Background:The majority of postmastectomy breast reconstruction performed in the United States is device-based. Typically, a tissue expander or implant is placed in the dual-plane (ie, subpectoral). Prepectoral breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrices following mastectomy is a relatively new technique that has favorable outcomes with minimal complications and satisfactory aesthetic results. Few studies have compared opioid use between the 2 approaches. This study compares duration of postoperative opioid use among patients undergoing prepectoral device-based breast reconstruction with those in whom dual-plane devices were placed.Methods:We reviewed the records of adult female patients aged 18 years or older who underwent prepectoral or dual-plane device-based breast reconstructions following mastectomy by one of the 2 plastic surgeons (A.M. or M.V.) from 2015 to 2017 at a large tertiary care hospital. Patients with a history of substance abuse, chronic pain, or who were already receiving opioid medication were excluded. Electronic medical records were reviewed and patient surveys were conducted during postoperative visits to determine postoperative opioid requirements.Results:During the study period, 58 patients underwent dual-plane breast reconstruction and 94 underwent prepectoral reconstruction. Demographics and comorbidities of the groups were similar. By multivariate regression analysis, the prepectoral reconstruction group required 33% fewer days on opioid analgesic medication (P = 0.016) and were 66% less likely to require opioid prescription refills (P = 0.027). There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes or complications.Conclusion:Patients undergoing prepectoral tissue expander or implant-based reconstruction required fewer days of opioid pain medication than those managed with the dual-plane technique.

BackgroundCytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a treatment option for patients with peritoneal metastases shown to provide improved overall survival for appropriately selected patients. However, the availability and utilization of this treatment remains limited. The aim of this survey-based study was to evaluate factors influencing physician treatment choices for peritoneal metastases.MethodsSurveys were mailed to medical oncologists and surgeons in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. Survey questions evaluated access to HIPEC centers, prior experience with referral to HIPEC centers, opinions regarding efficacy, and knowledge regarding outcomes of CRS and HIPEC.ResultsSurveys were mailed to 2279 physicians; 116 eligible surveys were returned. Seventy-five percent of respondents would consider referral to a HIPEC center for appendiceal peritoneal metastasis, while only 50% would consider it for colon cancer and peritoneal mesothelioma. The most common reason for never referring a patient to a HIPEC center was lack of access to a HIPEC specialist (47%) followed by perceived lack of evidence for the treatment modality (31%). Five-year survival after CRS and HIPEC was underestimated while 30-day mortality was overestimated by more than half of respondents.ConclusionsReferral to HIPEC centers is underutilized among community physicians in practice. Limited access to HIPEC experts is the most common cause for lack of referral, followed by a perception of insufficient evidence for this treatment approach. Lack of familiarity with data regarding outcomes impacts referral patterns and treatment choices. Possible actions to increase awareness and appropriate utilization of CRS and HIPEC are suggested.

Outpatient use of atherectomy for peripheral arterial disease has grown rapidly and outcomes are poorly understood. We analyzed outcomes of atherectomy done for claudication, comparing office and hospital outpatient settings. Analysis of Medicare Part B claims data was performed for incident femoral-popliteal or tibial-peroneal atherectomy from 2012 to 2014. Longitudinal analysis assessed services 18 months before, during, and up to 18 months after the incident peripheral vascular intervention (PVI). Differences between office-based and hospital outpatient-based settings were assessed using χ and Fisher exact tests. Comparing procedure settings, significant differences in race (femoral-popliteal: P = .04, tibial-peroneal: P = .001), chronic renal failure (femoral-popliteal: P = .002), and hypertension (femoral-popliteal: P = .01, tibial-peroneal: P = .006) were found. Nine hundred twenty-four patients undergoing femoral-popliteal atherectomy were analyzed (262 office based, 662 hospital outpatient based); 42.7% of office-based and 36.9% of hospital outpatient-based femoral-popliteal atherectomy patients had repeat PVI within 18 months ( P = .10). Major amputation was performed in 2.3% and 3.2% of patients in office and hospital outpatient settings, respectively ( P = .47). Four hundred twenty-three patients undergoing tibial-peroneal atherectomy were analyzed (202 office based, 221 hospital outpatient based); 46.5% of office-based and 38.9% of hospital outpatient-based tibial-peroneal atherectomy patients had repeat PVI within 1 year ( P = .11). Major amputation was performed in 5.0% and 8.1% of patients in office and hospital outpatient settings, respectively ( P = .19). Our study demonstrates higher than expected rates of major amputation for patients undergoing peripheral arterial atherectomy with regard to previously reported rates. Further studies may be required to prove the efficacy and safety of atherectomy for occlusive disease in the femoral-popliteal and tibial-peroneal segments to ensure outcomes are not worse than the natural history of medically managed claudicants.

No abstract

Ordering blood cultures based on fever or another single predictor inconsistently identifies pathogens. Our dataset, the largest available, identify clinical predictors in the first 10 postoperative days to guide identification of patients with bacteremia.