104
Views
15
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Paravertebral blocks and enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in breast reconstructive surgery: patient selection and perspectives

&
Pages 1567-1581 | Published online: 23 Aug 2018

Abstract

The management of postoperative pain is of critical importance for women undergoing breast reconstruction after surgical treatment for breast cancer. Mitigating postoperative pain can improve health-related quality of life, reduce health care resource utilization and costs, and minimize perioperative opiate use. Multimodal analgesia pain management strategies with nonopioid analgesics have improved the value of surgical care in patients undergoing various operations but have only recently been reported in reconstructive breast surgery. Regional anesthesia techniques, with paravertebral blocks (PVBs) and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks, and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been increasingly utilized in opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia protocols for women undergoing breast reconstruction. The objectives of this review are to 1) comprehensively review regional anesthesia techniques in breast reconstruction, 2) outline important components of ERAS protocols in breast reconstruction, and 3) provide evidence-based recommendations regarding each intervention included in these protocols. The authors searched across six databases to identify relevant articles. For each perioperative intervention included in the ERAS protocols, the literature was exhaustively reviewed and evidence-based recommendations were generated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system methodology. This study provides a comprehensive evidence-based review of interventions to optimize perioperative care and postoperative pain control in breast reconstruction. Incorporating evidence-based interventions into future ERAS protocols is essential to ensure high value care in breast reconstruction.

Introduction

Breast reconstruction after surgical treatment for breast cancer has the potential to significantly improve patients’ health-related quality of life.Citation1Citation7 Although most women report greater satisfaction with appearance and improved physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being following breast reconstruction, the management of postoperative pain remains challenging. Inadequate postoperative pain control contributes to unnecessary health care resource utilization while exacerbating costs and hindering patient recovery. This is true for both implant-based (prosthetic) and microvascular (autologous) breast reconstruction techniques. Nearly one-half of patients undergoing breast reconstruction experience postoperative pain syndromes.Citation8,Citation9 Inadequately controlled acute postoperative pain is associated with an increased likelihood of developing persistent postsurgical pain, which reduces the quality of life.Citation8Citation12 Additionally, poorly controlled pain may result in a prolonged opioid dependency, contributing to the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States.Citation13,Citation14 Furthermore, postoperative pain negatively impacts the quality of recovery (QoR) and satisfaction.Citation15Citation17 There is evidence that a decrease in QoR secondary to pain can prolong hospital stay, delay return to normal daily living, and reduce the quality of life.Citation15Citation19 Thus, opioid-sparing analgesic strategies to improve postoperative pain control, reduce length of stay (LOS), and minimize resource utilization are essential to improve the overall quality and value of care for patients undergoing breast reconstruction.Citation20Citation22

Recently, there have been a few interventions introduced that have promise in optimizing pain control and postoperative recovery for women with breast cancer undergoing breast reconstruction. The most prevalent of these are regional anesthesia techniques, including paravertebral blocks (PVBs) and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks, and evidence-based multimodal perioperative management approaches, referred to as Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols. The purported strengths of these interventions are that they significantly improve the value of surgical care by enhancing postoperative recovery.Citation23Citation27 ERAS protocols utilize evidence-based recommendations to standardize perioperative care.Citation28 Although widely adopted in various surgical disciplines, there was minimal literature on opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia strategies in reconstructive breast surgery until recently.Citation29 As a result, perioperative approaches have traditionally been based on individual experience and differed tremendously across institutions, potentially contributing to variations in system-wide quality and unnecessary resource utilization. Therefore, the goals of this article are to 1) comprehensively review regional anesthesia techniques in breast reconstruction, 2) outline important components of ERAS protocols in breast reconstruction, and 3) provide evidence-based recommendations regarding all perioperative interventions aimed at enhancing recovery in breast reconstruction.

Methods

This study was conducted in the following two stages: 1) comprehensive review of regional analgesic techniques and ERAS protocols in breast reconstruction and 2) literature review and generation of evidence-based recommendations for all interventions included in ERAS protocols for breast reconstruction. The authors followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines throughout this investigation.Citation30,Citation31

Review of regional analgesia techniques and ERAS protocols in breast reconstruction

To identify regional analgesia and ERAS protocols, we searched the Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from January 1990 through October 2017 using strategies designed by a medical librarian for the concepts of breast reconstruction, regional analgesia, perioperative care or fast track or enhanced recovery, and LOS, postoperative complications, or pain. All results were exported to EndNote, and duplicate citations were removed. References were then hand-searched, and relevant articles were retrieved. All studies reporting patients undergoing breast reconstruction in an ERAS protocol or with regional analgesia techniques were eligible for inclusion. Articles in all languages were considered. A study was excluded if full text could not be obtained.

Evidence-based recommendations for ERAS protocol items

In the second stage, we performed a literature review of each intervention included in the previously identified ERAS protocols with search parameters for [X] and breast reconstruction, where X = specific intervention in the ERAS protocol. For each item, searches were performed to identify the best available evidence, with priority given to meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). In the absence of high-quality evidence specific to breast reconstruction, we included nonrandomized observational studies and/or extrapolated evidence from the surgical literature. Consistent with other studies, we used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to appraise the overall quality of evidence for each intervention and to assign a level of strength to each recommendation.Citation32Citation36 The GRADE system is widely adopted, and the preferred methodology of The Cochrane Collaboration and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for grading clinical evidence and developing recommendations for clinical practice is used.Citation37 The GRADE approach classifies recommendations into two levels, such as strong (Grade 1) and weak (Grade 2), and then subclassifies each grade into three categories based on the quality of evidence (A = high quality, B = moderate quality, and C = low quality).Citation38Citation40 The strength of recommendation is primarily influenced by the tradeoff between the benefits, risks, and burdens of an intervention and by the quality of the evidence available.

Regional analgesic techniques in breast reconstruction

Regional anesthesia techniques are utilized across surgical disciplines and have demonstrated efficacy at reducing both acute and chronic postoperative pain, opiate use, and LOS for various surgical procedures.Citation41 In reconstructive breast surgery, the two most common techniques for regional anesthesia are PVBs and TAP blocks. PVBs are utilized in both prosthetic and autologous breast reconstruction procedures, whereas TAP blocks only have utility in abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction procedures such as deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps and transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps. Traditionally, regional blocks or infusions were performed with bupivacaine, which has a duration of action between 8 and 12 hours. However, recently, several groups have shifted toward using liposomal bupivacaine, which has a duration of action ranging from 72 to 96 hours.Citation42 Although comparative studies evaluating cost and outcomes between bupivacaine and liposomal bupivacaine are still needed, there is preliminary evidence to demonstrate the efficacy and merit the use of liposomal bupivacaine in reconstructive breast surgery.Citation43

TAP blocks

TAP blocks were initially introduced in the literature in the early 2000s and have subsequently gained widespread acceptance as an effective technique for regional anesthesia in various abdominally based surgical operations.Citation44,Citation45 In abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction procedures, TAP blocks were first reported as having efficacy for improving pain control and reducing opiate requirements by Hivelin et alCitation46 in 2011. To date, there is evidence from one RCT, two prospective cohort studies, and two retrospective studies demonstrating that TAP blocks are safe and significantly reduce postoperative opioid use in abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction.Citation46Citation50 There are several excellent articles that detail the relevant anatomy and technical components of performing a TAP block.Citation51,Citation52 Briefly, TAP blocks involve anesthetizing the sensory innervation to the anterior abdominal wall, which is traditionally considered to be derived from the T6-L1 nerves from the anterior rami of the thoracolumbar spinal nerves.Citation51,Citation52 The lumbar triangle of Petit is often used as the primary landmark to localize the injection to the plane between the internal oblique musculature and the transversus abdominis musculature. In autologous breast reconstruction, this block is performed under direct visualization following flap harvest and prior to closure of the abdominal donor site. A blunt tip injection cannula is inserted into the TAP and local anesthetic in the form of bupivacaine or liposomal bupivacaine is injected. Alternatively, a catheter can also be introduced in the plane and redosed periodically in the perioperative period.Citation47,Citation48 For bilateral procedures, bilateral blocks are performed.

PVBs

There is considerable evidence supporting the use of PVBs in breast surgery. In a meta-analysis of 15 RCTs in breast cancer surgery, PVBs were determined to be effective at reducing postoperative pain and hospital LOS.Citation53 In reconstructive breast surgery, there is literature to support the use of PVBs in both prosthetic breast reconstruction and autologous breast reconstruction procedures. A recent prospective study by Parikh et alCitation54 demonstrated a significant reduction in postoperative pain and LOS for women with breast cancer undergoing postmastectomy abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction with a PVB compared to women who did not receive a PVB. In a follow-up study from the same group, the authors also reported a reduction in opiate medication requirements for patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction with use of a PVB compared to patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction without a PVB.Citation55 Of importance, the use of PVBs did not compromise intraoperative perfusion or change fluid requirements in this cohort. The value of PVBs is not confined to abdominally based breast reconstruction. In 2016, Unkart et alCitation56 reported their experience with PVBs for patients undergoing breast reconstruction with latissimus dorsi autologous flaps. In prosthetic breast reconstruction, there are several retrospective cohort studies and one RCT that similarly confirm the value of PVBs versus general anesthesia alone. Coopey et alCitation57 and Fahy et alCitation58 independently demonstrated reductions in LOS, perioperative opiate use, and postoperative pain for patients undergoing immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction with a PVB compared to patients who did not receive a PVB. This reduction in perioperative opiate use was subsequently confirmed in a 2015 report by Glissmeyer et al,Citation59 where the authors reported that morphine equivalents were significantly lower in the cohort of patients who received a PVB in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction compared to the cohort of patients who did not. In 2016, Wolf et al reported results from the first prospective RCT of PVBs in prosthetic breast reconstruction. In a total of 74 patients (35 who received a PVB and 34 in the control group), the authors demonstrated that patients who received a PVB, compared to patients who did not, required significantly less opiates intraoperatively and postoperatively, had lower pain scores postoperatively, and required less antiemetic medications perioperatively.Citation60 These procedures can be performed with consistency and with minimal risk for complications, as confirmed in a 2016 report of 856 patients undergoing 1427 PVBs for regional anesthesia in postmastectomy prosthetic reconstructive breast surgery procedures where the complication rate was <1.0%.Citation61 Similar to TAP blocks, there are excellent articles that detail the anatomical and technical considerations for performing PVBs.Citation61,Citation62 Briefly, our preferred approach is to inject 15–20 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine (bilateral for bilateral procedures) at the T2–T4 paravertebral spaces under ultrasound guidance in the immediate preoperative setting.Citation54,Citation55 These procedures are performed by fellowship trained anesthesiologists on a dedicated regional block team.

Recommendation: There is moderate-quality evidence to support the inclusion of regional analgesic techniques with TAP blocks and PVBs in ERAS protocols for microvascular breast reconstruction and PVBs for prosthetic breast reconstruction (Grade 1B).

ERAS protocols in breast reconstruction

Following review, there were five nonrandomized studies from four different institutions that evaluated ERAS protocols in breast reconstruction ().Citation63Citation67 In total, studies evaluated 49 patients undergoing prosthetic reconstruction and 661 patients undergoing 783 microvascular flaps for autologous reconstruction. Of them, 29 patients undergoing prosthetic reconstruction and 284 patients undergoing 345 flaps were treated in an ERAS protocol, whereas 29 patients undergoing prosthetic reconstruction and 377 patients undergoing 438 flaps were treated with conventional care. There were two studies from the same group: the first study, published in 2015, compared an ERAS protocol with conventional care and the second study, published in 2016, reported on 16 patients in a modified ERAS protocol, which was then compared with their previously published data on patients in the first version of the ERAS protocol.Citation65,Citation66 There was substantial heterogeneity between the treatment protocols, patient groups, comorbidities reported, and postoperative outcomes measured; therefore, quantitative analyses across studies were not feasible. In regard to outcomes reported, all studies reported LOS, but only three studies reported postoperative pain scores, two studies reported opiate use, and three studies reported systemic complications. No study reported cost outcomes. Additionally, data on relevant covariates or potential confounders were inconsistently reported.

Table 1 Characteristics of studies comparing breast reconstruction outcomes for patients in an ERAS protocol to conventional care

Evidence-based recommendations for components of ERAS protocols

Preoperative interventions

Patient education/counseling

Preoperative patient education and counseling are essential to patient-centered care, one of the key domains of high-quality health care.Citation68 Patient education and counseling should address patients’ expectations, include a comprehensive discussion of the risks and benefits of different treatment options, assess patients’ understanding of their expected perioperative course, and involve patients in the decision-making process.Citation69,Citation70 In breast reconstruction, several studies, utilizing the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure, have shown a positive association between patient’s satisfaction with preoperative information and postoperative outcome.Citation71,Citation72 Additionally, Sheehan et alCitation73 and Zhong et alCitation74 independently demonstrated that lower satisfaction with preparatory information is associated with an increased likelihood of regret following breast reconstruction. When expanded across surgical specialties, there is also evidence that preoperative education is an independent predictor of reduced LOS in ERAS protocols.Citation75Citation77

Recommendation: Preoperative education is integral to patient-centered care and has the potential to improve postoperative patient-reported outcomes while minimizing decision regret. The impact of patient education on LOS has not been examined in breast reconstruction; however, there are minimal risks associated with this intervention. Consequently, we strongly recommend ERAS protocols in breast reconstruction that incorporated preoperative education and counseling, ideally in a shared decision-making model (Grade 1B).

Fasting, nutrition, and carbohydrate loading

In two of the ERAS protocols for breast reconstruction, preoperative fasting from the intake of clear liquids for at least 2 hours prior to surgery was included in the treatment pathway, whereas one study recommended at least 3 hours of fasting.Citation63,Citation64,Citation67 For decades, preoperative fasting was recommended with “NPO after midnight” in an effort to minimize the risk of pulmonary aspiration by decreasing gastric volume.Citation78 However, over the last several years, this dogma has been challenged by a multitude of studies demonstrating preoperative fasting from the intake of clear fluids for 2 hours and from the intake of solids for 6 hours to be optimal. A 2017 meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated a lower risk of aspiration for patients with clear liquid intake up to 2 hours prior to surgery versus traditional fasting (>4 hours).Citation79 Furthermore, prior systematic reviews concluded that preoperative fasting to 6 hours for solids is safe.Citation80 The primary concern with prolonged fasting is exacerbation of the surgical stress response, which constitutes a coordinated reaction to surgical injury.Citation27,Citation81 Ultimately, prolonged catabolism from fasting combined with the surgical stress response can potentiate hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, hyperthermia, immunosuppression, and muscle loss in the perioperative period, potentially contributing to adverse outcomes and delayed recovery.Citation26,Citation27 Therefore, the goal with perioperative nutritional management is to mitigate these effects.

In addition to changing fasting guidelines, there is considerable evidence from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and RCTs demonstrating the intake of carbohydrate-rich liquids, ie, carbohydrate loading, prior to elective surgery, reduces postoperative insulin resistance and hyperglycemia, minimizes muscle loss, and shortens LOS.Citation79,Citation80,Citation82Citation88 Furthermore, several RCTs establish clear liquid intake and carbohydrate loading up to 2 hours before a procedure improves patients’ subjective well-being by reducing thirst and hunger.Citation79,Citation80,Citation86,Citation89Citation91 Although there are no specific studies in breast reconstruction, evidence-based recommendations can be adapted from these studies in the elective surgical population.

Recommendation: We recommend minimizing preoperative fasting to only 2 hours for clear liquids and 6 hours for solids (Grade 1A). Furthermore, we recommend preoperative carbohydrate loading via oral liquid intake up to 2 hours prior to surgery to mitigate adverse effects associated with the surgical stress response (Grade 1A).

Antimicrobial prophylaxis

All ERAS protocols included preoperative antibiotic use. In breast reconstruction, evidence for perioperative antibiotics for the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) is largely based on studies in the prosthetic population; data on antibiotic use in microvascular breast reconstruction are limited. A prior survey of members of the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery (ASRM) revealed consensus agreement regarding preoperative administration of antibiotics within 1 hour prior to microvascular breast reconstruction; however, no consensus was present on the optimal duration of antibiotic administration.Citation92 The practice of administering preoperative antibiotics within 60 minutes of incision is supported by considerable high-quality evidence, albeit not specific to breast reconstruction, including a 2014 Cochrane review of RCTs, and recommended by major national organizations, including Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP), and the AHRQ.Citation93Citation97 What is less clear is the optimal duration of antibiotics. SCIP and CDC guidelines recommend a short duration (<24 hours) of prophylaxis.Citation94,Citation95,Citation97 There are two retrospective studies comparing patients receiving 24 versus >24 hours of antimicrobial prophylaxis in microvascular breast reconstruction.Citation98,Citation99 These studies showed no reduction in overall incidence of SSI for patients receiving antibiotics >24 hours. This is also supported by systematic reviews regarding the duration of prophylactic antibiotic use in prosthetic breast reconstruction, which presumably has an equal or higher intrinsic risk of SSI due to the placement of an implant.Citation100,Citation101

One of the ERAS protocols included antiseptic bathing for antimicrobial prophylaxis. Preoperative bathing and postoperative bathing with skin antiseptics are often recommended in procedures involving the placement of a prosthesis; however, the prevalence of this practice is unclear.Citation102Citation104 A 2015 Cochrane review and a 2017 meta-analysis separately confirmed that there is no clear evidence of benefit for showering/bathing with antiseptic solution compared to usual wash products prior to clean surgeries.Citation105,Citation106

Recommendation: All patients undergoing breast reconstruction should receive preoperative antibiotics within 1 hour of incision. There is no documented benefit to prolonged antimicrobial prophylaxis; therefore, we recommend adherence to SCIP and CDC guidelines for administering only 24 hours of antibiotics (Grade 1A). There is no proven benefit for preoperative showering/bathing with antiseptic solution; thus, we recommend patients follow usual bathing practices prior to surgery (Grade 1A).

Intraoperative management

Preemptive analgesia and PVBs

The management of postoperative pain with multimodal therapy is a key component of ERAS protocols. Multimodal protocols are presumed to be effective because they address different pain mechanisms to reduce acute postoperative pain, which may subsequently blunt the development of chronic pain.Citation27,Citation107 ERAS protocols for breast reconstruction incorporated preemptive analgesia with opioid (at the discretion of the anesthesia provider) and nonopioid combinations of regional anesthesia blocks (2/5 studies), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (4/5 studies), acetaminophen (5/5 studies), and/or gabapentin (4/5 studies). Regional anesthesia techniques were previously discussed; NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and gabapentin are discussed in the postoperative management section. Local anesthetic techniques utilizing continuous infusion pain catheters and regional anesthetic techniques utilizing peripheral nerve blocks are described in the literature. A meta-analysis in 2013 demonstrated local anesthetic pain catheters at the donor site, either on top of the rectus sheath or under the rectus fascia, significantly decreased opioid use but only showed a trend toward reducing LOS, for patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction (MBR).Citation108 Furthermore, two RCTs confirmed that continuous infusion catheters have no deleterious effect on flap perfusion or complications.Citation109,Citation110

Recommendation: There is moderate quality evidence to support the inclusion of local anesthetic techniques and preemptive analgesia in breast reconstruction (Grade 1B).

Perioperative hemodynamics: fluid management, vasopressors, and allogenic blood transfusions

Perioperative hemodynamics is more relevant to microvascular breast reconstruction compared to prosthetic breast reconstruction. The goal of perioperative hemodynamic management in microvascular breast reconstruction is to maintain tissue perfusion and optimize blood flow for the flap.Citation111 A majority of microsurgeons agree that avoiding intraoperative hypotension, often considered as a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of <65 mmHg, is critical to flap success and prefer some combination of intravenous fluids, blood products, and vasopressors to achieve this.Citation112 Our understanding of fluid management has evolved recently, and most ERAS protocols advocate for either a balanced fluid approach (emphasizing euvolemia, minimal weight changes, and maintenance of normal physiology and homeostasis) or a goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) (emphasizing optimal cardiac output and oxygen delivery to tissues to prevent hypoperfusion).Citation113 In microvascular breast reconstruction, there is evidence to support a focus on maintenance of a zero, or near zero, fluid balance. Data from two retrospective studies demonstrate that excessive underresuscitation contributes to an increased risk for adverse flap events.Citation114,Citation115 Similarly, retrospective studies have shown liberal fluid resuscitation or fluid overload increases flap complications in both breast reconstruction and other microvascular flap procedures.Citation115Citation119 In the nonfree flap population, meta-analyses of RCTs reaffirm the value of balanced fluid therapy in reducing perioperative complications and LOS.Citation120,Citation121 There are no studies evaluating GDFT, which uses hemodynamic monitoring to guide fluid management, in microvascular breast reconstruction. However, multiple meta-analyses on GDFT in surgical patients demonstrate reductions in complications and LOS compared to standard or liberal fluid resuscitation models.Citation122Citation129 There are no studies comparing GDFT with balanced fluid therapy.

Although vasopressors were initially presumed to have devastating effects on free flap success, recent evidence has not corroborated these fears. A 2014 systematic review of retrospective studies showed no consistent effects on flap perfusion or flap complications.Citation130 Subsequent to that publication, a retrospective cohort study of 682 patients and 1039 flaps also failed to demonstrate an increased risk of thrombotic events or flap loss in patients receiving vasopressors.Citation131

In contrast to vasopressors and a balanced fluid approach, there is evidence suggesting that perioperative allogenic red blood cell transfusions in microvascular breast reconstruction are associated with an increased rate of postoperative complications and additional resource utilization. Six retrospective studies, all published after 2011, concluded that perioperative transfusions increase postoperative complications, prolong LOS, and incur additional costs; therefore, restrictive transfusion strategies (avoid transfusions in patients with hemoglobin thresholds >7 g/dL) are now advocated.Citation132Citation138

Recommendation: Perioperative fluid management should follow principles of balanced fluid therapy or GDFT and avoid underresuscitation and/or fluid overload (Grade 1A). Vasopressors may be used as an adjunct to intravenous fluids to avoid intraoperative hypotension and maintain hemodynamic stability; to date, human clinical studies have not demonstrated adverse complications with vasopressor use in microvascular breast reconstruction, albeit the existing data are of low quality (Grade 2C). We recommend a restrictive strategy for allogenic transfusions to minimize postoperative complications and avoid prolonged LOS (Grade 1C).

Minimally invasive operative techniques (in autologous breast reconstruction)

Muscle-sparing procedures (donor-site)

Minimizing the invasiveness of surgical procedures is a key component of ERAS protocols in different specialties. All patients treated in the included ERAS protocols for micro-vascular breast reconstruction underwent either a unilateral procedure or a bilateral procedure utilizing free TRAM (FTRAM), muscle-sparing TRAM (MS-TRAM), or DIEP flaps; there were no superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flaps reported. SIEA and DIEP flaps, which theoretically preserve the abdominal wall, would constitute the spectrum of “minimally invasive” surgery when compared with FTRAM or MS-TRAM flaps or pedicled flaps in autologous breast reconstruction. In regard to acute recovery, a majority of the data compares DIEP flaps with TRAM flaps (with MS-TRAM and FTRAM often combined into one group). There are three retrospective studies demonstrating that mean LOS is shorter in patients undergoing DIEP flaps than in patients undergoing TRAM flaps.Citation139Citation141 There is also a single prospective cohort study demonstrating significantly shorter LOS for SIEA flaps compared with DIEP flaps; however, this study is limited by inadequate sample size and the lack of control for comorbidities.Citation142 In regard to long-term postoperative function, there are multiple meta-analyses of nonrandomized observational studies comparing donor-site morbidity and abdominal wall function in patients undergoing MBR with DIEP, SIEA, or TRAM flaps.Citation143Citation146 These studies demonstrate that SIEA and DIEP flaps reduce donor-site morbidity, including abdominal bulge or hernia, compared to TRAM flaps but may increase the risk of flap-related complications. However, there are several methodological limitations to the studies included in these meta-analyses, which make them highly susceptible to bias. Interestingly, a recent multicenter study in North America did not find significant differences in patient-reported outcomes of abdominal well-being or morbidity when comparing DIEP flaps with TRAM flaps.Citation147

Recommendation: Surgeons must consider the benefits of potentially reduced abdominal wall morbidity against the potential risk of higher complications and the potential burdens of increased operative time and complexity associated with SIEA and DIEP flaps. We suggest autologous breast reconstruction be performed with DIEP flaps whenever feasible but acknowledge the decision to perform a SIEA, DIEP, MS-TRAM, FTRAM, or pedicled autologous flap, which is most often dictated by patients’ anatomy and characteristics (Grade 2B).

Rib-sparing techniques (recipient site)

In addition to donor-site preservation, a less invasive approach to the recipient site is also advocated in the literature for microvascular breast reconstruction. The presumed benefit of a rib-sparing approach to internal mammary vessel harvest is diminished chest wall morbidity, whereas the presumed disadvantages are complexity in patients with narrow intercostal spaces and limited exposure, which may lead to operative complications.Citation148 To date, there is low-quality evidence to support rib-sparing techniques. Seven retrospective studies have been published, most of which focus on the efficiency and safety of this technique.Citation149Citation155 Due to substantial heterogeneity, comparison across studies is limited. Only three studies included a comparison group (costochondral segment removed) and two of these compared postoperative pain, both demonstrating significantly reduced pain with rib preservation.Citation151,Citation153,Citation154 In regard to complications, most studies had no comparison group but reported a low incidence of complications in line with acceptable published standards for breast reconstruction; however, one study did find a significantly greater incidence of fat necrosis with a rib-sparing approach.Citation154

Recommendation: There is low-quality evidence to support rib-sparing techniques in microvascular breast reconstruction, and substantial uncertainty is present in the estimates of benefits, risks, and burdens associated with this technique. Given this, we can only formulate a very weak recommendation that surgeons perform rib-sparing techniques in patients with suitably wide intercostal spaces; however, other alternatives may be equally reasonable (Grade 2C).

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)

Avoidance of PONV is frequently identified by patients as their top priority in the immediate postoperative recovery period; therefore, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) recommends prophylaxis for PONV, in addition to minimize opiate use, in the perioperative period.Citation156Citation159 There are many agents with antiemetic effects; however, the best evidence supports 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (eg, ondansetron), dexamethasone, and transdermal scopolamine. Data from recent meta-analyses indicate that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, dexamethasone, and scopolamine are independently effective at reducing PONV and the need for rescue antiemetics when administered prophylactically.Citation159Citation161 There are also several RCTs, comparing combination prophylaxis with multiple agents versus single-agent prophylaxis that demonstrate a benefit to combination therapy; however, various combinations used and differences in patient populations precluded pooled analyses.Citation159,Citation162Citation166

Recommendation: We recommend pharmacological prophylaxis with a combination of antiemetic agents to prevent PONV and limit the need for rescue treatment (Grade 1A).

Postoperative management

Postoperative analgesia

Minimizing the opiate use is an essential goal in any ERAS protocol. There is considerable support in the literature for incorporating NSAIDs, including intravenous ketorolac, into multimodal analgesia protocols. A Cochrane review of 72 RCTs demonstrated that NSAIDs significantly reduce postoperative pain compared to placebo.Citation167 Data from three other meta-analyses also confirm NSAIDs, as a part of multimodal therapy, reduce postoperative pain, and minimize some adverse effects, including PONV, of opiates in the postoperative period.Citation168Citation170 In regard to ketorolac, a meta-analysis of 13 RCTs in a diverse group of surgical patients found that ketorolac significantly reduced postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and PONV.Citation171 Recently, Afonso et alCitation63 demonstrated that the addition of intravenous ketorolac to liposomal bupivacaine TAP blocks significantly reduced opioid consumption compared to TAP blocks alone in patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction. These findings support a prior retrospective cohort study that found ketorolac, as an adjunct treatment, reducing opiate use in TRAM flap breast reconstruction.Citation172 Additionally, bleeding concerns with the use of ketorolac are not substantiated by the literature, for either breast reconstruction or surgical procedures in general.Citation63,Citation170,Citation172,Citation173

In addition to NSAIDs, acetaminophen has been suggested as an adjunct to perioperative pain management protocols in breast reconstruction. A Cochrane review of 51 RCTs demonstrated that acetaminophen use, compared to placebo, significantly reduced postoperative pain in surgical patients.Citation174 Furthermore, a recent systematic review concluded that a combination of acetaminophen and NSAIDs offers superior analgesia when compared with either drug alone, lending additional support to the concept of multi-modal analgesia protocols.Citation175

Similar to NSAIDs and acetaminophen, gabapentin is frequently included in ERAS protocols, with the presumed benefit being the inhibition of nociception and central sensitization.Citation176 There are no studies evaluating the independent effect of gabapentin on postoperative pain in breast reconstruction; however, multiple meta-analyses indicate that gabapentin has both a significant analgesic and an opioid sparing effect in surgical patients.Citation176Citation179

Recommendation: Minimizing the opiate use and postoperative pain is an essential goal of multimodal perioperative care protocols. While minimal direct evidence exists in breast reconstruction, sufficient high-quality evidence may be extrapolated to support the inclusion of NSAIDs (ie, ketorolac), acetaminophen, and gabapentin in ERAS protocols to reduce postoperative pain and opiate use (Grade 1A).

Early ambulation and functional recovery

All of the ERAS protocols included ambulation as a criterion for discharge, with early mobilization at postoperative day (POD) 1 emphasized. There are no studies that evaluate the independent impact of early ambulation on postoperative outcomes in breast reconstruction and limited studies in the broader surgical literature. A recent systematic review concluded that there may be some benefit to accelerate bowel function and reduce hospital LOS with early mobilization in the abdominal and thoracic surgical populations; however, the poor methodological quality of included studies and inconsistencies in reporting of outcomes made it difficult to draw any firm conclusions.Citation180 The primary proposed benefit for early mobilization is the absence of prolonged immobilization, which is known to be associated with adverse events, including venous thromboembolism, pulmonary deconditioning, and muscle weakness.Citation181,Citation182 The risks of early ambulation are unclear. If patients avoid significant flexion/extension at the waist, it is hard to identify a theoretical premise for how early ambulation would potentiate flap or donor-site complications in abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction. Furthermore, the only burden of early mobilization is the requirement for physical therapy or nursing assistance until patients can ambulate independently; however, this requirement is likely present regardless of the date of ambulation.

Recommendation: We recommend early ambulation be included in ERAS protocols for breast reconstruction. While there is a lack of high-quality evidence, the potential benefits appear to outweigh the risks and burdens for early mobilization (Grade 1C).

Timing of urinary catheter removal

Urinary catheter placement is significantly more common for lengthy autologous breast reconstruction procedures compared to prosthetic procedures. In microvascular breast reconstruction, all patients typically require urinary catheterization, given the length of surgery and need for resuscitative monitoring. The timing of catheter removal was a focus in the published ERAS protocols for microvascular breast reconstruction, with all including removal of urinary catheters at POD 1 as a protocol item. There is high-quality evidence, including meta-analyses and RCTs, from the nonmicrovascular surgical literature to support this practice. In general, these studies have found lower rates of catheter-associated urinary tract infections and no significantly increased risk of recatheterization in patients who had early (POD 1) catheter removal.Citation183Citation185

Recommendation: We recommend the removal of urinary catheters by POD 1, at the latest, in all patients undergoing breast reconstruction who do not require resuscitative monitoring (Grade 1A).

Timing of postoperative nutrition

Similar to the concepts of early mobilization and early removal of urinary catheters, surgeons in various disciplines have recommended early postoperative oral feeding (within 24 hours of surgery) to enhance recovery by facilitating return to normal functioning. Traditionally, patients undergoing prosthetic breast reconstruction were advanced to clear liquids and then a regular diet as tolerated immediately after surgery whereas patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction were kept NPO for at least 24 hours as a precaution in case where emergent return to the operating room was necessary. As detailed earlier, fasting from oral liquids does not alter anesthetic risks. Furthermore, given the low rate of flap complications requiring immediate take back, this practice of delayed oral intake is unnecessary. Although no direct evidence exists in breast reconstruction, there is considerable evidence from the broader surgical literature that early postoperative oral feeding is beneficial. Two recent meta-analyses, a 2014 Cochrane review of RCTs in abdominal gynecological surgery and a 2016 meta-analysis of 15 studies in gastrointestinal surgery, showed that early feeding was associated with shorter LOS, higher satisfaction, and no increase in complications when compared with traditional timing.Citation186,Citation187

Recommendation: For prosthetic reconstruction, we recommend advancing patients’ diets as tolerated on POD 0. For microvascular breast reconstruction, we recommend postoperative oral feeding with clear liquids commencing immediately postoperatively (POD 0), with intake guided by patient preference and comfort. In patients tolerating clear liquid intake, we advocate advancement to a regular diet on POD 1 (Grade 1B).

Discussion and future directions

Increasing health care costs have led to significant health care reforms and the advent of value-based and alternative payment models that incentivize value, efficiency, and quality in patient care.Citation22,Citation188 In these new paradigms, it is critical to provide high-quality care while minimizing resource utilization during an episode of care. In response, ERAS protocols have been proposed as potential strategies to improve the overall value of surgical care. While widely utilized in various surgical disciplines, few studies have evaluated ERAS protocols in breast reconstruction.Citation64 In this study, we comprehensively reviewed the literature on ERAS protocols for breast reconstruction and provided evidence-based recommendations for each perioperative intervention included in these protocols.

Although it is promising to start to find ERAS protocols utilized in breast reconstruction, there remains a paucity of high-quality evidence on the impact of these protocols. To date, only five retrospective studies have been published on ERAS protocols in breast reconstruction and there is a significant heterogeneity between these studies in regard to perioperative interventions included, patient groups, comorbidities reported, and outcomes measured. There is a substantial need for additional research endeavors on this topic. It is important that future efforts to develop and implement ERAS protocols in breast reconstruction follow evidence-based guidelines in development and clearly report the components of the protocol. Future RCTs or high-quality prospective cohort studies are a priority. For studies following a nonrandomized observational design, patient and treatment covariates should be reported and controlled for analytically. Furthermore, studies should report clinically meaningful outcomes in a standardized way to facilitate comparison. All studies should, at minimum, report LOS, postoperative opiate use, and patient-reported outcomes using validated measures, including QoR and health-related quality of life (BREAST-Q). Additionally, studies examining the cost-effectiveness of ERAS protocols in breast reconstruction are needed to demonstrate if this intervention has value to the health care system. Finally, it would be valuable for studies to identify barriers and enablers to protocol implementation and provide a detailed description of the implementation process. Understanding these elements would allow different institutions to adapt evidence-based protocols to their local environment.

Conclusion

Optimizing the perioperative management of patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction by implementing ERAS protocols has the potential to improve postoperative pain control, enhance patient-centered outcomes, accelerate recovery, and minimize health care resource utilization. Institutions and surgeons aiming to optimize perioperative care in MBR should incorporate evidence-based interventions in the development of future ERAS protocols. Ultimately, following evidence-based recommendations, as delineated in this study, is integral to develop and implement treatment protocols with external validity that improve the quality and value of patient care.

Acknowledgments

RPP is supported by a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Ruth L Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Research Training Grant (T32CA190194), the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant to Siteman Cancer Center (P30 CA091842). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the NIH.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  • EltahirYWernersLLDreiseMMQuality-of-life outcomes between mastectomy alone and breast reconstruction: comparison of patient-reported BREAST-Q and other health-related quality-of-life measuresPlast Reconstr Surg20131322201e209e
  • WintersZEBensonJRPusicALA systematic review of the clinical evidence to guide treatment recommendations in breast reconstruction based on patient-reported outcome measures and health-related quality of lifeAnn Surg2010252692994220729711
  • MatrosEAlbornozCRRazdanSNCost-effectiveness analysis of implants versus autologous perforator flaps using the BREAST-QPlast Reconstr Surg2015135493794625517411
  • HuESPusicALWaljeeJFPatient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with breast reconstruction during the long-term survivorship periodPlast Reconstr Surg2009124118
  • YuehJHSlavinSAAdesiyunTPatient satisfaction in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniquesPlast Reconstr Surg201012561585159520517080
  • LeeKTMunGHProsthetic breast reconstruction in previously irradiated breasts: a meta-analysisJ Surg Oncol2015112546847526374273
  • PusicALMatrosEFineNPatient-reported outcomes 1 year after immediate breast reconstruction: results of the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium studyJ Clin Oncol201735222499250628346808
  • HickeyOTNugentNFBurkeSMHafeezPMudrakouskiALShortenGDPersistent pain after mastectomy with reconstructionJ Clin Anesth201123648248821911195
  • VadiveluNSchreckMLopezJKodumudiGNarayanDPain after mastectomy and breast reconstructionAm Surg200874428529618453290
  • HickeyOTBurkeSMHafeezPMudrakouskiALHayesIDShortenGDSeverity of acute pain after breast surgery is associated with the likelihood of subsequently developing persistent painClin J Pain201026755656020639740
  • ElmoreLMyckatynTMGaoFReconstruction patterns in a single institution cohort of women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancerAnn Surg Oncol201219103223322922878610
  • WallaceMSWallaceAMLeeJDobkeMKPain after breast surgery: a survey of 282 womenPain1996662–31952058880841
  • ClarkeHSonejiNKoDTYunLWijeysunderaDNRates and risk factors for prolonged opioid use after major surgery: population based cohort studyBMJ2014348g125124519537
  • WaljeeJFLiLBrummettCMEnglesbeMJIatrogenic opioid dependence in the United States: are surgeons the gatekeepers?Ann Surg20162654728730
  • BergKKjellgrenKUnossonMArestedtKPostoperative recovery and its association with health-related quality of life among day surgery patientsBMC Nurs20121112423148514
  • JoshiGPOgunnaikeBOConsequences of inadequate postoperative pain relief and chronic persistent postoperative painAnesthesiol Clin North America2005231213615763409
  • WuCLRichmanJMPostoperative pain and quality of recoveryCurr Opin Anaesthesiol200417545546017023905
  • MylesPSHuntJONightingaleCEDevelopment and psychometric testing of a quality of recovery score after general anesthesia and surgery in adultsAnesth Analg199988183909895071
  • ColeyKCWilliamsBADaPosSVChenCSmithRBRetrospective evaluation of unanticipated admissions and readmissions after same day surgery and associated costsJ Clin Anesth200214534935312208439
  • ConwayPHValue-driven health care: implications for hospitals and hospitalistsJ Hosp Med20094850751119824095
  • MillerHDFrom volume to value: better ways to pay for health careHealth Aff (Millwood)20092851418142819738259
  • PorterMEWhat is value in health care?N Engl J Med2010363262477248121142528
  • LeeLLiCLandryTA systematic review of economic evaluations of enhanced recovery pathways for colorectal surgeryAnn Surg2014259467067623673770
  • ThieleRHReaKMTurrentineFEStandardization of care: impact of an enhanced recovery protocol on length of stay, complications, and direct costs after colorectal surgeryJ Am Coll Surg2015220443044325797725
  • ShewaleJBCorreaAMBakerCMUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Esophageal Cancer Collaborative GroupImpact of a fast-track esophagectomy protocol on esophageal cancer patient outcomes and hospital chargesAnn Surg201526161114112325243545
  • WilmoreDWFrom Cuthbertson to fast-track surgery: 70 years of progress in reducing stress in surgical patientsAnn Surg2002236564364812409671
  • KehletHDahlJBAnaesthesia, surgery, and challenges in postoperative recoveryLancet200336293991921192814667752
  • KehletHJorgensenCCAdvancing surgical outcomes research and quality improvement within an enhanced recovery program frameworkAnn Surg2016264223723826910201
  • Arsalani-ZadehRElFadlDYassinNMacFieJEvidence-based review of enhancing postoperative recovery after breast surgeryBr J Surg201198218119621104705
  • MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDGPreferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statementPLoS Med200967e100009719621072
  • StroupDFBerlinJAMortonSCMeta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) groupJAMA2000283152008201210789670
  • GuyattGHOxmanADVistGEGRADE Working GroupGRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendationsBMJ2008336765092492618436948
  • GuyattGHOxmanADKunzRGRADE Working GroupGoing from evidence to recommendationsBMJ200833676521049105118467413
  • GuyattGGuttermanDBaumannMHGrading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an American College of Chest Physicians task forceChest2006129117418116424429
  • AriyanSMartinJLalAAntibiotic prophylaxis for preventing surgical-site infection in plastic surgery: an evidence-based consensus conference statement from the American Association of Plastic SurgeonsPlast Reconstr Surg201513561723173925724064
  • PannucciCJMacDonaldJKAriyanSBenefits and risks of prophylaxis for deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolus in plastic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials and consensus conferencePlast Reconstr Surg2016137270973026818311
  • HigginsJPTGreenSCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]The Cochrane Collaboration2011
  • GuyattGHOxmanADSchunemannHJTugwellPKnottnerusAGRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyJ Clin Epidemiol201164438038221185693
  • BalshemHHelfandMSchunemannHJGRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidenceJ Clin Epidemiol201164440140621208779
  • GuyattGOxmanADAklEAGRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tablesJ Clin Epidemiol201164438339421195583
  • KumarKKirkseyMADuongSWuCLA review of opioid-sparing modalities in perioperative pain management: methods to decrease opioid use postoperativelyAnesth Analg201712551749176029049119
  • BaxterRBramlettKOnelEDanielsSImpact of local administration of liposome bupivacaine for postsurgical analgesia on wound healing: a review of data from ten prospective, controlled clinical studiesClin Ther2013353312320.e523453403
  • VyasKSRajendranSMorrisonSDSystematic review of liposomal bupivacaine (exparel) for postoperative analgesiaPlast Reconstr Surg20161384748e756e
  • RafiANAbdominal field block: a new approach via the lumbar triangleAnaesthesia2001561010241026
  • CharltonSCynaAMMiddletonPGriffithsJDPerioperative trans-versus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks for analgesia after abdominal surgeryCochrane Database Syst Rev201012CD007705
  • HivelinMWynieckiAPlaudBMartyJLantieriLUltrasound-guided bilateral transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia after breast reconstruction by DIEP flapPlast Reconstr Surg20111281445521701318
  • ZhongTOjhaMBagherSTransversus abdominis plane block reduces morphine consumption in the early postoperative period following microsurgical abdominal tissue breast reconstruction: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trialPlast Reconstr Surg2014134587087825347623
  • ZhongTWongKWChengHTransversus abdominis plane (TAP) catheters inserted under direct vision in the donor site following free DIEP and MS-TRAM breast reconstruction: a prospective cohort study of 45 patientsJ Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg201366332933623142025
  • WhebleGATanEKTurnerMDurrantCAHeppellSSurgeon-administered, intra-operative transversus abdominis plane block in autologous breast reconstruction: a UK hospital experienceJ Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg201366121665167023910912
  • JablonkaEMLamelasAMKimJNTransversus abdominis plane blocks with single-dose liposomal bupivacaine in conjunction with a nonnarcotic pain regimen help reduce length of stay following abdominally based microsurgical breast reconstructionPlast Reconstr Surg2017140224025128746269
  • RozenWMTranTMAshtonMWBarringtonMJIvanusicJJTaylorGIRefining the course of the thoracolumbar nerves: a new understanding of the innervation of the anterior abdominal wallClin Anat200821432533318428988
  • JankovicZBdu FeuFMMcConnellPAn anatomical study of the transversus abdominis plane block: location of the lumbar triangle of Petit and adjacent nervesAnesth Analg2009109398198519690277
  • SchnabelAReichlSUKrankePPogatzki-ZahnEMZahnPKEfficacy and safety of paravertebral blocks in breast surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsBr J Anaesth2010105684285220947592
  • ParikhRPSharmaKGuffeyRMyckatynTMPreoperative paravertebral block improves postoperative pain control and reduces hospital length of stay in patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancerAnn Surg Oncol201623134262426927489056
  • OdomEBMehtaNParikhRPGuffeyRMyckatynTMParavertebral blocks reduce narcotic use without affecting perfusion in patients undergoing autologous breast reconstructionAnn Surg Oncol201724113180318728718036
  • UnkartJTPadwalJAIlfeldBMWallaceAMTreatment of post-latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction pain with continuous paravertebral nerve blocks: a retrospective reviewAnesth Pain Med201665e3947627847703
  • CoopeySBSpechtMCWarrenLSmithBLWinogradJMFleischmannKUse of preoperative paravertebral block decreases length of stay in patients undergoing mastectomy plus immediate reconstructionAnn Surg Oncol20132041282128623064793
  • FahyASJakubJWDyBMParavertebral blocks in patients undergoing mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction provides improved pain control and decreased postoperative nausea and vomitingAnn Surg Oncol201421103284328925034821
  • GlissmeyerCJohnsonWShermanBGlissmeyerMGarreauJJohnsonNEffect of paravertebral nerve blocks on narcotic use after mastectomy with reconstructionAm J Surg2015209588188325886701
  • WolfOClemensMWPuruggananRVA prospective, randomized, controlled trial of paravertebral block versus general anesthesia alone for prosthetic breast reconstructionPlast Reconstr Surg20161374660e666e26818304
  • PaceMMSharmaBAnderson-DamJFleischmannKWarrenLStefanovichPUltrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral blockade: a retrospective study of the incidence of complicationsAnesth Analg201612241186119126756911
  • KredietACMoayeriNvan GeffenGJDifferent approaches to ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral block: an illustrated reviewAnesthesiology2015123245947426083767
  • AfonsoAOskarSTanKSIs enhanced recovery the new standard of care in microsurgical breast reconstruction?Plast Reconstr Surg201713951053106128092334
  • BatdorfNJLemaineVLovelyJKEnhanced recovery after surgery in microvascular breast reconstructionJ Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg201568339540225488326
  • BondeCKhorasaniHEriksenKWolthersMKehletHElbergJIntroducing the fast track surgery principles can reduce length of stay after autologous breast reconstruction using free flaps: a case control studyJ Plast Surg Hand Surg201549636737126161838
  • BondeCTKhorasaniHElbergJKehletHPerioperative optimization of autologous breast reconstructionPlast Reconstr Surg2016137241141426818274
  • DumestreDOWebbCETemple-OberleCImproved recovery experience achieved for women undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction using an enhanced recovery after surgery modelPlast Reconstr Surg2017139355055928234819
  • BarryMJEdgman-LevitanSShared decision making – pinnacle of patient-centered careN Engl J Med2012366978078122375967
  • BraddockCH3rdEdwardsKAHasenbergNMLaidleyTLLevinsonWInformed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basicsJAMA1999282242313232010612318
  • CohenWABallardTNHamillJBUnderstanding and optimizing the patient experience in breast reconstructionAnn Plast Surg201677223724126101986
  • HoALKlassenAFCanoSScottAMPusicALOptimizing patient-centered care in breast reconstruction: the importance of preoperative information and patient-physician communicationPlast Reconstr Surg20131322212e220e
  • LiuCZhuangYMomeniAQuality of life and patient satisfaction after microsurgical abdominal flap versus staged expander/implant breast reconstruction: a critical study of unilateral immediate breast reconstruction using patient-reported outcomes instrument BREAST-QBreast Cancer Res Treat2014146111712624831775
  • SheehanJShermanKALamTBoyagesJAssociation of information satisfaction, psychological distress and monitoring coping style with post-decision regret following breast reconstructionPsychooncology200716434235116874745
  • ZhongTHuJBagherSDecision regret following breast reconstruction: the role of self-efficacy and satisfaction with information in the preoperative periodPlast Reconstr Surg20131325724e734e
  • AartsMAOkrainecAGlicksmanAPearsallEVictorJCMcLeodRSAdoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategies for colorectal surgery at academic teaching hospitals and impact on total length of hospital staySurg Endosc201226244245022011937
  • ForsmoHMPfefferFRasdalASintonenHKornerHErichsenCPre- and postoperative stoma education and guidance within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme reduces length of hospital stay in colorectal surgeryInt J Surg201636pt A12112627780772
  • YounisJSalernoGFantoDHadjipavlouMChellarDTrickettJPFocused preoperative patient stoma education, prior to ileostomy formation after anterior resection, contributes to a reduction in delayed discharge within the enhanced recovery programmeInt J Colorectal Dis2012271434721660418
  • MaltbyJRFasting from midnight – the history behind the dogmaBest Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol200620336337817080690
  • Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists task force on preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspirationAnesthesiology2017126337639328045707
  • BradyMKinnSStuartPPreoperative fasting for adults to prevent perioperative complicationsCochrane Database Syst Rev20034CD004423
  • BlomqvistLMalmMBergASvelanderLKleinauSThe inflammatory reaction in elective flap surgeryPlast Reconstr Surg19981016152415289583482
  • LambertECareySPractice guideline recommendations on perioperative fasting: a systematic reviewJPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr20164081158116525575497
  • LiLWangZYingXPreoperative carbohydrate loading for elective surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysisSurg Today201242761362422581289
  • NoblettSEWatsonDSHuongHDavisonBHainsworthPJHorganAFPre-operative oral carbohydrate loading in colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trialColorectal Dis20068756356916919107
  • SmithIKrankePMuratIEuropean Society of AnaesthesiologyPerioperative fasting in adults and children: guidelines from the European Society of AnaesthesiologyEur J Anaesthesiol201128855656921712716
  • SmithMDMcCallJPlankLHerbisonGPSoopMNygrenJPreoperative carbohydrate treatment for enhancing recovery after elective surgeryCochrane Database Syst Rev20148CD009161
  • YagciGCanMFOzturkEEffects of preoperative carbohydrate loading on glucose metabolism and gastric contents in patients undergoing moderate surgery: a randomized, controlled trialNutrition200824321221618096368
  • YuillKARichardsonRADavidsonHIGardenOJParksRWThe administration of an oral carbohydrate-containing fluid prior to major elective upper-gastrointestinal surgery preserves skeletal muscle mass postoperatively – a randomised clinical trialClin Nutr2005241323715681099
  • GilbertSSEasyWRFitchWWThe effect of pre-operative oral fluids on morbidity following anaesthesia for minor surgeryAnaesthesia199550179817702152
  • GoodwinAPRoweWLOggTWSamaanAOral fluids prior to day surgery. The effect of shortening the pre-operative fluid fast on postoperative morbidityAnaesthesia19914612106610681781536
  • WangZGWangQWangWJQinHLRandomized clinical trial to compare the effects of preoperative oral carbohydrate versus placebo on insulin resistance after colorectal surgeryBr J Surg201097331732720101593
  • ReiffelAJKamdarMRKadouchDJRohdeCHSpectorJAPerioperative antibiotics in the setting of microvascular free tissue transfer: current practicesJ Reconstr Microsurg201026640140720221989
  • JonesDJBunnFBell-SyerSVProphylactic antibiotics to prevent surgical site infection after breast cancer surgeryCochrane Database Syst Rev20143CD005360
  • BratzlerDWDellingerEPOlsenKMAmerican Society of Health-System Pharmacists; Infectious Disease Society of AmericaSurgical Infection SocietySociety for Healthcare Epidemiology of AmericaClinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgeryAm J Health Syst Pharm201370319528323327981
  • BratzlerDWHouckPMSurgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers WorkgroupAntimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention ProjectAm J Surg2005189439540415820449
  • DellingerEPGrossPABarrettTLQuality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Infectious Diseases Society of AmericaClin Infect Dis19941834224278011827
  • MangramAJHoranTCPearsonMLSilverLCJarvisWRGuideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory CommitteeInfect Control Hosp Epidemiol1999204250278 quiz 279–28010219875
  • DruryKELanierSTKhavaninNImpact of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis duration on surgical site infections in autologous breast reconstructionAnn Plast Surg201676217417926101972
  • LiuDZDubbinsJALouieOSaidHKNeliganPCMathesDWDuration of antibiotics after microsurgical breast reconstruction does not change surgical infection ratePlast Reconstr Surg2012129236236722286419
  • PhillipsBTHalvorsonEGAntibiotic prophylaxis following implant-based breast reconstruction: what is the evidence?Plast Reconstr Surg2016138475175727307337
  • WangFChinRPiperMEssermanLSbitanyHDo prolonged prophylactic antibiotics reduce the incidence of surgical-site infections in immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction?Plast Reconstr Surg201613861141114927537226
  • BrahmbhattRDHuebnerMScowJSNational practice patterns in preoperative and postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in breast procedures requiring drains: survey of the American Society of Breast SurgeonsAnn Surg Oncol201219103205321122766988
  • CraftRODamjanovicBColwellASEvidence-based protocol for infection control in immediate implant-based breast reconstructionAnn Plast Surg201269444645022964685
  • GowdaAUChopraKBrownENSlezakSRaskoYPreventing breast implant contamination in breast reconstruction: a national survey of current practiceAnn Plast Surg201778215315627464530
  • FrancoLMCotaGFPintoTSErcoleFFPreoperative bathing of the surgical site with chlorhexidine for infection prevention: systematic review with meta-analysisAm J Infect Control201745434334928109628
  • WebsterJOsborneSPreoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infectionCochrane Database Syst Rev20152CD004985
  • MoinicheSKehletHDahlJBA qualitative and quantitative systematic review of preemptive analgesia for postoperative pain relief: the role of timing of analgesiaAnesthesiology200296372574111873051
  • GiordanoSVerajankorvaEKoskivuoISuominenEEffectiveness of local anaesthetic pain catheters for abdominal donor site analgesia in patients undergoing free lower abdominal flap breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis of comparative studiesJ Plast Surg Hand Surg201347642843323627560
  • HellerLKowalskiAMWeiCButlerCEProspective, randomized, double-blind trial of local anesthetic infusion and intravenous narcotic patient-controlled anesthesia pump for pain management after free TRAM flap breast reconstructionPlast Reconstr Surg200812241010101818827631
  • DagtekinOHotzAKampeSAuweilerMWarmMPostoperative analgesia and flap perfusion after pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction – continuous wound instillation with ropivacaine 0.2%. A pilot studyJ Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg200962561862518387865
  • HagauNLongroisDAnesthesia for free vascularized tissue transferMicrosurgery200929216116718946883
  • VyasKWongLIntraoperative management of free flaps: current practiceAnn Plast Surg2014726S220S22324691347
  • ThieleRHRaghunathanKBrudneyCSPerioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) I WorkgroupAmerican Society for Enhanced Recovery (ASER) and Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) joint consensus statement on perioperative fluid management within an enhanced recovery pathway for colorectal surgeryPerioper Med (Lond)201652427660701
  • NelsonJAFischerJPGroverRIntraoperative perfusion management impacts postoperative outcomes: an analysis of 682 autologous breast reconstruction patientsJ Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg201568217518325456289
  • ZhongTNeinsteinRMasseyCIntravenous fluid infusion rate in microsurgical breast reconstruction: important lessons learned from 354 free flapsPlast Reconstr Surg201112861153116021841531
  • BooiDIPerioperative fluid overload increases anastomosis thrombosis in the free TRAM flap used for breast reconstructionEur J Plast Surg2011342818621475651
  • ClarkJRMcCluskeySAHallFPredictors of morbidity following free flap reconstruction for cancer of the head and neckHead Neck200729121090110117563889
  • HaugheyBHWilsonEKluweLFree flap reconstruction of the head and neck: analysis of 241 casesOtolaryngol Head Neck Surg20011251101711458207
  • PatelRSMcCluskeySAGoldsteinDPClinicopathologic and therapeutic risk factors for perioperative complications and prolonged hospital stay in free flap reconstruction of the head and neckHead Neck201032101345135320091687
  • JiaFJYanQYSunQTuxunTLiuHShaoLLiberal versus restrictive fluid management in abdominal surgery: a meta-analysisSurg Today201747334435627539606
  • VaradhanKKLoboDNA meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of intravenous fluid therapy in major elective open abdominal surgery: getting the balance rightProc Nutr Soc201069448849820515521
  • BergerMMGradwohl-MatisIBrunauerAUlmerHDunserMWTargets of perioperative fluid therapy and their effects on postoperative outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysisMinerva Anestesiol201581779480825220553
  • CorcoranTRhodesJEClarkeSMylesPSHoKMPerioperative fluid management strategies in major surgery: a stratified meta-analysisAnesth Analg2012114364065122253274
  • GiglioMTMarucciMTestiniMBrienzaNGoal-directed haemodynamic therapy and gastrointestinal complications in major surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsBr J Anaesth2009103563764619837807
  • LiPQuLPQiDSignificance of perioperative goal-directed hemodynamic approach in preventing postoperative complications in patients after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic reviewAnn Med201749434335127936959
  • Ripolles-MelchorJEspinosaAMartinez-HurtadoEPerioperative goal-directed hemodynamic therapy in noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysisJ Clin Anesth20162810511526440438
  • RollinsKELoboDNIntraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in elective major abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsAnn Surg2016263346547626445470
  • SomAMaitraSBhattacharjeeSBaidyaDKGoal directed fluid therapy decreases postoperative morbidity but not mortality in major non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trialsJ Anesth2017311668127738801
  • YuanJSunYPanCLiTGoal-directed fluid therapy for reducing risk of surgical site infections following abdominal surgery – a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsInt J Surg201739748728126672
  • IbrahimAMKimPSRabieANLeeBTLinSJVasopressors and reconstructive flap perfusion: a review of the literature comparing the effects of various pharmacologic agentsAnn Plast Surg201473224524823851374
  • NelsonJAFischerJPGroverRIntraoperative vasopressors and thrombotic complications in free flap breast reconstructionJ Plast Surg Hand Surg201751533634128084138
  • AppletonSENganAKentBMorrisSFRisk factors influencing transfusion rates in DIEP flap breast reconstructionPlast Reconstr Surg201112751773178221532406
  • FischerJPNelsonJAAuATuggleCT3rdSerlettiJMWuLCComplications and morbidity following breast reconstruction – a review of 16,063 cases from the 2005–2010 NSQIP datasetsJ Plast Surg Hand Surg201448210411423865900
  • FischerJPNelsonJASieberBTransfusions in autologous breast reconstructions: an analysis of risk factors, complications, and costAnn Plast Surg201472556657123241792
  • LeeHKKimDHJinUSJeonYTHwangJWParkHPEffect of perioperative transfusion of old red blood cells on postoperative complications after free muscle sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap surgery for breast reconstructionMicrosurgery201434643443824578171
  • LymperopoulosNSSofosSConstantinidesJKoshyOGrahamKBlood loss and transfusion rates in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Introducing a new predictorJ Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg201366121659166423992664
  • MacdonaldCRReeveWHazariAThe use of blood products in free flap based breast reconstruction: a cost and safety analysisJ Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg201467573273324368201
  • O’NeillACBarandunMChaJZhongTHoferSORestrictive use of perioperative blood transfusion does not increase complication rates in microvascular breast reconstructionJ Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg20166981092109627236504
  • KrollSSSharmaSKoutzCPostoperative morphine requirements of free TRAM and DIEP flapsPlast Reconstr Surg2001107233834111214047
  • VegaSJBossertRPSerlettiJMImproving outcomes in bilateral breast reconstruction using autogenous tissueAnn Plast Surg2006565487490 discussion 490–48116641622
  • ZoghbiYGerthDJTashiroJGolpanianSThallerSRDeep inferior epigastric perforator versus free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap: complications and resource utilizationAnn Plast Surg201778551652028052051
  • ChevrayPMBreast reconstruction with superficial inferior epigastric artery flaps: a prospective comparison with TRAM and DIEP flapsPlast Reconstr Surg2004114510771083 discussion 1084–107515457015
  • AtishaDAldermanAKA systematic review of abdominal wall function following abdominal flaps for postmastectomy breast reconstructionAnn Plast Surg200963222223019593108
  • EgebergARasmussenMKSorensenJAComparing the donor-site morbidity using DIEP, SIEA or MS-TRAM flaps for breast reconstructive surgery: a meta-analysisJ Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg201265111474148022841854
  • ManLXSelberJCSerlettiJMAbdominal wall following free TRAM or DIEP flap reconstruction: a meta-analysis and critical reviewPlast Reconstr Surg2009124375276419342994
  • WangXLLiuLBSongFMWangQYMeta-analysis of the safety and factors contributing to complications of MS-TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps for breast reconstructionAesthetic Plast Surg201438468169124902911
  • MacadamSAZhongTWeichmanKQuality of life and patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer survivors: a multicenter comparison of four abdominally based autologous reconstruction methodsPlast Reconstr Surg2016137375877126910656
  • MosahebiADa LioAMehraraBJThe use of a pectoralis major flap to improve internal mammary vessels exposure and reduce contour deformity in microvascular free flap breast reconstructionAnn Plast Surg2008611303418580146
  • DarcyCMSmitJMAudolfssonTAcostaRSurgical technique: the intercostal space approach to the internal mammary vessels in 463 microvascular breast reconstructionsJ Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg2011641586220542484
  • KimHLimSYPyonJKRib-sparing and internal mammary artery-preserving microsurgical breast reconstruction with the free DIEP flapPlast Reconstr Surg20131313327e334e
  • MickuteZDi CandiaMMosesMBaileyARMalataCMAnalgesia requirements in patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstructions: rib preservation versus rib sacrificeJ Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg20106312e837e83920805042
  • ParrettBMCatersonSATobiasAMLeeBTThe rib-sparing technique for internal mammary vessel exposure in microsurgical breast reconstructionAnn Plast Surg200860324124318443502
  • SacksJMChangDWRib-sparing internal mammary vessel harvest for microvascular breast reconstruction in 100 consecutive casesPlast Reconstr Surg200912351403140719407609
  • WilsonSWeichmanKBroerPNTo resect or not to resect: the effects of rib-sparing harvest of the internal mammary vessels in microsurgical breast reconstructionJ Reconstr Microsurg20163229410026258918
  • ZengAZhuLLiuZRib-sparing technique for internal mammary vessels exposure and anastomosis in breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator flapZhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi201428111376137925639054
  • EberhartLHMorinAMWulfHGeldnerGPatient preferences for immediate postoperative recoveryBr J Anaesth200289576076112393775
  • LeeAGinTLauASNgFFA comparison of patients’ and health care professionals’ preferences for symptoms during immediate postoperative recovery and the management of postoperative nausea and vomitingAnesth Analg20051001879315616058
  • MacarioAWeingerMCarneySKimAWhich clinical anesthesia outcomes are important to avoid? The perspective of patientsAnesth Analg199989365265810475299
  • ApfelbaumJLSilversteinJHChungFFAmerican Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Postanesthetic CarePractice guidelines for postanesthetic care: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists task force on postanesthetic careAnesthesiology2013118229130723364567
  • De OliveiraGSJrCastro-AlvesLJAhmadSKendallMCMcCarthyRJDexamethasone to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsAnesth Analg20131161587423223115
  • ApfelCCZhangKGeorgeETransdermal scopolamine for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysisClin Ther201032121987200221118734
  • GanTJSinhaACKovacALTDS Study GroupA randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing transdermal scopolamine plus ondansetron to ondansetron alone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the outpatient settingAnesth Analg200910851498150419372328
  • SahNRameshVKaulBDalbyPShestakKVallejoMCTransdermal scopolamine patch in addition to ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in patients undergoing ambulatory cosmetic surgeryJ Clin Anesth200921424925219502023
  • JonesSStroblRCrosbyDBurkardJFMayeJPellegriniJEThe effect of transdermal scopolamine on the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a group of high-risk patients given prophylactic intravenous ondansetronAANA J200674212713216617916
  • AwadITMurphyDStackDSwantonBJMeekeRIShortenGDA comparison of the effects of droperidol and the combination of droperidol and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomyJ Clin Anesth200214748148512477581
  • CarlisleJBStevensonCADrugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomitingCochrane Database Syst Rev20063CD004125
  • DerryCDerrySMooreRAMcQuayHJSingle dose oral ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in adultsCochrane Database Syst Rev20093CD001548
  • EliaNLysakowskiCTramerMRDoes multimodal analgesia with acetaminophen, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, or selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and patient-controlled analgesia morphine offer advantages over morphine alone? Meta-analyses of randomized trialsAnesthesiology200510361296130416306743
  • MarretEKurdiOZuffereyPBonnetFEffects of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs on patient-controlled analgesia morphine side effects: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsAnesthesiology200510261249126015915040
  • KelleyBPBennettKGChungKCKozlowJHIbuprofen may not increase bleeding risk in plastic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysisPlast Reconstr Surg201613741309131627018685
  • De OliveiraGSJrAgarwalDBenzonHTPerioperative single dose ketorolac to prevent postoperative pain: a meta-analysis of randomized trialsAnesth Analg2012114242443321965355
  • SharmaSChangDWKoutzCIncidence of hematoma associated with ketorolac after TRAM flap breast reconstructionPlast Reconstr Surg2001107235235511214049
  • StephensDMRichardsBGSchleicherWFZinsJELangsteinHNIs ketorolac safe to use in plastic surgery? A critical reviewAesthet Surg J201535446246625825424
  • TomsLMcQuayHJDerrySMooreRASingle dose oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for postoperative pain in adultsCochrane Database Syst Rev20084CD004602
  • OngCKSeymourRALirkPMerryAFCombining paracetamol (acetaminophen) with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: a qualitative systematic review of analgesic efficacy for acute postoperative painAnesth Analg201011041170117920142348
  • DolemanBHeininkTPReadDJFaleiroRJLundJNWilliamsJPA systematic review and meta-regression analysis of prophylactic gabapentin for postoperative painAnaesthesia201570101186120426300519
  • ClarkeHBoninRPOrserBAEnglesakisMWijeysunderaDNKatzJThe prevention of chronic postsurgical pain using gabapentin and pregabalin: a combined systematic review and meta-analysisAnesth Analg2012115242844222415535
  • HoKYGanTJHabibASGabapentin and postoperative pain – a systematic review of randomized controlled trialsPain20061261–39110116846695
  • MathiesenOMoinicheSDahlJBGabapentin and postoperative pain: a qualitative and quantitative systematic review, with focus on procedureBMC Anesthesiol20077617617920
  • CastelinoTFioreJFJrNiculiseanuPLandryTAugustinBFeldmanLSThe effect of early mobilization protocols on postoperative outcomes following abdominal and thoracic surgery: a systematic reviewSurgery20161594991100326804821
  • EpsteinNEA review article on the benefits of early mobilization following spinal surgery and other medical/surgical proceduresSurg Neurol Int20145suppl 3S66S7324843814
  • YeungJKHarropRMcCrearyODelayed mobilization after microsurgical reconstruction: an independent risk factor for pneumoniaLaryngoscope2013123122996300023754486
  • GriffithsRFernandezRStrategies for the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters in adultsCochrane Database Syst Rev20072CD004011
  • RamanathanRDuaneTMUrinary tract infections in surgical patientsSurg Clin North Am20149461351136825440128
  • ZhangPHuWLChengBChengLXiongXKZengYJA systematic review and meta-analysis comparing immediate and delayed catheter removal following uncomplicated hysterectomyInt Urogynecol J201526566567425398392
  • CharoenkwanKMatovinovicEEarly versus delayed oral fluids and food for reducing complications after major abdominal gynaecologic surgeryCochrane Database Syst Rev201412CD004508
  • WillcuttsKFChungMCErenbergCLFinnKLSchirmerBDByham-GrayLDEarly oral feeding as compared with traditional timing of oral feeding after upper gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysisAnn Surg20162641546326779983
  • LeeVSKawamotoKHessRImplementation of a value-driven outcomes program to identify high variability in clinical costs and outcomes and association with reduced cost and improved qualityJAMA2016316101061107227623461