Outcomes analysis of microsurgical physiologic lymphatic procedures for the upper extremity from the United States National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

INTRODUCTION: Physiologic microsurgical procedures to treat lymphedema include vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) and lymphovenous bypass (LVB). The purpose of this study was to assess 30-day outcomes of VLNT and LVB using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. METHODS: NSQIP was queried (2012-2018) for lymphatic procedures for upper extremity lymphedema after mastectomy. Prophylactic lymphatic procedures and those for lower extremity lymphedema were excluded. Outcomes were assessed for three groups: LVB, VLNT, and patients who had procedures simultaneously (VLNA+LVB). Primary outcomes measured were operative time, 30-day morbidities, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: The study included 199 patients who had LVB (n = 43), VLNT (n = 145), or VLNT+LVB (n = 11). There was no difference in co-morbidities between the groups (p = 0.26). 30-day complication rates including unplanned reoperation (6.9% VLNT vs. 2.3% LVB) and readmission (0.69% VLNT vs. none in LVB) were not statistically significant (p = 0.54). Surgical site infection, wound complications, deep vein thromboembolism, and cardiac arrest was also similar among the three groups. Postoperative length of stay for VLNT (2.5 days± 2.3), LVB (1.9 days± 1.9), and VLNT+LVB (2.8 days± 0.3) did not differ significantly (p = 0.20). Operative time for LVB (305.4 min ± 186.7), VLNT (254 min ± 164.4), and VLNT+LVB (295.3 min ± 43.2) was not significantly different (p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of the NSQIP data revealed that VLNT and LVB are procedures with no significant difference in perioperative morbidity. Our results support that choice of VLNT versus LVB can be justifiably made per the surgeon's preference and experience as the operations have similar complication rates

Virtual Interviews for the Independent Plastic Surgery Match: A Modern Convenience or a Modern Misrepresentation?

This article is made available for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or be any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.Objective: The virtual interview for residency and fellowship applicants has previously been utilized preliminarily in their respective processes. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many programs to switch to a virtual interview process on short notice. In the independent plastic surgery process, which was underway when the pandemic started, applicants had a heterogeneous experience of in-person and virtual interviews. The purpose of this study was to assess if applicants prefer a virtual interview experience to an in-person interview as well as determine if virtual interview applicants had a different opinion of a program compared to the in-person interview applicants. Design/Setting/Participants: The 2019 to 2020 applicants who interviewed at the Indiana University Independent Plastic Surgery program were administered an anonymous online survey about their interview experience at our program. Results: Our survey response was 60% (18/30). The in-person interview group (n = 10) rated their overall interview experience higher than the virtual interview group (n = 8) 8.8 vs 7.5 (p = 0.0314). The in-person interview group felt they became more acquainted with the program, the faculty, and the residents more than the virtual group (4.7 vs 3.25, p < 0.0001) (4.3 vs 3.25, p = 0.0194) (4.3 vs 2.75, p < 0.0001). The majority of applicants favored in-person interviews (16/18, 88.9%). The in-person interview group spent significantly more money on their interview at our program compared to the virtual interview group ($587 vs$0, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that the virtual interview process was an efficient process for applicants from both a financial and time perspective. However, the virtual interview process left applicants less satisfied with their interview experience. The applicants felt they did not become as acquainted with the program as their in-person counterparts. The virtual interview process may play a large role in residency and fellowship applications in the future, and programs should spend time on how to improve the process

Evaluation of an Extended-duration Chemoprophylaxis Regimen for Venous Thromboembolism after Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction

Patients undergoing free flap breast reconstruction are at a high risk for venous thromboembolism based upon Caprini scores. Guidelines for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis recommend high-risk groups receive extended chemoprophylaxis for several weeks after gynecological, orthopedic, and surgical oncology cases. Extended prophylaxis has not been studied in free flap breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of free flap breast reconstruction patients who received extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis with those who received standard inpatient-only prophylaxis. Methods: Patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction were divided into two groups: standard VTE prophylaxis (Group I) and extended prophylaxis (Group II). Both groups received prophylactic subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin preoperatively and enoxaparin 40 mg daily postoperatively while inpatient. Group II was discharged with a home regimen of enoxaparin 40 mg daily for an additional 14 days. Results: In total, 103 patients met inclusion criteria (36 patients in Group I, 67 patients in Group II). The incidence of VTE was 1.5% in Group II compared with 2.8% in Group I (P = 0.6). There was no difference in reoperative hematoma between Group I (n = 0) and Group II (n = 1) (P = 0.7). Total flap loss was 2.2%. Conclusions: Although this retrospective pilot study did not show statistical significance in VTE between those receiving extended home chemoprophylaxis (1.5% incidence) compared with inpatient-only chemoprophylaxis (2.8%), the risk of bleeding complications was similar. These results indicate that a larger, higher powered study is justified to assess if an extended home chemoprophylaxis protocol should be standard of care post free flap breast reconstruction

Biofilm Derived Oxylipin Mediated Autoimmune Response in Breast Implant Subjects

Over 10 million women worldwide have breast implants for breast cancer/prophylactic reconstruction or cosmetic augmentation. In recent years, a number of patients have described a constellation of symptoms that are believed to be related to their breast implants. This constellation of symptoms has been named Breast Implant Illness (BII). The symptoms described include chronic fatigue, joint pain, muscle pain and a host of other manifestations often associated with autoimmune illnesses. In this work, we report that bacterial biofilm is associated with BII. We postulate that the pathogenesis of BII is mediated via a host-pathogen interaction whereby the biofilm bacteria Staphylococcus epidermidis interacts with breast lipids to form the oxylipin 10-HOME. The oxylipin 10-HOME was found to activate CD4+ T cells to Th1 subtype. An increased abundance of CD4+Th1 was observed in the breast tissue of BII subjects. The identification of a mechanism of immune activation associated with BII via a biofilm enabled pathway provides insight into the pathogenesis for implant-associated autoimmune symptoms

Diagnostic Accuracy of Lymphoscintigraphy for Lymphedema and Analysis of False-Negative Tests

Background: Lymphedema is the chronic enlargement of tissue due to inadequate lymphatic function. Diagnosis is made by history and physical examination and confirmed with lymphoscintigraphy. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of lymphoscintigraphy for the diagnosis of lymphedema and to determine characteristics of patients with false-negative tests. Methods: Individuals referred to our lymphedema program with “lymphedema” between 2009 and 2016 were analyzed. Subjects were assessed by history, physical examination, and lymphoscintigraphy. Patient age at presentation, duration of lymphedema, location of disease, gender, previous infections, and lymphedema type were analyzed. Results: The study included 227 patients (454 limbs); lymphedema was diagnosed clinically in 169 subjects and confirmed by lymphoscintigraphy in 162 (117 primary, 45 secondary; 96% sensitivity). Fifty-eight patients were thought to have a condition other than lymphedema, and all had negative lymphoscintigrams (100% specificity). A subgroup analysis of the 7 individuals with lymphedema clinically, but normal lymphoscintigrams, showed that all had primary lymphedema; duration of disease and infection history were not different between true-positive and false-negative lymphoscintigram results (P = 0.5). Two patients with a false-negative test underwent repeat lymphoscintigraphy, which then showed lymphatic dysfunction consistent with lymphedema. Conclusion: Lymphoscintigraphy is very sensitive and specific for lymphedema. All patients with false-negative studies had primary lymphedema. A patient with a high clinical suspicion of lymphedema and a normal lymphoscintigram should be treated conservatively for the disease and undergo repeat lymphoscintigraphy