Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Although many factors in prepectoral breast reconstruction such as mastectomy weight and flap quality are out of the plastic surgeon's control, some elements such as intraoperative tissue expander (TE) fill can be optimized. This study assesses the impact of intraoperative TE fill on postoperative complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction and posits the optimal fill. METHODS:All consecutive, prepectoral TE reconstructions performed between March 2017 and December 2022 at a single center were reviewed. A "fill ratio" or ratio of intraoperative TE fill to mastectomy weight (TEF/MW) was constructed to quantify deadspace in the breast pocket, with values closer to 1 signifying less deadspace. Major complications include those requiring readmission or reoperation and minor complications include those that could be treated as an outpatient. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS:A total of 200 patients (318 breasts) with average follow-up of 22 months were included. Patients were, on average, 53 years old, were nonsmoker (98%), were nondiabetic (91%), and had a body mass index of 26 kg/m2. Only immediate reconstructions were included and were performed following prophylactic mastectomies in 34% and therapeutic mastectomies in 66% of cases. Seventy-six (24%) breasts were radiated, and 93 (47%) patients received chemotherapy. Mean mastectomy weight was 546 g, median intraoperative TE fill was 175 ± 250 cc, and median final TE fill was 390 ± 220 cc.Major complications occurred in 64 (20%) breasts and were associated with less deadspace (0.49 vs 0.36, P < 0.05). In multivariable models, a higher fill ratio was associated with 2.4 times higher odds of major complications (95% CI, 1.2-4.7; P = 0.01). Optimal intraoperative TE fill for avoiding major complications was 80 cc, and optimal fill ratio was 0.09.Explantation occurred in 44 (14%) breasts and was associated with less deadspace (0.51 vs 0.35, P < 0.05); the optimal fill for avoiding explantation was 80 cc, and optimal ratio was 0.12. CONCLUSIONS:Higher intraoperative TE fill and less deadspace were associated with postoperative complications. Filling a TE to 80 cc or approximately a tenth of mastectomy weight may reduce complications.

BACKGROUND:Reports suggest neurotization can help restore sensation in patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). There is a dearth of information regarding the outcomes and cost associated with neurotization of the nipple-areola complex (NAC). The objective of this study is to determine perioperative complications of performing NAC neurotization in IBBR and analyze the added cost of performing this procedure. METHODS:A retrospective chart review was performed of patients who underwent NSM with IBBR. Breasts undergoing neurotization of the NAC were compared to breasts that did not undergo neurotization using 2:1 propensity score matching on age, reconstruction type, and BMI. Primary endpoints included 30-day complications and cost. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, t tests, and chi-square tests where applicable with a predetermined level of significance of P < 0.05. RESULTS:A total of 15 patients (26 breasts) were in the neurotized cohort and matched to 30 patients (52 breasts) in the nonneurotized cohort. Mean follow-up period was 10 months and significantly lower in neurotized group (P < 0.001). Rates of major and minor complications did not vary by neurotization (P > 0.05). Cases of neurotization added a mean cost of $7839 per breast. CONCLUSIONS:As NAC neurotization introduces increased complexity from coordination with the oncologic surgeons, use of microsurgical instruments, and additional implantable devices, it is important to compare perioperative outcomes to standard breast reconstruction. As our institution begins to offer this new technique, we have identified no increased risk of perioperative complications with NAC neurotization.

Therapeutic, IV.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) is a payment model implemented to promote high-value care through performance-based adjustments of Medicare reimbursements. Higher scores indicate superior performance in healthcare quality, efficiency, and interoperability, which can result in financial advantages. Given the paucity of literature, we aimed to characterize plastic surgery performance in MIPS. METHOD/METHODS:The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) online data repository was queried for data on MIPS performance of plastic surgeons from 2019-2021. Descriptive analyses and multivariable logistic regression were conducted to identify predictors of receiving bonus payment for exceptional performance. RESULTS:Approximately 1400 surgeons were sampled in each year. The median number of Medicare beneficiaries and percent of dually eligible beneficiaries-eligible for Medicare and Medicaid-were higher in 2019 (p<0.001). Beneficiary median HCC risk score, which measures expected healthcare costs and needs based on health status, was lower in 2021 (p<0.001). The most common reporting schema was reporting as a group. Total MIPS score increased from 2019 to 2020 to 2021 (90.2 vs 96.4 vs 98.3, p<0.001), but quality score progressively decreased (98.8 vs 95.5 vs 89.90, p<0.001). Fewer physicians received positive adjustment and bonus payments in 2020 and 2021. Predictors of receiving bonus payments were reporting as an alternative payment model, practice size >24, and having 10-49% of dually eligible beneficiaries (p<0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Understanding performance of plastic surgeons in MIPS can guide future policy direction and ensure that high-quality care translates into improved patient outcomes across all fields and levels of social vulnerability.

BACKGROUND:Breast implant illness (BII) has become a contentious subject in recent years. Although some studies have reported associations between breast implants and autoimmune diseases, others have failed to establish a definitive link. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date evaluation of the literature surrounding BII, with an emphasis on identifying patient-related factors that may be associated with BII. METHODS:A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines by searching the PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies published in the last 20 years. RESULTS:Thirty-one studies were included, which covered 39,505 implant patients with a mean [standard deviation] age of 44.2 [9.30] years. Fifteen studies reported implant explantation status, with 72.4% patients choosing to remove their implants. Among these, 9 studies reported symptom improvement in 83.5% patients. Fifty-three percent of patients undergoing explantation had total capsulectomy. Twenty-eight studies documented total numbers of patients experiencing symptoms related to BII, with 31.3% patients reporting such symptoms. Among these, 16 studies of 4109 BII patients distinguished whether the reason for implantation was cosmetic augmentation or reconstruction. When specified, more patients experiencing BII-related symptoms received implants for "cosmetic" vs "reconstructive" reasons (cosmetic, 3864/4109 [94.0%] vs reconstruction, 245/4109 [5.96%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:This review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding BII. The study highlights a potential relationship between BII and indication for implants (cosmetic vs reconstructive) among other variables, offering valuable insight on factors associated with BII and directions for future research.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) viability remains a significant concern following prepectoral tissue expander (TE) reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). This study assesses the impact of intraoperative TE fill on NAC necrosis and identifies strategies for mitigating this risk. METHODS:A chart review of all consecutive, prepectoral TEs placed immediately after NSM was performed between March 2017 and December 2022 at a single center. Demographics, mastectomy weight, intraoperative TE fill, and complications were extracted for all patients. Partial NAC necrosis was defined as any thickness of skin loss including part of the NAC, whereas total NAC necrosis was defined as full-thickness skin loss involving the entirety of the NAC. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS:Forty-six patients (83 breasts) with an average follow-up of 22 months were included. Women were on average 46 years old, nonsmoker (98%), and nondiabetic (100%) and had a body mass index of 23 kg/m2. All reconstructions were performed immediately following prophylactic mastectomies in 49% and therapeutic mastectomies in 51% of cases. Three breasts (4%) were radiated, and 15 patients (33%) received chemotherapy. Mean mastectomy weight was 346 ± 274 g, median intraoperative TE fill was 150 ± 225 mL, and median final TE fill was 350 ± 170 mL. Partial NAC necrosis occurred in 7 breasts (8%), and there were zero instances of complete NAC necrosis. On univariate analysis, partial NAC necrosis was not associated with any patient demographic or operative characteristics, including intraoperative TE fill. In multivariable models controlling for age, body mass index, mastectomy weight, prior breast surgery, and intraoperative TE fill, partial NAC necrosis was associated with lower body mass index (odds ratio, 0.53; confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.98; P < 0.05) and higher mastectomy weight (odds ratio, 1.1; CI, 1.01-1.20; P < 0.05). Prior breast surgery approached significance, as those breasts had a 19.4 times higher odds of partial NAC necrosis (95% CI, 0.88-427.6; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS:Nipple-areolar complex necrosis following prepectoral TE reconstruction is a rare but serious complication. In this study of 83 breasts, 7 (8%) developed partial NAC necrosis, and all but one were able to be salvaged.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Our institution was an early adopter of 5-fraction accelerated partial breast irradiation (ABPI) to treat women with early-stage breast cancer. This study reports long-term oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. METHODS:We included patients receiving APBI 600 cGy × 5 fx delivered every other day or every day between 2010 and 2022. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with development of late toxicities, clinician, and patient-rated cosmesis. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to calculate overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LR-RFS). RESULTS:442 patients received APBI either daily (56%) or every other day (44%) in the prone position (92%). At a median follow-up of 48 months (range: 5.96-155 months), 12 (2.7%) patients developed a local recurrence (LR). Out of 258 patients with > 3-month toxicity data available, the most common late grade ≥ 2 adverse event was breast fibrosis (6.2%). On multivariate analysis, daily APBI treatment (vs every other day) did not correlate with an increased risk of any late grade ≥ 2 toxicity though it did correlate with a lower risk of any late grade ≥ 2 fibrosis. Overall, at a median follow-up of 80 months, the rates of good-excellent physician and patient-rated cosmesis were 95% and 85%, respectively, with no difference between patients treated on consecutive vs. every other day. On multivariate analysis, patients who did not receive any adjuvant therapy were at increased risk of developing a LR. Five-year OS, LRFS, and DFS were 97.2%, 97.7%, and 89.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Five-fraction APBI delivered primarily in the prone position either daily or every other day was effective with low rates of local recurrence, minimal toxicity, and excellent cosmesis at long-term follow-up.

There is a paucity of literature examining how preferences differ amongst various demographic groups. This study aimed to assess how perceptions of the ideal breast differ between respondents stratified by self-identified demographic factors. A cohort of 25 patients from the senior surgeon's practice presenting for breast surgery was assembled. Pre-operative anteroposterior photographs of these patients were distributed via Qualtrics (Seattle, WA) to a large sample designed to be representative of the demographics of the United States. Survey questions aimed to measure respondents' impressions of 'breast attractiveness'. Respondents were asked to rate breasts on a Likert scale. Survey responses were analysed for differences in breast aesthetic preferences by sex, gender, sexual orientation, and race. Males rated all breasts higher on the Likert scale for attractiveness than females (2.8 vs 2.5, p < 0.001). Despite this discrepancy, ratings amongst male and female respondents were highly correlated with one another (R = 0.940; p < 0.0001). Considering sexual orientation, individuals attracted to women provided significantly higher attractiveness ratings to all breasts compared to individuals attracted to men only (2.8 vs 2.5, p < 0.001). White or Caucasian individuals ascribed significantly higher breast attractiveness ratings than Asian individuals (2.7 vs 2.2, p < 0.001), but not Black or African American individuals (2.7 vs 2.4, p = 0.23). Despite these racial discrepancies in mean breast attractiveness, ratings amongst the three groups were highly correlated. In a sample representative of the United States, a difference in breast aesthetic appraisal was observed by demographic factors. These findings merit further investigation to understand these trends and observations.