Although certain medical societies have released guidelines on the use of social media, plastic surgery, with its inherent visual nature and potential for sensationalism, could benefit from increasing direction regarding the ethical use of social media. The authors hypothesized that although general platitudes for use exist in the literature, guidelines articulating the boundaries of professional use are nonspecific. Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase.com, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were completed on January 18, 2017. Searches consisted of a combination of Medical Subject Headings terms and title and abstract keywords for social media and professionalism concepts. In addition, the authors manually searched the three highest impact plastic surgery journals (ending in October of 2017). Two authors screened all titles and abstracts. Studies related to clinical medicine, patient care, and the physician-patient relationship were included for full-text review. Articles related to surgery merited final inclusion. The initial search strategy yielded 954 articles, with 28 selected for inclusion after final review. The authors' manual search yielded nine articles. Of the articles from the search strategy, 10 were published in the urology literature, eight were published in general surgery, six were published in plastic surgery, three were published in orthopedic surgery, and one was published in vascular surgery. Key ethical themes emerged across specialties, although practical recommendations for professional social media behavior were notably absent. In conclusion, social media continue to be a domain with potential professional pitfalls. Appropriate use of social media must extend beyond obtaining consent, and plastic surgeons must adhere to a standard of professionalism far surpassing that of today's media culture.

Risk, III.

Background: Acellular dermal matrix is used in most postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstructions in the United States. It is believed to be safe, despite a slightly increased complication rate. Although never established in a unifying study, the primary advantage of acellular dermal matrix is believed to be an enhanced aesthetic result, thus justifying the added expense. The purpose of this study was to assess the aesthetic benefits of acellular dermal matrix in expander-to-implant breast reconstruction. Methods: A systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology was performed including all original studies examining aesthetic outcomes of expander-to-implant breast reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix compared to muscular coverage. Direct-to-implant and prepectoral studies were excluded from the evaluation. The results were aggregated and reported as a summary. Results: Among 883 studies identified, 49 full-text articles were reviewed and nine articles ultimately met inclusion criteria. All nine studies were not randomized. Of these, three articles (1448 total patients) evaluated reconstruction aesthetic outcomes by patient satisfaction, whereas six articles evaluated the aesthetic outcomes by external observer (504 total patients). None of the articles evaluating patient satisfaction reported a difference between acellular dermal matrix and muscular reconstruction. Five of the six articles using objective outcomes demonstrated significant improvement in aesthetic outcome in the acellular dermal matrix group. Conclusions: Although little evidence exists evaluating the aesthetic benefits of acellular dermal matrix for expander-to-implant breast reconstruction, the data suggest that objective observers consider acellular dermal matrix–assisted expander-to-implant breast reconstructions aesthetically superior to reconstruction with only muscular coverage, but patients appear to be equally satisfied with both reconstructive options.

Background. The decision-making process for women considering breast reconstruction following mastectomy is complex. Research suggests that fewer than half of women undergoing mastectomy have adequate knowledge and make treatment decisions that are concordant with their underlying values. This systematic review assesses the feasibility and efficacy of preoperative decision aids (DAs) to improve the patient decision-making process for breast reconstruction. Methods. A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Databases published prior to January 4, 2018. Studies that assessed the impact of a DA on patient decision making for breast reconstruction were identified. The effect of preoperative DAs on decisional conflict in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was measured with inverse variance-weighted mean differences (mean difference [MD] 6 95% confidence interval [CI]). Results. Among 1299 unique articles identified, 1197 were excluded after reviewing titles and abstracts against selection criteria. Among the 17 studies included in this review, 11 assessed the efficacy of DAs for breast reconstruction and 6 additional studies described the development and usability of these DAs. Studies suggest that DAs reduce patient-reported decisional conflict (MD,-4.55 [95% CI,-8.65 to-0.45], P = 0.03 in the fixed-effects model and MD,-4.70 [95% CI,-10.75 to 1.34], P = 0.13 in the random-effects model). Preoperative DAs also improved patient satisfaction with information and perceived involvement in the decision-making process. Conclusions. The existing literature suggests that DAs reduce decisional conflict, improve self-reported satisfaction with information, and improve perceived involvement in the decision-making process for women considering breast reconstruction.

Background: Implementation of payment reform for breast reconstruction following mastectomy demands a comprehensive understanding of costs related to the complex process of reconstruction. Bundled payments for services to women with breast cancer may profoundly impact reimbursement and access to breast reconstruction. The authors’ objectives were to determine the contribution of cancer therapies, comorbidities, revisions, and complications to costs following immediate reconstruction and the optimal duration of episodes to incentivize cost containment for bundled payment models. Methods: The cohort was composed of women who underwent immediate breast reconstruction between 2009 and 2016 from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database. Continuous enrollment for 3 months before and 24 months after reconstruction was required. Total costs were calculated within predefined episodes (30 days, 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years). Multivariable models assessed predictors of costs. Results: Among 15,377 women in the analytic cohort, 11,592 (75 percent) underwent tissue expander, 1279 (8 percent) underwent direct-to-implant, and 2506 (16 percent) underwent autologous reconstruction. Adjuvant therapies increased costs at 1 year [tissue expander, $39,978 (p < 0.001); direct-to-implant, $34,365 (p < 0.001); and autologous, $29,226 (p < 0.001)]. At 1 year, most patients had undergone tissue expander exchange (76 percent) and revisions (81 percent), and a majority of complications had occurred (87 percent). Comorbidities, revisions, and complications increased costs for all episode scenarios. Conclusions: Episode-based bundling should consider separate bundles for medical and surgical care with adjustment for procedure type, cancer therapies, and comorbidities to limit the adverse impact on access to reconstruction. The authors’ findings suggest that a 1-year time horizon may optimally capture reconstruction events and complications.

No abstract

As survey-based research plays an increasingly prominent role in evaluating the outcomes of breast reconstruction, we found socioeconomic and procedure-related differences in survey response rates. Investigators must consider systematic differences in response rates among particular groups of women on the generalizability and validity of findings and perform rigorous nonresponse bias analyses.

The rate of pediatric replantation has been relatively low, being 27 % at most in a given year. Importantly, short-term outcomes are better in children than for adults, supporting the indication to perform replantation in this age group when the surgeon feels that replantation is feasible and safe.