Introduction: Transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) and deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps are the most common abdominally based breast reconstruction procedures. Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages; however, how morbidity relates to satisfaction is not well-understood. Our aim was to compare complications and patient-reported outcomes following pedicled TRAM (pTRAM), free TRAM (fTRAM), and DIEP flaps to guide flap selection. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted, and 2 independent reviewers identified comparative studies of abdominally based flaps. Data were extracted on patient characteristics, complications, and patient-reported outcomes. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects modeling with the DerSimonian and Laird method. Results: The search retrieved 5090 articles, of which 18 were included in this review. pTRAM flaps trended toward a higher risk of abdominal bulge/hernia compared with DIEP flaps, particularly in low-volume hospitals. While fTRAM flaps had a higher risk of abdominal morbidity compared with DIEP flaps, relative risk decreased when obese patients were excluded and when only muscle-sparing fTRAM flaps were compared. Muscle-sparing flaps had a higher risk of flap loss than fTRAM flaps. Compared with DIEP flaps, pTRAM flaps were associated with lower general satisfaction but comparable emotional well-being. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that safety and satisfaction following abdominally based breast reconstruction depend on flap type and patient characteristics. When possible, DIEP or muscle-sparing fTRAM flaps should be performed for obese patients to decrease the risk of abdominal bulge/hernia. Although pTRAM flaps are associated with a greater risk of flap loss, they are still an appropriate option when microsurgery is not available.

Surgical technique and technology frequently coevolve. The brief history of blood vessel anastomosis is full of famous names. While the techniques pioneered by these surgeons have been well described, the technology that facilitated their advancements and their inventors deserve recognition. The mass production of laboratory microscopes in the mid-1800s allowed for an explosion of interest in tissue histology. This improved understanding of vascular physiology and thrombosis laid the groundwork for Carrel and Guthrie to report some of the first successful vascular anastomoses. In 1916, McLean discovered heparin. Twenty-four years later, Gordon Murray found that it could prevent thrombosis when performing end-to-end anastomosis. These discoveries paved the way for the first-in-human kidney transplantations. Otolaryngologists Nylen and Holmgren were the first to bring the laboratory microscope into the operating room, but Jacobson was the first to apply these techniques to microvascular anastomosis. His first successful attempt in 1960 and the subsequent development of microsurgical tools allowed for an explosion of interest in microsurgery, and several decades of innovation followed. Today, new advancements promise to make microvascular and vascular surgery faster, cheaper, and safer for patients. The future of surgery will always be inextricably tied to the creativity and vision of its innovators.

Background The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has swept the world in the last several months, causing massive disruption to existing social, economic, and health care systems. As with all medical fields, plastic and reconstructive surgery has been profoundly impacted across the entire spectrum of practice from academic medical centers to solo private practice. The decision to preserve vital life-saving equipment and cancel elective procedures to protect patients and medical staff has been extremely challenging on multiple levels. Frequent and inconsistent messaging disseminated by many voices on the national stage often conflicts and serves only to exacerbate an already difficult decision-making process. Methods A survey of relevant COVID-19 literature is presented, and bioethical principles are utilized to generate guidelines for plastic surgeons in patient care through this pandemic. Results A cohesive framework based upon core bioethical values is presented here to assist plastic surgeons in navigating this rapidly evolving global pandemic. Conclusion Plastic surgeons around the world have been affected by COVID-19 and will adapt to continue serving their patients. The lessons learned in this present pandemic will undoubtedly prove useful in future challenges to come.

Background Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR)—termed mixed reality—have shown promise in the care of operative patients. Currently, AR and VR have well-known applications for craniofacial surgery, specifically in preoperative planning. However, the application of AR/VR technology to other reconstructive challenges has not been widely adopted. Thus, the purpose of this investigation is to outline the current applications of AR and VR in the operative setting. Methods The literature pertaining to the use of AR/VR technology in the operative setting was examined. Emphasis was placed on the use of mixed reality technology in surgical subspecialities, including plastic surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery, colorectal surgery, neurosurgery, otolaryngology, neurosurgery, and orthopaedic surgery. Results Presently, mixed reality is widely used in the care of patients requiring complex reconstruction of the craniomaxillofacial skeleton for pre- and intraoperative planning. For upper extremity amputees, there is evidence that VR may be efficacious in the treatment of phantom limb pain. Furthermore, VR has untapped potential as a cost-effective tool for microsurgical education and for training residents on techniques in surgical and nonsurgical aesthetic treatment. There is utility for mixed reality in breast reconstruction for preoperative planning, mapping perforators, and decreasing operative time. VR has well- documented applications in the planning of deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps by creating three-dimensional immersive simulations based on a patient's preoperative computed tomography angiogram. Conclusion The benefits of AR and VR are numerous for both patients and surgeons. VR has been shown to increase surgical precision and decrease operative time. Furthermore, it is effective for patient-specific rehearsal which uses the patient's exact anatomical data to rehearse the procedure before performing it on the actual patient. Taken together, AR/VR technology can improve patient outcomes, decrease operative times, and lower the burden of care on both patients and health care institutions.

Background: Insurance coverage of postmastectomy breast reconstruction is mandated in America, regardless of reconstructive modality. Despite enhanced patient-reported outcomes, autologous reconstruction is utilized less than nonautologous reconstruction nationally. Lower reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid may disincentivize autologous-based reconstruction. This study examines the impact of insurance and sociodemographic factors on breast reconstruction. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample Database from 2014 to 2017 was performed. International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification and Procedure Coding System codes were used to identify patients for inclusion. De-identified sociodemographic and insurance data were analyzed using χ ², least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression analysis, and classification trees. Results: In total, 31,468 patients were identified for analysis and stratified by reconstructive modality, sociodemographics, insurance, and hospital characteristics. Most patients underwent nonautologous reconstruction (63.2%). Deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps were the most common autologous modality (46.7%). Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression identified Black race, urban-teaching hospitals, nonsmoking status, and obesity to be associated with autologous reconstruction. Publicly-insured patients were less likely to undergo autologous reconstruction than privately-insured patients. Within autologous reconstruction, publicly-insured patients were 1.97 (P < 0.001) times as likely to obtain pedicled flaps than free flaps. Black patients were 33% (P < 0.001) less likely to obtain free flaps than White patients. Conclusions: Breast reconstruction is influenced by insurance, hospital demographics, and sociodemographic factors. Action to mitigate this health disparity should be undertaken so that surgical decision-making is solely dependent upon medical and anatomic factors.