Faculty Bibliography

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.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Given the dialogistic properties of ChatGPT, we hypothesized that this artificial intelligence (AI) function can be used as a self-service tool where clinical questions can be directly answered by AI. Our objective was to assess the content, accuracy, and accessibility of AI-generated content regarding common perioperative questions for reduction mammaplasty. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:less than 0.05. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< 0.0001). AI outputs specifically recommended following surgeon provided postoperative instructions in 82.5% of instances. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Currently available AI tools, in their nascent form, can provide recommendations for common perioperative questions and concerns for reduction mammaplasty. With further calibration, AI interfaces may serve as a tool for fielding patient queries in the future; however, patients must always retain the ability to bypass technology and be able to contact their surgeon.

BACKGROUND:Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has become widely available for breast cancer prophylaxis. There are limited data on its long-term oncologic safety. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of breast cancer in patients who underwent prophylactic NSM. METHODS:All patients undergoing prophylactic NSM at a single institution from 2006 through 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographic factors, genetic predispositions, mastectomy specimen pathology, and oncologic occurrences at follow-up were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed where necessary to classify demographic factors and oncologic characteristics. RESULTS:A total of 871 prophylactic NSMs were performed on 641 patients, with median follow-up of 82.0 months (standard error 1.24). A total of 94.4% of patients ( n = 605) underwent bilateral NSMs, although only the prophylactic mastectomy was considered. The majority of mastectomy specimens (69.6%) had no identifiable pathology. A total of 38 specimens (4.4%) had cancer identified in mastectomy specimens, with ductal carcinoma in situ being the most common (92.1%; n = 35). Multifocal or multicentric disease was observed in seven cases (18.4%) and lymphovascular invasion was identified in two (5.3%). One patient (0.16%), who was a BRCA2 variant carrier, was found to have breast cancer 6.5 years after prophylactic mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS:Overall primary oncologic occurrence rates are very low in high-risk patients undergoing prophylactic NSM. In addition to reducing the risk of oncologic occurrence, prophylactic surgery itself may be therapeutic in a small proportion of patients. Continued surveillance for these patients remains important to assess at longer follow-up intervals. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Risk, IV.