Background: Breast reconstruction (BR) often forms part of a patient's breast cancer journey. Revision surgery may be required to maintain the integrity of a BR, although this is not commonly reported in the literature. Different reconstructive methods may have differing requirements for revision. It is important for patients and surgeons to understand the factors leading to the need for revision surgery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyses BRs performed by oncoplastic breast surgeons in public and private settings between 2005 and 2014, with follow-up until December 2018. Surgical and patient factors were examined, including types of BR, complications and reasons for revision surgery. Results: A total of 390 women with 540 reconstructions were included, with a median follow-up of 61 months. Twenty-eight percent (151/540) of reconstructions required at least one revision operation. Overall, implant-based reconstructions (direct-to-implant [DTI] and two-stage expander-implant) had a higher revision rate compared to pedicled flap reconstructions (odds ratio 1.91, 95% confidence interval 1.08, 3.38). DTI reconstructions had the highest odds, and pedicled flap without implants the lowest odds of requiring revision. Post-reconstruction radiotherapy increased the chance of revision surgery, while prereconstruction radiotherapy did not. Odds of revision were higher in implant-based reconstructions compared to pedicled flap reconstructions that had radiotherapy. Other factors increasing the rates of revision surgery were being a current smoker and post-operative infection. Conclusion:Almost one-third of reconstructive patients require revision surgery. Autologous pedicled flap reconstructions have lower rates of revision compared to implant-based reconstructions. Radiotherapy increases the need for revision surgery, particularly in implant-based reconstructions.

Introduction The burden of complex abdominal wall hernia (CAWH) is increasing, with associated high morbidity and healthcare costs. This study evaluates current evidenoptce regarding multidisciplinary care for CAWH patients to improve patient outcomes. Methods A systematic review of Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Library was conducted to identify proposed or established multidisciplinary team (MDT) pathways, necessary MDT constituents, and to evaluate patient outcomes. The pre‐optimization pathways were then compared with a recent Delphi consensus statement. Results Seven articles matched the relevant search criteria. Three were concept articles, without prospective data analysis. Four were case series that applied multidisciplinary care and included limited data analyses with outcomes reported up to 50 months. The consensus was that CAWH MDT requires multiple clinical specialties, including hernia, upper gastrointestinal, colorectal and/or plastic and reconstructive surgeons, along with allied health specialists, radiologists, anaesthetists/pain specialists and infectious diseases consultants. A successful MDT should aim to achieve pre‐optimization and plan the definitive repair. These pre‐optimization pathways were similar to the recent Delphi consensus by international hernia experts. Using these data, we propose a CAWH multidisciplinary pathway model in an Australian tertiary hospital involving a stepwise approach with well‐defined referral criteria, perioperative high‐risk management with pre‐optimization, surgical planning, postoperative care and follow‐up protocols. This pathway incorporates prospective data collection in a Clinical Quality Registry (CQR) to validate its appropriateness. Conclusions CAWH MDT can provide comprehensive, patient‐centred care with improved postoperative outcomes. CQR are important to better evaluate long‐term outcomes and ensure rigorous quality control.

Background Diverting ileostomy (DI) is utilised in rectal cancer surgery to mitigate the effects of anastomotic leak. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical risk factors associated with post‐operative complications of DI reversal. Methods A single‐centre retrospective analysis of patients who underwent surgical resection for rectal cancer and subsequent DI reversal between January 2012 and December 2020 was undertaken. Medical records were reviewed to extract clinical, operative and pathologic details and post‐operative complications according to the Clavien‐Dindo classification. Univariate and multivariable analyses were undertaken to assess risk factors associated with post‐operative complications of DI reversal. Results One hundred and twenty‐six adult patients who underwent DI reversal were included of which 49 had a post‐operative complication (39%). The most common complication was prolonged post‐operative ileus, which occurred in 24 patients (19%). On multivariable analysis smoking was significantly associated with overall complications (odds ratio [OR] = 5.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.90–16.52, p = 0.0018), and high Clavien‐Dindo (2–5) category complications (OR = 4.60, 95% CI 1.81–11.68, p = 0.0013). In addition, patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy were less likely to have a reversal of DI complication (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.19–0.94, p = 0.0342) and less likely to have a high Clavien‐Dindo (2–5) category complication (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.20–0.93, p = 0.0311). Conclusion Smokers who have undergone surgical resection of rectal cancer have a significantly increased risk of post‐operative complications after DI reversal. In these patients, the importance of smoking cessation must be emphasised. The decreased complication rate observed in patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy was an unexpected finding.

Introduction Partial breast reconstruction based on the anterior intercostal artery perforators (AICAP) has been suggested to avoid the unsightly ‘bird's beak’ deformity for lower pole breast cancers. The aims of this study were to evaluate the initial clinical experience of AICAP flaps in terms of safety and efficacy in oncoplastic breast reconstruction. Methods Between October 2013 and April 2020, AICAP flaps were offered to 30 patients with lower pole breast cancers. Hand‐held Acoustic Doppler assessments were undertaken to confirm adequate perforators. Surgical results were evaluated in terms of safety and efficacy. Patients were invited to complete sections of the Breast‐Q questionnaire at least 12 months postoperatively to assess patient satisfaction in terms of cosmetic outcome, physical and psychosocial wellbeing. Results Median operating theatre time for AICAP flap harvesting and positioning was 20 min (range 15–28 min). The median weight of resected breast specimens was 41 g (range 10–127 g). Total tumour size ranged from 7 to 35 mm (median 16 mm; three cases exhibited multifocal disease). Clear radial resection margins were achieved in 29 cases (96.7%). The median post‐operative stay was two days (range 2–3 days). There were two postoperative complications comprising delayed wound healing/fat necrosis, which resolved with monitoring and inadine dressings. Based on the Breast‐Q results, patients reported high levels of satisfaction with the physical appearance of their reconstructed breast, psychosocial and physical wellbeing. Conclusion AICAP flaps appear to be safe in restoring breast contour after wide excision of lower pole breast cancers, with high levels of patient satisfaction reported postoperatively.