Background and Objectives Two common options for the closure of complex defects are local flaps and skin grafting. The keystone flap, a fasciocutaneous flap based on perforators, has demonstrated compelling ease of use, reproducibility, and low complication rates without requiring a distant donor site. Our objective for this study was to compare postoperative outcomes for keystone flaps and skin grafts in cancer resection. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing keystone flap closure or skin grafting for soft tissue defects resulting from cancer resection at a single institution from June 2017 to June 2018. Patient demographics, operative indications, length of stay, time to heal, and complications were reviewed. Results A total of 34 patients were identified having undergone either keystone reconstruction (n = 16) or skin graft (n = 18) after oncologic resection. Patients undergoing keystone flap reconstruction had significantly shorter mobility restriction and healing times. Length of hospital stay and overall complication rates were not significantly different. Conclusion The keystone flap is an adaptable tool that can safely be used for the coverage of complex defects with faster healing, shorter mobility restriction, and comparable complication rates to skin grafting without the need for a distant donor site.

Background Reconstructive surgery is often required following lower extremity soft tissue sarcoma resection. The relationship between the method of plastic surgery reconstruction and postoperative wound healing or functional oncologic outcomes in this patient population is poorly understood. Methods We performed a retrospective review on all adult patients that underwent soft tissue reconstruction following resection of lower extremity soft tissue sarcomas between 1996 and 2016 at our institution. Results One hundred and thirty‐six patients were identified. Wound complications occurred within 6‐months postoperatively in 72 patients (52.9%). Average time to heal was 13.0 weeks. Limb survival was 94.9%. 16.9% and 36.8% of patients had evidence of local recurrence or metastatic disease, respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of overall wound complications, time to heal, limb survival, local recurrence, or metastatic disease between the different reconstructive methods. Conclusions In our cohort, the utilization of different reconstructive techniques did not correlate with a difference in postoperative wound complications or oncologic outcomes. Local flaps can effectively reconstruct the majority of lower extremity sarcoma defects that cannot be closed primarily. However, alternative reconstructive techniques may be utilized when indicated without a significant increase in postoperative morbidity in this patient population.

Objectives To survey academic and community physician preferences regarding the virtual multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) for further improvement and expansion. Study Design This anonymous 14‐question survey was sent to individuals that participated in the head and neck virtual MTBs. The survey was sent via email beginning August 3, 2021, through October 5, 2021. Setting The University of Maryland Medical Center and regional practices in the state of Maryland. Methods Survey responses were recorded and presented as percentages. Subset analysis was performed to obtain frequency distributions by facility and provider type. Results There were 50 survey responses obtained with a response rate of 56%. Survey participants included 11 surgeons (22%), 19 radiation oncologists (38%), and 8 medical oncologists (16%), amongst others. More than 96% of participants found the virtual MTB to be useful when discussing complex cases and impactful to future patient care. A majority of respondents perceived a reduction in time to adjuvant care (64%). Community and academic physician responses strongly agreed that the virtual MTB improved communication (82% vs 73%), provided patient‐specific information for cancer care (82% vs 73%), and improved access to other specialties (66% vs 64%). Academic physicians, more so than community physicians, strongly agreed that the virtual MTB improves access to clinical trial enrollment (64% vs 29%) and can be useful in obtaining CME (64% vs 55%). Conclusion Academic and community physicians view the virtual MTB favorably. This platform can be adapted regionally and further expanded to improve communication between physicians and improve multidisciplinary care for patients.