Background: Antifibrinolytic medications, such as tranexamic acid, have recently garnered increased attention. Despite its ability to mitigate intraoperative blood loss and need for blood transfusion, there remains a paucity of research in breast reconstruction. The authors investigate whether intravenous tranexamic acid safely reduces the risk of hematoma following implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed to analyze all consecutive patients undergoing immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy between 2015 and 2016. The incidence of postoperative hematomas and thromboembolic events among all patients was reviewed. The patients in the intervention group received 1000 mg of intravenous tranexamic acid before mastectomy incision and 1000 mg at the conclusion of the procedure. Fisher’s exact test and the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test were used. Multivariate logistic regression models were performed to study the impact of intravenous tranexamic acid after adjusting for possible confounders. Results: A total of 868 consecutive breast reconstructions (499 women) were reviewed. Overall, 116 patients (217 breasts) received intravenous tranexamic acid, whereas 383 patients (651 breasts) did not. Patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar between the two the groups. Patients who received tranexamic acid were less likely to develop hematomas [n = 1 (0.46 percent)] than patients who did not [n = 19 (2.9 percent)] after controlling for age, hypertension, and type of reconstruction (prepectoral and subpectoral) (p = 0.018). Adverse effects of intravenous tranexamic acid, including thromboembolic phenomena were not observed. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age and hypertension independently increase risk for hematoma. Conclusions: Intravenous tranexamic acid safely reduces risk of hematoma in implant-based breast reconstruction. Further prospective randomized studies are warranted to further corroborate these findings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
Background Single-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction can offer several potential benefits. Subpectoral DTI reconstruction can present with animation deformity and pectoralis muscle spasm. To potentially avoid these complications, surgeons have attempted prepectoral placement for DTI; however, the benefits of this approach are mostly unknown. We evaluated the outcomes of DTI between prepectoral and subpectoral placement. Methods This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent immediate DTI breast reconstruction (prepectoral vs subpectoral) between 2011 and 2018. Demographics, clinical characteristics, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q) were compared. Results Thirty-three patients (55 breasts) underwent prepectoral DTI, and 42 patients (69 breasts) underwent subpectoral DTI. Demographics were similar among groups. The number of breasts with preoperative ptosis lower than grade 2 was not significantly different between groups (29.1% vs 26.1%; P = 0.699). Median follow-up was 20.3 and 21 months in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Average mastectomy weight was 300 g (180–425 g) and 355 g (203–500 g). Average implant size was 410 cc (330–465 cc) and 425 cc (315–534 cc) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Alloderm was used in all reconstructions. Total numbers of complications were 4 (7.2%) and 8 (11.6%) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively (P = 0.227). BREAST-Q demonstrated mean patient satisfaction was high and similar among groups (75 and 73.9, P = 0.211). Conclusions Based on these results, we believe prepectoral DTI is safe, reliable, and a promising reconstructive option for selected patients, with equivalent results to other reconstructive options. Our present treatment recommendations are for patients who wish to maintain the same breast size and have minimal or no breast ptosis.
Background: Two-staged implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is the most common breast reconstructive modality. Recently, technological and surgical advances have encouraged surgeons to revisit prepectoral IBR. Data comparing prepectoral against subpectoral IBR in women under the age of 40 are lacking. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients under the age of 40 years old, who underwent immediate 2-staged IBR at our institution, was performed. Patient’s demographics, clinical characteristics, operative details, and early surgical outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction were compared. Data with values of P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Between 2012 and 2016, 100 patients (187 breasts) who underwent prepectoral and 69 patients (124 breasts) who underwent subpectoral IBR were included. Median follow-up was 17.9 and 17.5 months in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Total number of complications including both stages of reconstruction was 20 (10.7%) and 19 (15.3%) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively ( P = 0.227). Specific complications, including hematoma, seroma, skin flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, and breast infections, were not significantly different among groups. Ten (5.4%) devices, including implants and tissue expander, required explantation in the prepectoral group and 8 (6.5%) in the subpectoral group ( P = 0.683). Explantation was most commonly due to infection (n = 14), and all of them occurred during the first stage ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: Early complications and implant explantation rates are comparable among prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction in women under 40 years old. Based on these results, we believe that prepectoral IBR is a safe, reliable, and promising reconstructive option.
Hot-iron branding is painful for cattle, but little is known about the duration of or effective methods to control this pain. This work quantified pain sensitivity and healing in branded and unbranded animals. In addition, the effects of a single injection of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) were also considered; this has been suggested as practical method of mitigating pain in the hours after the procedure. Calves (mean±SE, 126±2.2 d and 112±2.8 kg) were hot-iron branded and allocated to 1 of 4 treatments: branded with or without flunixin meglumine (intravenous; 1.1 mg/kg) and unbranded with or without this NSAID (n=12/treatment). Pain sensitivity was assessed by applying a known and increasing force with a von Frey anesthesiometer in the center of the brand (or equivalent area in nonbranded treatments) until animals showed a behavioral response. Healing was measured with a 6-point scale (1=fresh brand and 6=no scabbing and fully repigmented). These measures, along with weight gain and surface temperature, were recorded 1, 2, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 56, and 71 d after branding. Lying behavior was recorded with loggers from the day before to d 27 after branding. Brand wounds were more painful than nonbranded tissue (P<0.001). These differences were most pronounced in the days immediately after branding (e.g., d 7; 113±36 g of force for Brand vs. 449±23 g force for No brand, mean±SE) but persisted until d 71 (380±37 g force for Brand vs. 453±23 g of force for No brand, mean±SE); only 67% of brands were fully regimented or healed by this time. The first fully healed brand was identified 8 wk after the procedure. Giving a single injection of flunixin had no brand-specific effects on sensitivity, surface temperature, or healing but improved weight gain in the days after branding in all treated groups (flunixin×brand×day, P<0.001). Flunixin-treated animals also spent 0.7 h less time lying down on the day of branding but tended to spend more time lying on d 15 and 26 after the procedure. The magnitude of these differences is small, less than the day-to-day variation, and not brand specific. In summary, brand wounds take at least 8 wk to heal. These wounds remain painful for a least this long, and a single injection of NSAID has no measurable effect in mitigating pain associated with branding, even in days immediately after the procedure.
Background: Pediatric calvarial reconstruction is challenging because of the unique anatomical and growth considerations in this population. Comparative studies evaluating current cranioplasty materials are lacking. This review addresses the knowledge gap in pediatric cranioplasty outcomes with emphasis on current materials used. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Outcome data comparing fresh bone, banked bone, titanium, poly(methyl methacrylate), and polyetheretherketone were abstracted. Results: Twenty studies met the authors’ selection criteria. The mean patient age ranged from 4 to 17.4 years. Autologous cranioplasty was performed in 439 patients, and 201 patients underwent alloplastic reconstruction. Fresh bone grafts and titanium mesh were associated with the lowest infection rates (0.4 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively; p < 0.001), graft failures (2.9 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively; p < 0.001), and surgical-site occurrence rates (8.8 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively; p < 0.001). Banked bone flaps had the highest overall complication rates (51 percent; p < 0.001), bone resorption (39.7 percent; p < 0.001), and failure rates (40.2 percent; p < 0.001), whereas polyetherether ketone had the highest rates of infection (16.1 percent; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Based on the available evidence to date, fresh bone grafts and titanium mesh demonstrated the lowest surgical-site infection, surgical-site occurrence, and graft failure rates. Banked bone flaps had the highest overall surgical-site complications and graft failures. Pediatric cranioplasty outcomes studies are needed to evaluate current and novel cranioplasty materials.
Previous studies have shown that surgical castration wounds take between 10 and 61 d to heal. The objectives of this work were to describe healing, inflammation, lying behavior, and serum concentration of substance P after surgical castration in beef calves and to evaluate the effect of a possible intervention, a single injection of flunixin meglumine (1.1 mg/kg IV, a NSAID), on the healing process. Calves (mean±SE: 25±2.0 d of age; 54±1.4 kg BW) were surgically castrated with or without an injection of flunixin immediately before the procedure (n=24/treatment). Healing was measured with a 5-point scale (1=fresh wound, 5=no visible incision or inflammation) as well as weight gain, scrotal size, and scrotal surface temperature, on d 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 49, and 63 after castration. Serum concentration of substance P was recorded on all d, including d 0, but not d 63. Lying behavior was recorded with loggers from 2 d before to 29 d after castration. Inflammation, as measured by scrotal size, peaked on d 2 and 3 after the procedure (e.g., 51±1.0 mm on d 2 versus 28±1.3 mm before castration) and then declined with time (P<0.001). The first wound to score as fully healed (i.e., 5/5) was seen on d 28; by d 63, 98% of wounds were fully healed. The greatest changes in healing score occurred between d 21 and 35; this was also the peak of wound surface temperature and may correspond with revascularization. Serum concentration of substance P was highest before castration (41±1.2 pg/mL), possibly because the sample was collected after the lidocaine ring block was administered, which was likely painful, and because of separation from the dam and restraint. Values began to drop by d 3 (34±1.2 pg/mL) and leveled out by d 21 (30±1.2 pg/mL; P<0.001). Calves given flunixin had more lying bouts than those that received saline (flunixin by time interaction; P=0.052), but this pattern emerged on and after d 8, well after the 3 to 8 h half-life of this NSAID. In conclusion, castration caused inflammation in the days that followed, and the wounds required a minimum of 4 wk to heal. Provision of an NSAID had no effect on these outcomes.
Background: Prepectoral implant-based reconstruction reemerged as a viable approach following recent advances in reconstructive techniques and technology. To achieve successful outcomes, careful patient selection is critical. Obesity increases the risk of complications and has been suggested as a relative contraindication for prepectoral breast reconstruction. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent immediate two-stage implant-based reconstruction at the authors’ institution was performed. Only women having a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater were included. Patient demographics, operative details, and surgical outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction were compared. Results: One hundred ten patients (189 breasts) who underwent prepectoral and 83 (147 breasts) who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included. Complications were comparable between the two groups. Twelve devices (6.4 percent), including implants and tissue expanders, required explantation in the prepectoral group, and 12 devices (8.2 percent) required explantation in the subpectoral group (p =0.522). Final implant-based reconstruction was achieved in 180 breasts (95.2 percent) in the prepectoral group and 141 breasts (95.9 percent) in the subpectoral group. Regardless of type of reconstruction (prepectoral or subpectoral), for each point increase in body mass index, the odds of complications and device explantation increased by 3.4 percent and 8.6 percent, respectively; and the optimal cutoff to predict higher complications and explantation rates was a body mass index of 34.8 kg/m2 and 34.1 kg/m2, respectively. Conclusions: Obesity increases complications and failure rates in a positive correlation; however, complications and final reconstruction rates are comparable between the prepectoral and subpectoral groups. The authors believe that obesity should not be a contraindication for prepectoral breast reconstruction but that care should be taken in patients with a body mass index above 35 kg/m2. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.