The Impact of Oncoplastic Reduction on Initiation of Adjuvant Radiation and Need for Reexcision: A Database Evaluation.
Annals of plastic surgery
2022; 89 (6): e11-e17
INTRODUCTION: Partial breast reconstruction with oncoplastic reduction can provide breast cancer patients with improved aesthetic outcomes after breast conservation therapy. This study evaluates the implications of simultaneous oncoplastic reduction with lumpectomy on complication rates, time to adjuvant radiation therapy, and rates of margin reexcision compared with lumpectomy alone.METHODS: The Clinformatics Data Mart Database is a national deidentified commercial claims data warehouse. From 2003 to 2020, adult female patients were queried to identify patients with a breast cancer diagnosis with International Classification of Disease codes. Among those, current procedural terminology codes were used to identify those who underwent lumpectomy alone versus lumpectomy with oncoplastic reduction. Patient demographics, complications, adjuvant oncologic therapies, and need for reexcision were recorded. Patients not continuously enrolled for at least 6 months before and after the index procedure were excluded. Multivariable regression and chi 2 tests were used for statistical analysis.RESULTS: Of 53,165 patients meeting criteria (mean age, 61.4 ± 11.6 years), 1552 (2.9%) underwent oncoplastic reduction. Diagnoses of most nonsurgical complications (seroma, wound dehiscence, postoperative infection, fat necrosis, tissue necrosis, and nonspecified complications of surgical care) were significantly higher in the oncoplastic reduction group, as were rates of some surgical complications (hematoma, seroma, and tissue debridement). However, undergoing oncoplastic reduction did not impact time to adjuvant radiation ( P = 0.194) and protected against positive margins requiring repeat lumpectomy or completion mastectomy ( P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing breast conservation therapy, simultaneous oncoplastic reduction decreased occurrence of positive margins and did not impact time to adjuvant radiation therapy despite increased rates of surgical and nonsurgical complications.
View details for DOI 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003313
View details for PubMedID 36416687
Reinforced Biologic Mesh Reduces Postoperative Complications Compared to Biologic Mesh after Ventral Hernia Repair.
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
2022; 10 (2): e4083
The use of biologic mesh to reinforce the abdominal wall in ventral hernia repair has been proposed as a viable alternative to synthetic mesh, particularly for high-risk patients and in contaminated settings. However, a comparison of clinical outcomes between the currently available biologic mesh types has yet to be performed.We performed a retrospective analysis of 141 patients who had undergone ventral hernia repair with biologic mesh, including noncross-linked porcine ADM (NC-PADM) (n = 51), cross-linked porcine ADM (C-PADM) (n = 17), reinforced biologic ovine rumen (RBOR) (n = 36), and bovine ADM (BADM) (n = 37) at the Stanford University Medical Center between 2002 and 2020. Postoperative donor site complications and rates of hernia recurrence were compared between patients with different biologic mesh types.Abdominal complications occurred in 47.1% of patients with NC-PADM, 52.9% of patients with C-PADM, 16.7% of patients with RBOR, and 43.2% of patients with BADM (P = 0.015). Relative risk for overall complications was higher in patients who had received NC-PADM (RR = 2.64, P = 0.0182), C-PADM (RR = 3.19, P = 0.0127), and BADM (RR = 2.11, P = 0.0773) compared with those who had received RBOR. Furthermore, relative risk for hernia recurrence was also higher in all other mesh types compared with RBOR.Our data indicate that RBOR decreases abdominal complications and recurrence rates after ventral hernia repair compared with NC-PADM, C-PADM, and BADM.
View details for DOI 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004083
View details for PubMedID 35141102
View details for PubMedCentralID PMC8820910