Background Academic medical centers with large volumes of autologous breast reconstruction afford residents hand-on educational experience in microsurgical techniques. We present our experience with autologous reconstruction (deep inferior epigastric perforators, profunda artery perforator, lumbar artery perforator, bipedicled, and stacked) where a supervised trainee completed the microvascular anastomosis. Methods Retrospective chart review was performed on 413 flaps (190 patients) with microvascular anastomoses performed by postgraduate year (PGY)-4, PGY-5, PGY-6, PGY-7 (microsurgery fellow), or attending physician (AP). Comorbidities, intra-operative complications, revisions, operative time, ischemia time, return to operating room (OR), and flap losses were compared between training levels. Results Age and all comorbidities were equivalent between groups. Total operative time was highest for the AP group. Flap ischemia time, return to OR, and intraoperative complication were equivalent between groups. Percentage of flaps requiring at least one revision of the original anastomosis was significantly higher in PGY-4 and AP than in microsurgical fellows: PGY-4 (16%), PGY-5 (12%), PGY-6 (7%), PGY-7 (2.1%), and AP (16%), p = 0.041. Rates of flap loss were equivalent between groups, with overall flap loss between all groups 2/413 (<1%). Conclusion With regard to flap loss and microsurgical vessel compromise, lower PGYs did not significantly worsen surgical outcomes for patients. AP had the longest total operative time, likely due to flap selection bias. PGY-4 and AP groups had higher rates of revision of original anastomosis compared with PGY-7, though ultimately these differences did not impact overall operative time, complication rate, or flap losses. Hands-on supervised microsurgical education appears to be both safe for patients, and also an effective way of building technical proficiency in plastic surgery residents.

Background: The authors present their stacked flap breast reconstruction experience to facilitate selection of either caudal internal mammary vessels or intraflap vessels for the second recipient anastomosis. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of multiflap breast reconstructions (double-pedicled deep inferior epigastric perforator, stacked profunda artery perforator, and stacked profunda artery perforator/deep inferior epigastric perforator) performed at the authors’ institution from 2011 to 2018. Data collected included demographics, recipient vessels used, and intraoperative/postoperative flap complications. Complications were compared between cranial, caudal, and intraflap anastomoses. Results: Four hundred stacked flaps were performed in 153 patients. Of 400 arterial anastomoses, 200 (50 percent) were to cranial internal mammary vessels, 141 (35.3 percent) were to caudal internal mammary vessels, and 59 (14.8 percent) were to intraflap vessels. Of 435 venous anastomoses, 145 (33.3 percent) were to caudal internal mammary vessels, 201 (46.2 percent) were to cranial internal mammary vessels, and 89 (20.5 percent) were to intraflap vessels. Intraoperative revision for thrombosis occurred in 12 of 141 caudal (8.5 percent), 14 of 20 cranial (7 percent), and seven of 59 intraflap (11.9 percent) arterial anastomoses (p = 0.373), and in none of caudal, three of 201 cranial (1.5 percent), and two of 89 intraflap (2.2 percent) venous anastomoses (p = 0.559). Postoperative anastomotic complications occurred in 12 of 400 flaps (3 percent) and were exclusively attributable to venous compromise; seven of 12 (58.3 percent) were salvaged, and five of 12 (41.7 percent) were lost. More lost flaps were caused by caudal [four of five (80 percent)] versus cranial [one of five (20 percent)] or intraflap (zero of five) thrombosis (p = 0.020). Conclusion: If vessel features are equivalent between the caudal internal mammary vessels and intraflap vessels, intraflap vessels should be used for second site anastomosis in stacked flap reconstructions. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Introduction: In addition to prophylactic mastectomies, BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are increasingly choosing to undergo risk-reducing procedures such as hysterectomies and salpingo-oophorectomies. Sometimes these surgeries are performed in the same visit as a mastectomy or a revisionary reconstruction procedure. Literature lacks descriptions of complications and trends for these combined surgeries. Methods: Group 1 patients (n = 10, flaps = 20) had abdominal gynecologic procedures at the time of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap (DIEP flap) reconstruction. Group 2 patients (n = 29, breasts = 58) had gynecologic procedures at the time of mastectomy and tissue-expander placement. Group 3 patients (n = 141, breasts = 257) had mastectomy and tissue-expander reconstruction without gynecologic procedures and were used as a control group for group 2. Group 4 patients (n = 357, flaps = 673) had autologous breast reconstruction without gynecologic procedures and were used as a control for group 1. Categorical variables such as complications and flap loss were analyzed using χ2 tests. Continuous variables such as age, body mass index (BMI), operative time, length of stay were analyzed with 2-tailed t tests. Multivariate analyses were run to control for group differences. Results: Groups 1 and 4 were equivalent in age and comorbidities, except group 1 (32.8 kg/m2) had significantly higher BMI than group 4 (31.4 kg/m2), P = .028. Average operating time was statistically equivalent for group 1 patients (610 minutes) and group 4 patients (503 minutes), P = .289. Average hospital stay was equivalent as well (group 1 = 4.4 days, group 4 = 4.1 days, P = .676). Operative times for group 2 patients (457 minutes) were significantly longer than for group 3 patients (288 minutes), P < .01. Group 2 patients (3 nights) had significantly longer hospital stays than group 3 patients (2 nights), P < .01. Group 1 patients (2/20 flaps, 10%) had a significantly higher rate of flap loss than group 4 patients (8/673 flaps, 1%), P < .01. There were no differences in other flap complications. Additionally, there were no significant differences in postoperative tissue-expander complications between group 2 and group 3. Discussion: Both flap losses in Group 1 patients occurred in a single patient with BMI = 39.3 kg/m2 and a personal history of recurrent DVTs. Additionally, the rates of complications across other measures were equivalent between groups. Thus, despite the increased rate of flap loss in Group 1 (10%) vs Group 4 (1.3%), along with the increased operative times and hospital stays, certain patients can be advised that a prophylactic gynecological procedure is safe to combine with breast reconstruction.

No abstract