Diagnosis of acute lung allograft rejection is currently based on transbronchial lung biopsies. Additional methods to detect acute allograft dysfunction derived from plasma and bronchoalveolar lavage samples might facilitate diagnosis and ultimately improve allograft survival. This review article gives an overview of the cell profiles of bronchoalveolar lavage and plasma samples during acute lung allograft rejection. The value of these cells and changes within the pattern of differential cytology to support the diagnosis of acute lung allograft rejection is discussed. Current findings on the topic are highlighted and trends for future research are identified.

The role of differential cytology patterns in peripheral blood and bronchoalveolar lavage samples is increasingly investigated as a potential adjunct to diagnose acute and chronic allograft dysfunction after lung transplantation. While these profiles might facilitate the diagnosis of acute cellular rejection, low sensitivity and specificity of these patterns limit direct translation in a clinical setting. In this context, the identification of other biomarkers is needed. This review article gives an overview of cytokine profiles of plasma and bronchoalveolar lavage samples during acute cellular rejection. The value of these cytokines in supporting the diagnosis of acute cellular rejection is discussed. Current findings on the topic are highlighted and experimental settings for future research projects are identified.

Background Seroma formation is the most common donor site complication following autologous breast reconstruction, along with hematoma. Seroma may lead to patient discomfort and may prolong hospital stay or delay adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to compare seroma rates between the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP), transverse musculocutaneous gracilis (TMG), and superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP) donor sites. Methods The authors conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study consisting of chart review of all patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction from April 2018 to June 2020. The primary outcome studied was frequency of seroma formation at the different donor sites. The secondary outcome evaluated potential prognostic properties associated with seroma formation. Third, the number of donor site seroma evacuations was compared between the three donor sites. Results Overall, 242 breast reconstructions were performed in 189 patients. Demographic data were found statistically comparable between the three flap cohorts, except for body mass index (BMI). Frequency of seroma formation was highest at the SGAP donor site (75.0%), followed by the TMG (65.0%), and DIEP (28.6%) donor sites. No association was found between seroma formation and BMI, age at surgery, smoking status, diabetes mellitus, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or DIEP laterality. The mean number of seroma evacuations was significantly higher in the SGAP and the TMG group compared with the DIEP group. Conclusion This study provides a single center's experience regarding seroma formation at the donor site after microsurgical breast reconstruction. The observed rate of donor site seroma formation was comparably high, especially in the TMG and SGAP group, necessitating an adaption of the surgical protocol.

More than 40 years have passed since the description of the first “free abdominoplasty flap” for breast reconstruction by Holmström. In the meantime, surgical advances and technological innovations have resulted in the widespread adoption of autologous breast reconstruction to recreate the female breast after mastectomy. While concepts and techniques are continuing to evolve, maintaining an overview is challenging. This article provides a review of current trends and recent innovations in autologous breast reconstruction.

Background: Subspecialization with dedicated perioperative teams has become common practice in some surgical disciplines. While surgeon experience, the number of surgeons involved, and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are known factors affecting the outcome after microsurgical breast reconstruction, the impact of the perioperative team has not been studied. Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort study consisting of a chart review of all patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction from January 2019-April 2020. Surgery was performed by three microsurgeons at two institutions with different perioperative teams-one being a small clinic [private clinic (PC), 33 beds] and the other being a larger hospital [corporate hospital (CH), 335 beds]. Patients were grouped into two cohorts according to the institution where surgery was performed. The primary outcomes studied were frequency of revision surgery, flap loss and patient length-of-stay (LOS).Results: One hundred and fifty microsurgical breast reconstructions were performed in 125 patients.Demographic data [age, body mass index (BMI), current tobacco use, donor site] was found statistically comparable between both cohorts. In the PC cohort with fewer perioperative care providers, lower rates of revision surgery and flap loss were observed (P value =0.009 and 0.04, respectively). LOS was not significantly different between the two cohorts (P value =0.44). Conclusions:The outcome of microsurgical breast reconstruction depends on multiple factors. In this study, fewer flap complications occurred at the small clinic. One reason among others might be the lower number of perioperative care providers involved and hence higher likelihood of sharing microsurgical cases, which facilitates routine and ensures less variability in care. The value of perioperative team subspecialization in microsurgical breast reconstruction needs to be assessed in prospective studies.