Lymphadenectomy After Melanoma-A National Analysis of Recurrence Rates and Risk of Lymphedema

INTRODUCTION

Treatment for melanoma after a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy includes nodal observation or lymphadenectomy. Important considerations for management, however, involve balancing the risk of recurrence and the risk of lymphedema after lymphadenectomy.

METHODS

From the Merative MarketScan Research Databases, adult patients were queried from 2007 to 2021. International Classification of Disease, Ninth (ICD-9) and Tenth (ICD-10) Editions, diagnosis codes and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients with melanoma diagnoses who underwent an index melanoma excision with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Main outcomes were completion lymph node dissection (CLND) utilization after a positive SLNB, developing lymphedema with or without CLND, and nodal basin recurrence 3 months or more after index excision. Subanalyses stratified by index excision year (2007-2017 and 2018-2021) and propensity score matched were additionally conducted. Demographics and comorbidities (measured by Elixhauser index) were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 153,085,453 patients were identified. Of those, 359,298 had a diagnosis of melanoma, and 202,456 patients underwent an excision procedure. The study cohort comprised 3717 patients with a melanoma diagnosis who underwent an excision procedure and had a positive SLNB. The mean age of the study cohort was 49 years, 57% were male, 41% were geographically located in the South, and 24% had an Elixhauser index of 4+. Among the 350 patients who did not undergo CLND, 10% experienced recurrence and 22% developed lymphedema. A total of 3367 patients underwent CLND, of which 8% experienced recurrence and 20% developed lymphedema. Completion lymph node dissection did not significantly affect risk of recurrence [odds ratio (OR), 1.370, P = 0.090] or lymphedema (OR, 1.114, P = 0.438). After stratification and propensity score matching, odds of experiencing lymphedema (OR, 1.604, P = 0.058) and recurrence (OR, 1.825, P = 0.058) after CLND were not significantly affected. Rates of CLND had significantly decreased (P < 0.001) overtime, without change in recurrence rate (P = 0.063).

CONCLUSIONS

Electing for nodal observation does not increase the risk of recurrence or reduce risk of lymphedema. Just as CLND does not confer survival benefit, its decreased utilization has not increased recurrence rate.

Updated Trends and Outcomes in Autologous Breast Reconstruction in the United States, 2016-2019

INTRODUCTION

Autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) has increased in recent decades, although concerns for access remain. As such, our goal is to trend national demographics and operative characteristics of ABR in the United States.

METHODS

Using the National Inpatient Sample, 2016-2019, the International Classification of Disease , Tenth Edition codes identified adult female encounters undergoing ABR. Demographics and procedure-related characteristics were recorded. Discharge weights generated national estimates. Statistical analysis included univariate testing and multivariate regression modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 52,910 weighted encounters met the criteria (mean age, 51.5 ± 10.0 years). Autologous breast reconstruction utilization increased (Δ = +5%), 2016-2019, primarily driven by a rise in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) reconstructions (Δ = +28%; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.070; P < 0.001), which were predominant throughout the study period (69%). More recent surgery year, bilateral reconstruction, higher income levels, commercial insurance, and care in the South US region increased the odds of DIEP-based ABR ( P ≤ 0.036). Transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps, bilateral reconstructions, higher comorbidity levels, and experiencing complications increased the length of stay ( P ≤ 0.038). Most ABRs (75%) were privately insured. The rates of immediate reconstructions increased over the study period (from 26% to 46%; IRR, 1.223; P < 0.001), as did the rates of bilateral reconstructions (from 54% to 57%; IRR, 1.026; P = 0.030). The rates of ABRs performed at teaching hospitals remained high (90% to 93%; P = 0.242).

CONCLUSIONS

As of 2019, ABR has become more prevalent, with the DIEP flap constituting the most common modality. With the increasing ABR popularity, efforts should be made to ensure geographic and financial accessibility.

A national analysis of burn injuries among homeless persons presenting to emergency departments

INTRODUCTION

Burn injuries among the homeless are increasing as record numbers of people are unsheltered and resort to unsafe heating practices. This study characterizes burns in homeless encounters presenting to US emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

Burn encounters in the 2019 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) were queried. ICD-10 and CPT codes identified homelessness, injury regions, depths, total body surface area (TBSA %), and treatment plans. Demographics, comorbidities, and charges were analyzed. Discharge weights generated national estimates. Statistical analysis included univariate testing and multivariate modeling.

RESULTS

Of 316,344 weighted ED visits meeting criteria, 1919 (0.6%) were homeless. Homeless encounters were older (mean age 44.83 vs. 32.39 years), male-predominant (71% vs. 52%), and had more comorbidities, and were more often White or Black race (p < 0.001). They more commonly presented to EDs in the West and were covered by Medicaid (51% vs. 33%) (p < 0.001). 12% and 5% of homeless burn injuries were related to self-harm and assault, respectively (p < 0.001). Homeless encounters experienced more third-degree burns (13% vs. 4%; p < 0.001), though TBSA % deciles were not significantly different (34% vs. 33% had TBSA % of ten or lower; p = 0.516). Homeless encounters were more often admitted (49% vs. 7%; p < 0.001), and homelessness increased odds of admission (OR 4.779; p < 0.001). Odds of transfer were significantly lower (OR 0.405; p = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

Homeless burn ED encounters were more likely due to assault and self-inflicted injuries, and more severe. ED practitioners should be aware of these patients' unique presentation and triage to burn centers accordingly.

Risk Factors for Hardware Removal Following Bimaxillary Surgery: A National Database Analysis

Orthognathic surgery typically relies on the rigid fixation of fracture fragments using metal hardware. Though hardware is usually intended to be implanted permanently, the removal of hardware (ROH) is sometimes indicated for a variety of reasons. The authors sought to identify risk factors for ROH following orthognathic surgery. The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of the Merative MarketScan Research Databases, 2007-2021 using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Disease (ICD-9 and ICD-10) codes to identify patients who underwent an index Le Fort 1 osteotomy and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy operation on the same day. Statistical analysis involved χ2, Shapiro-Wilk, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Poisson regression, and multivariable logistic regression tests. 4698 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at surgery was 25 years, and 57% were female. ROH occurred in 5.9% of patients. The mean time to hardware removal was 190.5±172.4 days. In a multivariate logistic regression, increased odds of ROH were associated with older patient age [OR: 1.02 (1.01-1.03), P=0.046], sleep apnea [OR: 1.62 (1.13-2.32), P=0.018], and craniofacial syndrome and/or cleft diagnoses [OR: 1.88 (1.14-2.55), P<0.001]. In the same model, postoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis was not associated with ROH (P=0.494). The incidence of all-cause complications [IRR: 1.03 (1.01-1.05), P<0.001] rose over the study period, while the incidence of ROH did not change significantly (P=0.281). Patients at elevated risk should be counseled on the increased possibility of a second operation for ROH before having orthognathic surgery to ensure expectations and health care utilization decisions align with the evidence.

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy in patients with obesity: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Breast reconstruction in patients with obesity presents numerous challenges, both in terms of surgical technique and post-operative complication management. As breast reconstruction techniques continue to evolve, the armamentarium of reconstructive options for patients with obesity has vastly expanded. Options now include immediate or delayed, implant-based, autologous, or hybrid reconstruction. Determining the optimal breast reconstruction in this complex population requires nuanced and experienced decision-making.

Methods

A literature search was conducted to identify studies assessing breast reconstruction considerations in patients with obesity. The search was performed on PubMed and was limited to English language studies published between 1990 and 2023. Primary studies, case reports, chart reviews, and qualitative studies were included. Additional articles were identified for inclusion based on a review of references, as well as a web-based search, to identify additional studies that were not captured with the primary search strategy.

Key Content and Findings

This narrative review article summarizes the current literature available to guide surgeons in breast reconstruction in patients with obesity.

Conclusions

The advancements in oncologic surgery and breast reconstruction techniques have expanded available surgical options, including immediate or delayed implant-based, autologous, or hybrid breast reconstruction. Each approach has its unique advantages, disadvantages, and surgical considerations. Despite the challenges, patients with obesity can achieve favorable aesthetic outcomes through careful assessment of comorbidities and expectation management.

What Do Patients Look for When Scheduling Their Initial Elective Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Consultation?

BACKGROUND

Multiple factors influence patients when deciding on where to seek plastic surgery consultations. Our objective was to determine the most important factors when booking the initial consultation.

METHODS

A 23 question survey was distributed online via Amazon Mechanical Turk targeting participants who had prior plastic surgery consultations or were planning to have one in the future. Participant demographic data were collected, and participants were asked to rank the importance of factors related to cost, surgeon reputation, social media, technology, amenities, accessibility, and appointment details on a 1-5 Likert scale. Rankings were reported by mean and standard deviation.

RESULTS

A total of 593 responses were gathered. 48.1% of participants were 25-34 years of age, 54.6% were female, 66.3% identified as White, 78.4% were located in the U.S, and 54.5% had a bachelor's degree. Participants rated the importance of a surgeon's online reviews (mean 4.15, SD 0.81), surgeon presence at follow-up visits (mean 4.01, SD 0.91), and availability of pricing prior to appointment (mean 4.01, SD 0.91) the highest. The least important factors were waiting room amenities and social media advertising. Individuals younger than 45 were more likely to rate a surgeon's social media presence higher than those 45 years and older (OR 2.02; 95%CI [1.37-2.96]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients considered surgeon's online reviews, presence at follow-up visits, and the availability of pricing information the most important when booking a plastic surgery consultation. These findings may assist physicians in structuring plastic surgery consultations based on factors important to patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Is Plastic Surgery Training Equitable? An Analysis of Health Equity across US Plastic Surgery Residency Programs

Achieving health equity includes training surgeons in environments exemplifying access, treatment, and outcomes across the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic spectrum. Increased attention on health equity has generated metrics comparing hospitals. To establish the quality of health equity in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) residency training, we determined the mean equity score (MES) across training hospitals of US PRS residencies.

Methods

The 2021 Lown Institute Hospital Index database was merged with affiliated training hospitals of US integrated PRS residency programs. The Lown equity category is composed of three domains (community benefit, inclusivity, pay equity) generating a health equity grade. MES (standard deviation) was calculated and reported for residency programs (higher MES represented greater health equity). Linear regression modeled the effects of a program's number of training hospitals, safety net hospitals, and geographical region on MES.

Results

The MES was 2.64 (0.62). An estimated 5.9% of programs had an MES between 1-2. In total, 56.5% of programs had an MES between 2 and 3, and 37.7% had an MES of 3 or more. The southern region was associated with a higher MES compared with the reference group (Northeast) (P = 0.03). The number of safety net hospitals per program was associated with higher MES (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

Two out of three programs train residents in facilities failing to demonstrate high equity healthcare. Programs should promote health equity by diversifying care delivery through affiliated hospitals. This will aid in the creation of a PRS workforce trained to provide care for a socioeconomically, racially, and ethnically diverse population.

The Best Under Stress: An Analysis of Breast Tissue Expander Response to External Forces

Background

The use of breast tissue expanders (TE) in breast reconstruction is accompanied by undesired changes to the chest wall and lateral plane. Breast TEs are designed to create a naturally formed breast pocket by capitalizing on the ductile response of skin tissue; however, in practice, the use of expanders is accompanied by undesired changes to the chest wall and lateral plane.

Objectives

The authors of this study compared 3 comparably sized and commercially available breast TEs to assess the mechanical profile and functionality of each design.

Methods

Authors compared MENTOR Artoura PLUS Smooth (Irvine, CA), Allergan 133 Smooth (Irvine, CA), and Sientra AlloX2 Smooth (Santa Barbara, CA) filled to 100% of their label volume. The mechanical profile of TEs was assessed via vertical compression. Dimensions were recorded at baseline and percent changes were calculated at each compressive load (5-35 lbf intervals of 5 lbf).

Results

Base width and projection were recorded at compressive loads of 10, 20, and 35 lbs. For percent changes of base width, MENTOR had 0.98%, 2.09%, 3.84%; Allergan 4.21%, 9.15%, 15.52%; and Sientra 4.72%, 10.19%, 19.15%. For percent changes of projection, MENTOR® had -19.06%, -25.44%, -30.88%, Allergan -35.53%, -42.90%, -50.09%, and Sientra® -29.64%, -37.68%, -44.69%. For percent change of height, MENTOR had 1.44%, 2.62%, 4.27%, Allergan 10.26%, 16.49%, 22.97%, and Sientra 6.99%, 11.93%, 16.90%. MENTOR’s TE had the most pronounced lower pole with volume expansion.

Conclusions

The MENTOR TE demonstrated the least lateral deformation and projection loss across the range of compressive loads, as well as the highest force resistance compared to the other models.

Longitudinal Improvements in Radiation Exposure in Cardiac Catheterization for Congenital Heart Disease

Background:

The C3PO-QI (Congenital Cardiac Catheterization Project on Outcomes – Quality Improvement), a multicenter registry launched in 2015, instituted quality improvement (QI) initiatives to reduce patient radiation exposure. Through regular collaboration, this initiative would allow for harmony among active participants, maximizing efforts and efficiency at achieving radiation best practices. This study sought to report these efforts with a detailed methodology for which institutions can target initiatives, reducing radiation exposure, and increasing patient safety.

Methods:

Data were collected prospectively by 8 C3PO-QI institutions between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. Radiation exposure was measured in dose area product per body weight (dose area product/kg; µGy*m 2 /kg) and reported by expected radiation exposure categories (REC) and institution for 40 published unique procedure types. Targeted interventions addressing selected strategic domains for radiation reduction were implemented in the pediatric catheterization labs of the C3PO-QI institutions.

Results:

The study consisted of 15 257 unique cases. Median exposure (dose area product/kg) was decreased by 30% for all procedures. Dose area product/kg was reduced in all 3 REC, with the greatest improvement observed in REC I (REC I, −37%; REC II, −23%; REC III, −27%). Although the baseline radiation exposures and exact percent decrease varied across all C3PO-QI sites, each institution demonstrated improvements in radiation dose over time. These improvements occurred with the implementation of institution-specific QI interventions accelerated by participation in the C3PO-QI multicenter collaborative.

Conclusions:

Substantial radiation dose reductions can be achieved using targeted QI methodology and interventions. Participation in a multicenter QI collaborative may accelerate improvement across all centers due to enhanced engagement and shared learning between sites.