Mallory MA, Losk K, Camuso K, Caterson S, Nimbkar S, Golshan M.
Does "Two is Better Than One" Apply to Surgeons? Comparing Single-Surgeon Versus Co-surgeon Bilateral Mastectomies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23 (4) :1111-6.
AbstractBACKGROUND: 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.
Gombos EC, Jayender J, Richman DM, Caragacianu DL, Mallory MA, Jolesz FA, Golshan M.
Intraoperative Supine Breast MR Imaging to Quantify Tumor Deformation and Detection of Residual Breast Cancer: Preliminary Results. Radiology. 2016;281 (3) :720-9.
AbstractPurpose To use intraoperative supine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to quantify breast tumor deformation and displacement secondary to the change in patient positioning from imaging (prone) to surgery (supine) and to evaluate residual tumor immediately after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Materials and Methods Fifteen women gave informed written consent to participate in this prospective HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study between April 2012 and November 2014. Twelve patients underwent lumpectomy and postsurgical intraoperative supine MR imaging. Six of 12 patients underwent both pre- and postsurgical supine MR imaging. Geometric, structural, and heterogeneity metrics of the cancer and distances of the tumor from the nipple, chest wall, and skin were computed. Mean and standard deviations of the changes in volume, surface area, compactness, spherical disproportion, sphericity, and distances from key landmarks were computed from tumor models. Imaging duration was recorded. Results The mean differences in tumor deformation metrics between prone and supine imaging were as follows: volume, 23.8% (range, -30% to 103.95%); surface area, 6.5% (range, -13.24% to 63%); compactness, 16.2% (range, -23% to 47.3%); sphericity, 6.8% (range, -9.10% to 20.78%); and decrease in spherical disproportion, -11.3% (range, -60.81% to 76.95%). All tumors were closer to the chest wall on supine images than on prone images. No evidence of residual tumor was seen on MR images obtained after the procedures. Mean duration of pre- and postoperative supine MR imaging was 25 minutes (range, 18.4-31.6 minutes) and 19 minutes (range, 15.1-22.9 minutes), respectively. Conclusion Intraoperative supine breast MR imaging, when performed in conjunction with standard prone breast MR imaging, enables quantification of breast tumor deformation and displacement secondary to changes in patient positioning from standard imaging (prone) to surgery (supine) and may help clinicians evaluate for residual tumor immediately after BCS. (©) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.