Faculty Bibliography

Introduction: Cleanliness of the canal space is the ultimate goal of its preparation. Nevertheless, some portion of the canal walls are left un-instrumented during preparation. Therefore, the aim of this ex vivo study was to evaluate the cleanliness of un-instrumented canal walls after root canal preparation for the presence or absence of debris and smear layer. Materials and Methods: A total of 24 single-rooted extracted teeth were prepared with the crown-down technique using Protaper universal rotary file system. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) was used to scan the specimens before and after instrumentation. The un-instrumented area was measured and localized. The roots were split longitudinally and then subjected to scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The presence of debris and smear layer in the instrumented and un-instrumented areas of the canal were evaluated by analysing the SEM images with a five-score evaluation system based on the reference photographs. Results: High levels of root canal cleanliness (= score 2) were found for the instrumented areas were detected (P = 0.003). Conclusions: Under the condition of this study, un-instrumented areas of the canal were less clean in comparison to instrumented portion.

BACKGROUND: Women with breast cancer are increasingly choosing to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) despite questionable survival benefit and limited data on added risks. Little is known about differences in perioperative complications between women who undergo bilateral mastectomy (BM) versus unilateral mastectomy (UM) with reconstruction. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Files (2005-2013) were used to identify women with unilateral breast cancer who underwent UM or BM with reconstruction. Adjusted 30-day complications were compared between UM and BM groups using logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 20,501 patients were identified, of whom 35.3 % underwent BM. Of these, 84.3 % had implant reconstruction and 15.7 % had autologous reconstruction. For all women, BM was associated with longer hospital stays (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.98-2.09, p < 0.001) and a higher transfusion rate than UM (aOR 2.52-3.06, p < 0.001). BM with implant reconstruction was associated with a modestly increased reoperation rate (aOR 1.15, p = 0.029). BM with autologous reconstruction was associated with a higher wound disruption rate (aOR 2.51, p = 0.015). Surgical site infections, prosthesis failure, and medical complications occurred at similar rates in UM and BM groups. CONCLUSIONS: CPM is associated with significant increases in some, but not all, surgical site complications. CPM does not increase the likelihood of medical complications, which are generally infrequent.

Modern sarcoma treatment has created new challenges for plastic surgeons. This study was designed to review the recent experience and practice patterns following complex sarcoma resection at a large sarcoma center. All cases from October 2013 to October 2014 involving rare nonepithelial tumors, a multidisciplinary surgical team, radiation and/or chemotherapy treatments, and plastic surgical reconstruction were included in the analysis. In addition to evaluating clinical outcomes, cases were reviewed to identify factors associated with excellent or poor patient care. Review of these cases formed the basis of the greatest healing opportunity for soft tissue (GHOST) protocol. Our patient population included seven males (64%) and four females (36%). All except one patient was exposed to radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or some combination. Diverse procedures were used for reconstruction. Early complications occurred in two patients (18%), and late complications in four patients (36%). Sarcoma resection was found to be highly morbid in our series. Patients with poor preoperative nutritional status were more likely to experience complications postoperatively. The decision to stage a reconstruction was complex and influenced by several factors. Multimodal sarcoma treatments may involve highly morbid procedures and create complex wounds. The GHOST protocol is a useful reference for plastic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Outcome studies of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction have focused largely on patient factors, whereas the relative impact of the surgeon as a contributing variable is not known. As the procedure requires collaboration of both a surgical oncologist and a plastic surgeon, the effect of the surgeon team interaction can have a significant impact on outcome. This study examines outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction and the association with patient characteristics, surgeon, and surgeon team familiarity. METHODS: A retrospective review of 3142 consecutive implant-based breast reconstruction mastectomy procedures at one institution was performed. Infection and skin necrosis rates were measured. Predictors of outcomes were identified by unadjusted logistic regression followed by multivariate logistic regression. Surgeon teams were grouped according to number of cases performed together. RESULTS: Patient characteristics remain the most important predictors for outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction, with odds ratios above those of surgeon variables. The authors observed significant differences in the rate of skin necrosis between surgical oncologists with an approximately two-fold difference between surgeons with the highest and lowest rates. Surgeon teams that worked together on fewer than 150 procedures had higher rates of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics are the most important predictors for surgical outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction, but surgeons and surgeon teams are also important variables. High-volume surgeon teams achieve lower rates of infection. This study highlights the need to examine modifiable risk factors associated with optimum implant-based breast reconstruction outcomes, which include patient and provider characteristics and the surgical team treating the patient. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.