PDF herunterladen
J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37(04): 309-314
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716404
Original Article

Intraoperative Microvascular Complications in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: The Effects of Resident Training on Microsurgical Outcomes

Sumeet S. Teotia   *
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Ryan M. Dickey    *
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Yulun Liu
2   Department of Population and Data Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Avinash P. Jayaraman
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Nicholas T. Haddock
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

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.

Keywords

resident outcomes - microsurgery - breast reconstruction

* These authors should be considered as first authors.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 20. April 2020

Angenommen: 26. Juli 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
06. September 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Operative minimums effective review committee for plastic surgery. Accessed August 17, 2020 at: https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramResources/Operative_Minimums_effective_07012014.pdf?ver=2017-07-10-102733-190
  • 2 Johnson SP, Chung KC, Waljee JF. Evidence-based education in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136 (02) 258e-266e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Javid P, Aydın A, Mohanna PN, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Current status of simulation and training models in microsurgery: a systematic review. Microsurgery 2019; 39 (07) 655-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Al-Bustani S, Halvorson EG. Status of microsurgical simulation training in plastic surgery: a survey of united states program directors. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76 (06) 713-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Evgeniou E, Walker H, Gujral S. The role of simulation in microsurgical training. J Surg Educ 2018; 75 (01) 171-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mueller MA, Pourtaheri N, Evans GRD. Microsurgery training resource variation among US integrated plastic surgery residency programs. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (03) 176-181
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hashmi A, Khan FA, Herman F. et al. A survey of current state of training of plastic surgery residents. BMC Res Notes 2017; 10 (01) 234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jubbal KT, Chang D, Izaddoost SA, Pederson W, Zavlin D, Echo A. Resident involvement in microsurgery: an american college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program analysis. J Surg Educ 2017; 74 (06) 1124-1132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cho M-J, Halani SH, Davis J, Zhang AY. Achieving balance between resident autonomy and patient safety: Analysis of resident-led microvascular reconstruction outcomes at a microsurgical training center with an established microsurgical training pathway. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2020; 73 (01) 118-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Brady JS, Crippen MM, Filimonov A. et al. The effect of training level on complications after free flap surgery of the head and neck. Am J Otolaryngol 2017; 38 (05) 560-564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wu WW, Medin C, Bucknor A, Kamali P, Lee BT, Lin SJ. Evaluating the impact of resident participation and the july effect on outcomes in autologous breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 81 (02) 156-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sebai ME, Bello RJ, Lifchez SD, Cooney DS, Rosson GD, Cooney CM. The effect of resident involvement on postoperative short-term surgical outcomes in immediate breast reconstruction: a national surgical quality improvement program study of 24,005 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (06) 1325-1334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Jubbal KT, Echo A, Spiegel AJ, Izaddoost SA. The impact of resident involvement in breast reconstruction surgery outcomes by modality: an analysis of 4,500 cases. Microsurgery 2017; 37 (07) 800-807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Haddock NT, Teotia SS. Deconstructing the reconstruction: evaluation of process and efficiency in deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (04) 717e-724e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Malyar M, Peymani A, Johnson AR, Chen AD, Van Der Hulst RRWJ, Lin SJ. The impact of resident postgraduate year involvement in body-contouring and breast reduction procedures: a comprehensive analysis of 9638 patients. Ann Plast Surg 2019; 82 (03) 310-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kaplan J, Volk AS, Ashley JR, Izaddoost S, Reece E, Winocour S. A systematic review of resident aesthetic clinic outcomes. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (09) NP387-NP395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Walker NJ, Crantford JC, Rudolph MA, David LR. Outcomes analysis of chief cosmetic clinic over 13 years. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (06) 600-606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Stotland MA, Boonipat T, Lundgren CM, Gonzalo EG. Universal applicability of the furlow palatoplasty: resident as primary surgeon in a consecutive, nonselective series. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (04) 406-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cho MJ, Haddock NT, Teotia SS. Clinical decision making using CTA in conjoined, bipedicled DIEP and SIEA for unilateral breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (04) 241-246
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Opsomer D, Stillaert F, Blondeel P, Van Landuyt K. The lumbar artery perforator flap in autologous breast reconstruction: initial experience with 100 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (01) 1e-8e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chao AH, Coriddi M. The impact of intraoperative microvascular compromise on outcomes in microsurgical breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2015; 31 (07) 493-499
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Huffman EM, Martin JR, Stefanidis D. Teaching technical surgery. Surgery 2020; 167 (05) 782-786
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rao A, Tait I, Alijani A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of mental training in the acquisition of technical skills in surgery. Am J Surg 2015; 210 (03) 545-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Flinn JT, Miller A, Pyatka N, Brewer J, Schneider T, Cao CG. The effect of stress on learning in surgical skill acquisition. Med Teach 2016; 38 (09) 897-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Dietrich A. Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the experience of flow. Conscious Cogn 2004; 13 (04) 746-761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Chan W, Niranjan N, Ramakrishnan V. Structured assessment of microsurgery skills in the clinical setting. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63 (08) 1329-1334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Selber JC, Chang EI, Liu J. et al. Tracking the learning curve in microsurgical skill acquisition. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (04) 550e-557e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Temple CLF, Ross DCA. A new, validated instrument to evaluate competency in microsurgery: the University of Western Ontario Microsurgical Skills Acquisition/Assessment instrument [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (01) 215-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Schaverien MV, Liu J, Butler CE, Selber JC. Factors correlating with microsurgical performance: a clinical and experimental study. J Surg Educ 2018; 75 (04) 1045-1051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cho MJ, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Classification and management of donor-site wound complications in the profunda artery perforator flap for breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (02) 110-115
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cho MJ, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Predictors, classification, and management of umbilical complications in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (01) 11-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lindenblatt N, Gruenherz L, Farhadi J. A systematic review of donor site aesthetic and complications after deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2019; 8 (04) 389-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar