to 2020 (n = 547) at a single institution. Secondary surgical procedures were defined as any unplanned return to the operating room. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed, and secondary surgeries were classified and evaluated. The timing and rates of secondary surgery were evaluated and compared with clinical variables. RESULTS: There were 547 patients included in this series with a mean age of 55 years and body mass index of 33.5. Mean duration of follow-up was 3.8 years. One hundred and seventeen (21%) patients underwent 235 secondary surgeries, with an average of 1.4 operations until stable reconstruction was obtained. The reason for the secondary surgery was involved margins (7.5%), major complications (8.6%), aesthetic improvement (13.3%), and completion mastectomy (5.3%). Age 65 years and younger age was associated with any subsequent procedure (P = 0.023) and revision for cosmesis (P = 0.006). Patients with body mass index greater than 35 had increased secondary surgeries for operative complications (P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Secondary surgeries after oncoplastic breast reduction procedures are common. Management of margins and complications, such as hematoma and infection, are early indications, with aesthetic improvement, wound healing complications, fat necrosis, and recurrence being late reasons. The most common reason for reoperation is aesthetic improvement, especially in younger patients. Attention to surgical technique and patient selection will help minimize secondary surgeries for the nononcological reasons.

A Systematic Review of Breast Irrigation in Implant-Based Breast Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Aesthetic and reconstructive implant-based breast surgeries are some of the most frequently performed procedures by plastic surgeons. As such, prevention of implant infection is of high importance. However, there remains no criterion-standard protocol for irrigation of the breast pocket. This review focuses on current irrigation practices in implant-based breast surgery. METHODS: Four databases were used to search for all studies, including randomized controlled trials, retrospective cohort, and prospective cohort, containing original data related to the outcomes investigated in this study. Search terms included "breast," "irrigation," and "infection" in different combinations to isolate studies that focused on irrigation methods in both reconstructive and augmentation surgeries. Our selection criteria specifically concentrated on those studies that explicitly related irrigation procedures to rates of clinical infection and/or capsular contracture. Each was compiled into a table in chronological order to make comparisons between the differing irrigation methods. RESULTS: Our search returned 239 full-text articles eligible for our review. Two independent screeners identified 9 studies that met the inclusion criteria. This included 1 prospective study and 8 retrospective studies. Two studies reported the use of chlorhexidine gluconate irrigation resulting in protection from clinical infection. Two studies investigated the role of triple antibiotic solution (TAS) either alone or combined with something else on risk of infection, and 3 reported TAS use on rates of capsular contracture. Two additional studies investigated the role of single antibiotic irrigation, concluding that some antibiotic regimen for irrigation may be sufficient in the breast pocket. Interestingly, one study noted the potential use of povidone-iodine (Betadine) as a method of irrigation. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that chlorhexidine gluconate, Betadine, and TAS irrigation of the breast pocket can provide protection against infection and implant loss in both reconstruction and augmentation surgeries.

The impact of axillary node surgery on outcomes following immediate breast reconstruction.

Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) has become the most common method for postmastectomy reconstruction. Axillary lymph node dissection is performed for the staging of patients, but the impact of IBR with nodal surgery on postoperative complications remains elusive. The present study aims to investigate the impact of concomitant axillary lymph node surgery on postoperative complications. We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent IBR from 2000 to 2014. We recorded and analyzed patient data to determine the association between nodal surgery and postsurgical complications. Univariate and multivariate analyses were utilized to elucidate the risk of a complication given nodal surgery, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), and type of incision for nodal access. A total of 986 breast reconstructions were included for analysis. Overall incidence of postoperative complications per breast that received nodal surgery was 35.9% (n = 230/642), compared to 25.6% (n = 88/344) in breasts that did not have concomitant nodal surgery (P = .001). Nodal surgery was found to increase risk of all complications with an odds ratio of 1.62 (P = .001). Moreover, complications were significantly higher in patients whose nodes were accessed via mastectomy incision (39.4%) when compared to a separate incision (33.5%). Multivariate analysis showed that nodal sampling through the mastectomy incision is a significant risk factor for seroma, with an odds ratio of 3.60 (P = .002). We did not observe differences in breast complications in patients who underwent SLNB vs ALND. These factors should be taken into account in the approach to breast reconstruction during lymphadenectomy.

Surgical Outcomes in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has reemerged as a popular option for prosthetic-based breast reconstruction. Recent published literature highlights good outcomes; however, techniques are evolving and options exist for different technologies. The aim of this study is to evaluate short-term complication rates of prepectoral reconstructions using Cortiva acellular dermal matrix. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted of all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate direct-to-implant or 2-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with Cortiva (RTI Surgical, Alachua, Fla.) between January 2016 and September 2018. The incidence of surgical complications was determined and studied against patient demographics and procedural details. RESULTS: One-hundred eighteen patients met the inclusion criteria for a total of 183 individual breasts reconstructed with prepectoral implant. Average length of follow-up was 9.26 months (range, 1.0 month to 2.5 years). Thirty-two breasts (17.49%) experienced 1 or more complications. Prepectoral reconstruction was successful 89.07% of the time. Infection was the most common cause of both reoperation and implant failure, with 7.65% of all breasts requiring washout and 5.46% failing prosthetic reconstruction secondary to infection. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical outcomes for prepectoral breast reconstruction using 2-stage and direct-to-implant are similar and comparable to the literature for dual-plane reconstruction, with infection being the main cause of failure.

Survey Based Assessment of Burnout Rates Among US Plastic Surgery Residents.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the rates of burnout and contributory factors among US plastic surgery residents. METHODS: The Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey was emailed to program coordinators of American College of Graduate Medical Education-accredited plastic surgery residencies. Scores are provided for 3 subscales: emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal accomplishment. Normative scoring tables (low, average, high) were used for comparison. Residents were asked questions relating to their personal life (age, postgraduate year, marital status, and program characteristics). RESULTS: One hundred thirteen residents responded. The average age was 31.6 years (range, 25-43 years) and postgraduate year of 4.6 (range, 1-10). There were equal male and female respondents. Most were from integrated-only residencies (n = 59, 52.2%). On average, the majority reported working 50 to 80 hours per week (n = 93, 82.3%), spending the majority of time in tertiary referral centers (n = 107, 94.7%). Most received and took 3 weeks of vacation per year (n = 68, 60.7%). Furthermore, 65.5% met the definition of burnout by their scores from at least 1 subscale.The number of hours worked per week significantly correlated with increased scores in the EE and DP subscales. Residents who worked more than 80 hours per week had significantly higher scores in the EE and DP categories. Residents who had less than 2 weeks of vacation per year trended toward experiencing more EE (EE; 46.0, P = 0.077). The type of program (independent vs integrated), sex, having a significant other outside of the home, kids, and local family support did not significantly affect burnout scores for any subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout exists among plastic surgery residents especially in the DP subscale. Working longer hours and less vacation correlates with increased rates of burnout among residents.

Nipple malposition after bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction: Objective postoperative analysis utilizing BCCT.core computer software.

Nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSMs) are accepted as safe oncologic procedures for select patient populations, but objective evaluation of aesthetic outcomes has not been clearly established. The purpose of this study was to utilize BCCT.core computer software to objectively evaluate NAC malposition following bilateral NSM with implant reconstruction and compare the analysis to an expert panel. Postoperative photographs of 43 patients who underwent bilateral NSM were analyzed with the BCCT.core and by an expert panel of plastic surgery residents and attendings. The panel was asked to only evaluate nipple asymmetry and position. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine interrater reliability (n = 12) and between expert panel ratings and BCCT.core ratings. Statistics were performed using SPSS statistical package version 24.0. The ICC for the expert panel interrater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.941, 95% CI: 0.912-0.964). The analysis between BCCT.core individual parameters, specifically the breast retraction assessment (ie, BRA score = the difference in nipple position between the two breasts assessing breast symmetry) and expert panel, showed statistically significant positive correlation. The parameters provided by the BCCT.core software were correlated with both the mean expert panel rating and BCCT.core ratings. Therefore, it is plausible that BCCT.core parameters could be used to objectively quantify NAC malposition/asymmetry and guide treatment in patients undergoing bilateral NSM with implant reconstruction.

The Biosynthetic Option as an Alternative in Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.

Synthetic mesh and acellular dermal matrix reinforcement during complex abdominal wall reconstruction (CAWR) have significantly improved outcomes. In an attempt to further improve outcomes, we combined both into a single biosynthetic by suturing a synthetic mesh on top of porcine acellular dermal matrix. Our aim was to review our experience with this new technique. Patients undergoing CAWR with the biosynthetic mesh were reviewed from a prospective database from 2015 to 2018. A total of 39 patients were 56.3 ± 10.9 years old, white (59.0%), and female (74.4%), with 31.9 ± 7.4 kg/m of body mass index. Eight repairs were performed on patients classified as greater than or equal to modified Ventral Hernia Working Group (mVHWG) class 3a, and 41.0% followed a concurrent resection of previously placed mesh. The biosynthetic mesh was placed as an underlay (51.3%) or inlay (46.2%) with primary closure in 51.3% and component separation in 12.8%. Recurrence at 3 years of follow-up occurred in 3 patients (7.7%). Complications within 60 days occurred in 6 patients (15.4%), including 4 soft tissue infections-one requiring explantation, with a total of 2 patients (5.1%) requiring explantation overall. Type 2 diabetes, previous mesh removal, component separation, and mVHWG class 3b independently predicted noninfectious complications. Male sex and mVHWG class 3b independently predicted surgical site infection. No predictors were found for recurrence. Biosynthetic mesh does not seem to increase the risk of early complications and may reduce recurrences and improve long-term outcomes after CAWR.

Time to Radiation After Oncoplastic Reduction.

BACKGROUND: Partial breast reconstruction with reduction mammaplasty is an accepted option for women with breast cancer who wish to receive breast conserving therapy. With additional surgery and potential postoperative complications, the impact this approach has on the timely initiation of adjuvant radiation therapy has been raised as a concern. The purpose of this study was to determine if any postoperative complications after oncoplastic reduction (OCR) are associated with a delay in time to radiation. METHODS: All patients undergoing OCR with postoperative adjuvant radiation at a single institution between 1997 and 2015 were included in the analysis. Women who received adjuvant chemotherapy or experienced delays in radiation therapy due to nonsurgical reasons were excluded from our analysis. Comparisons were made between the time to radiation for patients with surgical complications and those without. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen patients were included. Twenty-six (22.0%) experienced a surgical complication. Complications included cellulitis, delayed healing, seroma, wound breakdown, and wound dehiscence. Postoperative complications resulted in a significantly different median time interval for initiation of radiation (74 days vs 54 days, P < 0.001) compared to those without a complication. Among the entire cohort, 5% of patients required a second operative procedure due to complications. (n = 6/118 patients) including hematoma, infection, seroma, open wounds, wound dehiscence, and nipple necrosis. There was no difference in median time to radiation therapy in those with complications who returned to the operating room (73 days) compared to those who did not (74 days, P = 0.692). CONCLUSION: Postoperative complications following OCR procedures were associated with an increased time to initiation of adjuvant radiation therapy regardless of whether or not the complication required reoperation. This needs to be taken into consideration when planning these combined procedures with every attempt made to minimize complications through patient selection and surgical technique.

A Comparison of Acellular Dermal Matrices in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing literature of evidence that the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) for high-risk patients provides superior complication profiles when compared with standard synthetic mesh. Here we compare Fortiva, Strattice, and Alloderm ADMs in AWR. METHODS: In a prospectively maintained database, all patients undergoing AWR between January 2003 and November 2016 were reviewed. Hernia recurrence and surgical site occurrence (SSO) were our primary and secondary endpoints. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and logistic regression models were used to evaluate risks for hernia recurrence and SSO. RESULTS: A total of 229 patients underwent AWR with 1 of 3 ADMs. Median follow-up time was 20.9 months (1-60 months). Cumulative recurrence rates for each mesh were 6.9%, 11.2%, and 22.0% (P = 0.04), for Fortiva, Strattice, and Alloderm groups. Surgical site occurrence for each mesh was 56.9%, 49.0%, and 49.2%, respectively. Seroma was significantly lower in the Fortiva group (1.4%; P = 0.02). Independent risk factors hernia recurrence included body mass index of 30 kg/m(2) or higher and hypertension. Adjusted risk factors included oncologic resection for hernia recurrence (odds ratio, 5.3; confidence interval, 1.1-97.7; P = 0.11) and a wound class of contaminated or dirty/infected for SSO (odds ratio, 3.6; confidence interval, 1.0-16.6; P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Acellular dermal matrices provide a durable repair with low overall rate of recurrence and complications in AWR. The recurrence and complication profiles differ between brands. With proper patient selection and consideration, ADMs can be used confidently for a variety of indications and wound classifications.

The Impact of Mesh Reinforcement with Components Separation for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.

The goal in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) is to minimize morbidity and prevent hernia recurrence. Components separation and mesh reconstruction are two options, however, with advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this review was to investigate outcomes in patients with abdominal wall hernia undergoing primary closure with component separation (CS) versus CS with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) reinforcement (CS + mesh). Medical records of consecutive patients who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction using CS with or without ADM reinforcement were retrospectively reviewed. Primary fascial closure was achieved in all patients. ADM reinforcement when used was performed using the underlay technique. Reconstructive technique and postoperative complications including delayed healing, skin necrosis, fistula, seroma, hematoma and surgical site infection, recurrence, and reoperation were recorded. Comparisons between the two groups were assessed. One hundred and seven patients were included (mean age, 55.7; 51.4% male; median follow-up 297 days). Twenty-six patients (24%) underwent CS alone; whereas 81 patients (76%) CS + mesh placement. Patient comorbidities, including smoking (26%), diabetes (20%), and hypertension (46%); body mass index (mean 32.3 ± 7.6); and albumin level on the day of surgery (mean 3.4 ± 0.5 mg/dL) were not significantly different between groups. Surgical site infection was significantly higher among CS + mesh patients (22.2%) versus CS only patients (3.9%) (P = 0.02). The recurrence rate of abdominal hernia was significantly lower in CS + mesh patients compared with CS only (14.8% vs 34.6%; P = 0.02). No significant differences in other postoperative complications were identified between the two groups. ADM reinforcement at the time of components separation is often selected in more complex, higher risk patients. Although the incidence of infection was higher in these patients, it was usually treated without mesh removal and recurrence rate was significantly lower when compared to CS alone.