Background Three-dimensional (3D) model printing improves visualization of anatomical structures in space compared to two-dimensional (2D) data and creates an exact model of the surgical site that can be used for reference during surgery. There is limited evidence on the effects of using 3D models in microsurgical reconstruction on improving clinical outcomes.Methods A retrospective review of patients undergoing reconstructive breast microsurgery procedures from 2017 to 2019 who received computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans only or with 3D models for preoperative surgical planning were performed. Preoperative decision-making to undergo a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) versus muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (MS-TRAM) flap, as well as whether the decision changed during flap harvest and postoperative complications were tracked based on the preoperative imaging used. In addition, we describe three example cases showing direct application of 3D mold as an accurate model to guide intraoperative dissection in complex microsurgical reconstruction.Results Fifty-eight abdominal-based breast free-flaps performed using conventional CTA were compared with a matched cohort of 58 breast free-flaps performed with 3D model print. There was no flap loss in either group. There was a significant reduction in flap harvest time with use of 3D model (CTA vs. 3D, 117.7±14.2 minutes vs. 109.8±11.6 minutes; P=0.001). In addition, there was no change in preoperative decision on type of flap harvested in all cases in 3D print group (0%), compared with 24.1% change in conventional CTA group.Conclusions Use of 3D print model improves accuracy of preoperative planning and reduces flap harvest time with similar postoperative complications in complex microsurgical reconstruction.

Integrated plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) is extremely competitive to match into as a medical student. Applicants looking to distinguish themselves from their peers invest heavily in dedicated research year(s), multiple away rotations, and conference attendance. Previous studies exist assessing the costs of each of these components individually, but there has yet to be a comprehensive analysis of the financial toxicity of becoming a competitive PRS applicant. The authors reviewed the literature regarding the cumulative costs associated with away rotations, research fellowships, conference attendance, publication fees, residency applications, and interview travel. Significant costs were identified. The average applicant is likely to submit 85 applications, complete 12 to 13 interviews, complete 2 to 3 away rotations, publish at least once, and attend at least 2 PRS conferences. Our estimation for the costs associated is $27,138 without a research year and $69,438 with a research year. This is likely an underestimation as there are many costs we are unable to generalize exact costs for, such as gas, parking, emergency funds, variations with methods of transport, lodging, etc. In conclusion, the financial investment associated with becoming a successful applicant with an average chance of matching is unattainable for many without external supplementation. These costs are considered necessary to gain experience and connections within the field, but exacerbate existing disparities and limit access to the field. Additional efforts must be made to improve accessibility and limit the financial barriers for PRS applicants, such as subsidized travel, virtual interview options, and broad structural reforms within the match process.

Background/Objectives: Assigned female at birth (AFAB) individuals who identify as transgender or gender-diverse (TGD) with concurrent breast cancer or high-risk genetic mutations represent a unique population, requiring consideration of oncologic and aesthetic goals. These patients sought chest masculinization with oncologic gender-affirming mastectomy (OGAM) or non-binary reconstruction to alleviate gender dysphoria and treat their breast cancer. There is limited literature on surgical techniques in this patient population. Methods: A retrospective chart review of AFAB TGD adults (>18 years of age) who underwent OGAM or non-binary reconstruction at the University of Washington between 2019 and 2023 was conducted. All patients had a consultation with a plastic surgeon for reconstruction and a minimum of one year follow-up. Demographic data, oncologic status, post-operative complications, and revision surgical history were collected. Results: Eight AFAB TGD individuals met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at the time of mastectomy was 35.13 years (SD = 8.04), and the mean BMI was 29.88 (SD = 6.40). Indications for mastectomy included a breast cancer diagnosis (N = 4) or a strong family history of breast cancer or genetic predisposition (N = 4). Two (25%) patients underwent nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSM), two patients (25%) underwent skin-sparing mastectomy with Goldilocks reconstruction, and four patients (50%) underwent simple mastectomy (oncologic gender-affirming mastectomy), flat closure with free nipple graft (FNG). Two patients had staged nipple mastectomy with secondary nipple reduction and fat grafting. Six patients had immediate reconstruction, four (50%) patients underwent immediate double-incision OGAM with FNG, and two (25%) patients underwent Goldilocks procedures—one with and one without FNG. One patient (12.5%) experienced a surgical site infection, and three patients (37.5%) underwent revision surgery. No patients had positive margins following their mastectomy. Conclusions: This case series highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary and highly personalized approach for AFAB and TGD individuals undergoing oncologic gender-affirming mastectomy or non-binary reconstruction. We reviewed reconstructive options performed at our institution, demonstrating safe oncologic and reconstructive techniques that emphasized collaboration between breast and plastic surgeons.