No abstract

Introduction Oncoplastic breast reduction mammoplasty (ORM) is an excellent treatment option for women with breast cancer and macromastia undergoing breast conservation therapy. Here, we aim to better understand the risks associated with ORM compared to standard reduction mammoplasty (SRM). Methods A retrospective chart review was performed of patients undergoing ORM or SRM from 2015 to 2021. Primary outcomes included the occurrence of major or minor postoperative complications in the two groups and delays to adjuvant therapy (>90 days) among the women undergoing ORM. Results Women in the ORM group (n = 198) were significantly older (p < 0.001) with a higher prevalence of smoking (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.01), and a Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 3 (p < 0.001) compared to women undergoing SRM (n = 177). After controlling for potential confounders, there were no significant between‐group differences in the odds of developing postoperative complications (odds ratio = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.36–1.69). Only 3% (n = 4) of the 150 women undergoing adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy experienced delays related to postoperative complications. Conclusion ORM has a similar safety profile as SRM, despite the older age and higher number of comorbidities often seen in patients undergoing ORM, and is a safe option for achieving contralateral symmetry at the time of partial mastectomy without delays to adjuvant therapy.

Introduction: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is a form of breast conservation surgery involving partial mastectomy followed by volume displacement or replacement surgery. As the field of OPS is growing, we sought to determine if there was a learning curve to this surgery.Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent OPS over a 6-year period with a single surgeon formally trained in both Plastic Surgery and Breast Oncology. Cumulative summation analysis (CUSUM) was performed on mean operative time to generate the learning curve and learning curve phases. Outcomes were compared between phases to determine significance.Results: Mean operative time decreased significantly across the 6-year period, generating three distinct learning curve phases: Learner phase (cases 1−23), Competence phase (24−73), and Mastery phase (74 and greater). The overall positive margin rate was 10.9% and there was no significant difference in rates between phases (p = 0.49). Overall complication rates, reoperation rates, and locoregional recurrence remained the same across all phases (p = 0.16; p = 0.65; p = 0.41). The rate of partial nipple loss decreased between phases (p = 0.02). Conclusion:As with many complex operations, there does appear to be a learning curve with OPS, as the operative time and the rates of partial nipple loss decreased over time.

Background: We aim to discern the impact of closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) on wound healing in the oncoplastic breast surgery population. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent oncoplastic breast surgery with and without ciNPT in a single health system over 6 years. Oncoplastic breast surgery was defined as breast conservation surgery involving partial mastectomy with immediate volume displacement or replacement techniques. Primary outcomes were rates of clinically significant complications requiring either medical or operative intervention, including seroma, hematoma, fat necrosis, wound dehiscence, and infection. Secondary outcomes were rates of minor complications. Results: ciNPT was used in 75 patients; standard postsurgical dressing was used in 142 patients. Mean age (P = 0.73) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (P = 0.11) were similar between the groups. The ciNPT cohort had higher baseline BMIs (28.23 ± 4.94 versus 30.55 ± 6.53; P = 0.004), ASA levels (2.35 ± 0.59 versus 2.62 ± 0.52; P = 0.002), and preoperative macromastia symptoms (18.3% versus 45.9%; P ≤ 0.001). The ciNPT cohort had statistically significant lower rates of clinically relevant complications (16.9% versus 5.3%; P = 0.016), the number of complications (14.1% versus 5.3% with one complication, 2.8% versus 0% with >2; P = 0.044), and wound dehiscence (5.6% versus 0%; P = 0.036). Conclusions: The use of ciNPT reduces the overall rate of clinically relevant postoperative complications, including wound dehiscence. The ciNPT cohort had higher rates of macromastia symptoms, BMI, and ASA, all of which put them at increased risk for complications. Therefore, ciNPT should be considered in the oncoplastic population, especially in those patients with increased risk for postoperative complications.

No abstract