No abstract

No abstract

Large intraabdominal, retroperitoneal, and abdominal wall sarcomas provide unique challenges in treatment due to their variable histology, potential considerable size at the time of diagnosis, and the ability to invade into critical structures. Historically, some of these tumors were considered inoperable if surgical access was limited or the consequential defect was unable to be closed primarily as reconstructive options were limited. Over time, there has been a greater understanding of the abdominal wall anatomy and mechanics, which has resulted in the development of new techniques to allow for sound oncologic resections and viable, durable options for abdominal wall reconstruction. Currently, intra-operative positioning and employment of a variety of abdominal and posterior trunk incisions have made more intraabdominal and retroperitoneal tumors accessible. Primary involvement or direct invasion of tumor into the abdominal wall is no longer prohibitive as utilization of advanced hernia repair techniques along with the application of vascularized tissue transfer have been shown to have the ability to repair large area defects involving multiple quadrants of the abdominal wall. Both local and distant free tissue transfer may be incorporated, depending on the size and location of the area needing reconstruction and what residual structures are remaining surrounding the resection bed. There is an emphasis on selecting the techniques that will be associated with the least amount of morbidity yet will restore and provide the appropriate structure and function necessary for the trunk. This review article summarizes both initial surgical incisional planning for the oncologic resection and a variety of repair options for the abdominal wall spanning the reconstructive ladder.

Racial and ethnic disparities are endemic to the United States and are only beginning to attract the attention of researchers. With an increasingly diverse population, focused and tailored medicine to provide more equitable care is needed. For surgical trauma populations, this topic is a small but expanding field and still rarely mentioned in burn medicine. Disparities in prevention, treatment, and recovery outcomes between different racial and ethnic minorities who are burned are rarely discussed. The purpose of this study is to determine the current status of identified disparities of care in the burn population literature and areas of future research. A systematic review was conducted of literature utilizing PubMed for articles published between 2000-2020. Searches were used to identify articles that crossed the burn term (burn patient OR burn recovery OR burn survivor OR burn care) and a race/ethnicity and insurance status-related term (race/ethnicity OR African-American OR Black OR Asian OR Hispanic OR Latino OR Native American OR Indigenous OR Mixed race OR 2 or more races OR socioeconomic status OR insurance status). Inclusion criteria were English studies in the US that discussed disparities in burn injury outcomes or risk factors associated with race/ethnicity. 1,169 papers were populated, 55 were reviewed, and 36 articles met inclusion criteria. Most studies showed minorities had poorer inpatient and outpatient outcomes. While this is a concerning trend, there is a paucity of literature in this field and more research is needed to create culturally-tailored medical care and address the needs of disadvantaged burn survivors.

Introduction A significant portion of intensive care unit (ICU) patients require a Foley catheter during their admission. Foley use has become more criticized as nationwide quality improvement processes attempt to reduce catheter associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI). Burn patients in the ICU have a higher rate of catheter utilization due to difficult fluid management, need for accurate volume measurements, and significant wound care. Males may have a condom catheter exchanged once they are stabilized. Historically, a noninvasive alternative to the Foley has not been available for females. While the female external catheter has existed for quite some time and hospital systems are increasingly encouraging their use, there is no standard of practice for when they are best utilized. Specific to the burn population, potential barriers include body habitus, perineal burns, and pain on frequent changing of the device. Our study aims to evaluate the current female external catheter use in our burn ICU in order to develop a standard protocol to increase utilization while thoughtfully delineating the contraindications. Methods A quality improvement project for guidelines on the use of a female external urinary collection device was conducted. All female patients admitted to the burn ICU during 2019 were included. Data was collected on burn TBSA, anatomic location, ICU days, ventilator days, and foley catheter days. Foley catheter days, external urinary catheter days, urinary tract infection (UTI) rates, and incidence of failure of external device were collected. Results Of the 46 total female burn patients, 31 required a foley catheter at some point during their stays. 11 patients used an external urinary collection device. Of the 11 users, one urinary device had to be removed due to skin breakdown. One other patient required replacement with a Foley catheter as a result of oliguria and the need for closer fluid management. 5 of the successful users of the external catheter were clinically obese. No patients contracted a UTI while using the external catheter. 3 UTI’s developed in women while using a Foley catheter. Patients who had altered mental status and perineal wounds were not eligible to use the external catheter. Conclusions In our practice, we found contraindications to external female catheter use to include altered mental status and perineal wounds. Obesity was not a contraindication and device usage may be most beneficial in incontinent patients. Further investigation is needed to better optimize female external urinary collection device usage within the burn ICU setting. This may help minimize CAUTI’s among female burn patients.

Therapeutic, III.

Background Patients with hormone receptor-positive breast tumors receive hormonal therapy with either selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) (eg, tamoxifen) or aromatase inhibitors (AIs) (eg, anastrozole) for 5 to 10 years. Patients are using these therapies frequently during breast reconstruction. Literature investigating the effects of hormonal modulators on breast reconstruction outcomes demonstrates conflicting results. We sought to perform a systematic evaluation to assess the effects of hormonal therapy on breast reconstruction outcomes and to guide perioperative management of antiestrogen therapies. Methods A MEDLINE, PubMed, and EBSCO Host search of articles regarding the effects of SERMs and AIs on breast reconstruction was performed. Outcomes evaluated included wound complications, total or partial flap loss, and thromboembolic events. Included studies were assigned Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies quality scores. Results A total of 2581 flaps were analyzed for complete loss: patients taking SERMs at the time of reconstruction had higher rates of flap loss compared with patients not taking hormone modulators (P < 0.001). Flap loss was not affected by concurrent AI use (P = 0.11). Both SERMs and AIs had an increased risk of donor site complications (P = 0.0021 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Neither hormone modulator had an effect on flap wound complications or venous thromboembolic event rates. Conclusions Evidence indicates patients using SERMs at the time of operation are at an increased risk of flap loss and those taking either SERMs or AIs have higher rates of donor site complications. These findings support holding these medications for 1 to 2 half lives (tamoxifen, 14–28 days; AIs, 2–4 days) preoperatively.

No abstract