Melissa Anne Mallory1,2, Katya Losk3, Kristen Camuso3, Stephanie Caterson4, Suniti Nimbkar1, Mehra Golshan5,6. 1. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Quality and Patient Safety, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. MGolshan@partners.org. 6. Department of Surgery, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. MGolshan@partners.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bilateral mastectomies (BM) are traditionally performed by single surgeons (SS); a co-surgeon (CS) technique, where each surgeon concurrently performs a unilateral mastectomy, offers an alternative approach. We examined differences in general surgery time (GST), overall surgery time (OST), and patient complications for BM performed by CS and SS. METHODS: Patients undergoing BM with tissue expander reconstruction (BMTR) between January 2010 and May 2014 at our center were identified through operative case logs. GST (incision to end of BM procedure), reconstruction duration (RST) (plastic surgery start to end of reconstruction) and OST (OST = GST + RST) was calculated. Patient age, presence/stage of cancer, breast weight, axillary procedure performed, and 30-day postoperative complications were extracted from medical records. Differences in GST and OST between CS and SS cases were assessed with a t test. A multivariate linear regression was fit to identify factors associated with GST. RESULTS: A total of 116 BMTR cases were performed [CS, n = 67 (57.8 %); SS, n = 49 (42.2 %)]. Demographic characteristics did not differ between groups. GST and OST were significantly shorter for CS cases, 75.8 versus 116.8 min, p < .0001, and 255.2 versus 278.3 min, p = .005, respectively. Presence of a CS significantly reduces BMTR time (β = -38.82, p < .0001). Breast weight (β = 0.0093, p = .03) and axillary dissection (β = 28.69, p = .0003) also impacted GST. CONCLUSIONS: The CS approach to BMTR reduced both GST and OST; however, the degree of time savings (35.1 and 8.3 %, respectively) was less than hypothesized. A larger study is warranted to better characterize time, cost, and outcomes of the CS-approach for BM.
BACKGROUND: Bilateral mastectomies (BM) are traditionally performed by single surgeons (SS); a co-surgeon (CS) technique, where each surgeon concurrently performs a unilateral mastectomy, offers an alternative approach. We examined differences in general surgery time (GST), overall surgery time (OST), and patient complications for BM performed by CS and SS. METHODS:Patients undergoing BM with tissue expander reconstruction (BMTR) between January 2010 and May 2014 at our center were identified through operative case logs. GST (incision to end of BM procedure), reconstruction duration (RST) (plastic surgery start to end of reconstruction) and OST (OST = GST + RST) was calculated. Patient age, presence/stage of cancer, breast weight, axillary procedure performed, and 30-day postoperative complications were extracted from medical records. Differences in GST and OST between CS and SS cases were assessed with a t test. A multivariate linear regression was fit to identify factors associated with GST. RESULTS: A total of 116 BMTR cases were performed [CS, n = 67 (57.8 %); SS, n = 49 (42.2 %)]. Demographic characteristics did not differ between groups. GST and OST were significantly shorter for CS cases, 75.8 versus 116.8 min, p < .0001, and 255.2 versus 278.3 min, p = .005, respectively. Presence of a CS significantly reduces BMTR time (β = -38.82, p < .0001). Breast weight (β = 0.0093, p = .03) and axillary dissection (β = 28.69, p = .0003) also impacted GST. CONCLUSIONS: The CS approach to BMTR reduced both GST and OST; however, the degree of time savings (35.1 and 8.3 %, respectively) was less than hypothesized. A larger study is warranted to better characterize time, cost, and outcomes of the CS-approach for BM.
Authors: Brian J Daley; William Cecil; P Chris Clarke; Joseph B Cofer; Oscar D Guillamondegui Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Abhishek Chatterjee; Lilian Chen; Elie A Goldenberg; Harold T Bae; Samuel R G Finlayson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-11-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Yeliz Cemal; Claudia R Albornoz; Joseph J Disa; Colleen M McCarthy; Babak J Mehrara; Andrea L Pusic; Peter G Cordeiro; Evan Matros Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Aaron T Ludwig; Lavanya Inampudi; Michael A O'Donnell; Karl J Kreder; Richard D Williams; Badrinath R Konety Journal: Urology Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Melissa Anne Mallory; Constantine Tarabanis; Eric Schneider; Suniti Nimbkar; Mehra Golshan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Nader K Francis; Nathan J Curtis; Louise Crilly; Emma Noble; Tamsin Dyke; Rob Hipkiss; Richard Dalton; Andrew Allison; Emad Salib; Jonathan Ockrim Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Yasmin Grant; Paul T R Thiruchelvam; Lana Kovacevic; Elias Mossialos; Ragheed Al-Mufti; Katy Hogben; Dimitri J Hadjiminas; Daniel R Leff Journal: BJS Open Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Shantanu N Razdan; Hina J Panchal; Geoffrey E Hespe; Joseph J Disa; Colleen M McCarthy; Robert J Allen; Joseph H Dayan; Andrea Pusic; Babak Mehrara; Peter G Cordeiro; Evan Matros Journal: J Reconstr Microsurg Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 2.329