Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 4/2016

01-04-2016 | Breast Oncology

Does “Two is Better Than One” Apply to Surgeons? Comparing Single-Surgeon Versus Co-surgeon Bilateral Mastectomies

Authors: Melissa Anne Mallory, MD, Katya Losk, MPH, Kristen Camuso, MPH, Stephanie Caterson, MD, Suniti Nimbkar, MD, Mehra Golshan, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Bilateral mastectomies (BM) are traditionally performed by single surgeons (SS); a co-surgeon (CS) technique, where each surgeon concurrently performs a unilateral mastectomy, offers an alternative approach. We examined differences in general surgery time (GST), overall surgery time (OST), and patient complications for BM performed by CS and SS.

Methods

Patients undergoing BM with tissue expander reconstruction (BMTR) between January 2010 and May 2014 at our center were identified through operative case logs. GST (incision to end of BM procedure), reconstruction duration (RST) (plastic surgery start to end of reconstruction) and OST (OST = GST + RST) was calculated. Patient age, presence/stage of cancer, breast weight, axillary procedure performed, and 30-day postoperative complications were extracted from medical records. Differences in GST and OST between CS and SS cases were assessed with a t test. A multivariate linear regression was fit to identify factors associated with GST.

Results

A total of 116 BMTR cases were performed [CS, n = 67 (57.8 %); SS, n = 49 (42.2 %)]. Demographic characteristics did not differ between groups. GST and OST were significantly shorter for CS cases, 75.8 versus 116.8 min, p < .0001, and 255.2 versus 278.3 min, p = .005, respectively. Presence of a CS significantly reduces BMTR time (β = −38.82, p < .0001). Breast weight (β = 0.0093, p = .03) and axillary dissection (β = 28.69, p = .0003) also impacted GST.

Conclusions

The CS approach to BMTR reduced both GST and OST; however, the degree of time savings (35.1 and 8.3 %, respectively) was less than hypothesized. A larger study is warranted to better characterize time, cost, and outcomes of the CS-approach for BM.
Literature
1.
Kurian AW, Lichtensztajn DY, Keegan TH, Nelson DO, Clarke CA, Gomez SL. Use of and mortality after bilateral mastectomy compared with other surgical treatments for breast cancer in California, 1998–2011. JAMA. 2014;312:902–14.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Cemal Y, Albornoz CR, Disa JJ, McCarthy CM, Mehrara BJ, Pusic AL, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: part 2. The influence of changing mastectomy patterns on reconstructive rate and method. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:320e–6e.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Albornoz CR, Matros E, Lee CN, Hudis CA, Pusic AL, Elkin E, et al. Bilateral mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer: the role of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:1518–26.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Kwok AC, Goodwin IA, Ying J, Agarwal JP. National trends and complication rates after bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction from 2005 to 2012. Am J Surg. 2015;210:512–6.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:9–16.CrossRefPubMed
6.
National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers. NAPBC Standards Manual. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2014.
7.
Jagsi R, Li Y, Morrow M, Janz N, Alderman A, Graff J, et al. Patient-reported quality of life and satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes after breast conservation and mastectomy with and without reconstruction: results of a survey of breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg. 2015;261:1198–206.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Lowery JC, Kim M, Davis JA. Determinants of patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106:769–76.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Surgeons ASoP. 2014 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. In: 2014 Reconstructive Breast Procedures. 2015.
10.
Tomlinson JE, Hannon E, Sturdee S, London N. Bilateral simultaneous two surgeon knee replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91-B(SUPP I):43.
11.
Aloia TA, Zorzi D, Abdalla EK, Vauthey JN. Two-surgeon technique for hepatic parenchymal transection of the noncirrhotic liver using saline-linked cautery and ultrasonic dissection. Ann Surg. 2005;242:172–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Arlow RL, Moore DF, Chen C, Langenfeld J, August DA. Outcome-volume relationships and transhiatal esophagectomy: minimizing “failure to rescue”. Ann Surg Innov Res. 2014;8:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Tomlinson J, Hannon E, Sturdee S, London N. Bilateral simultaneous two surgeon knee replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:43.
14.
Halanski MA, Elfman CM, Cassidy JA, Hassan NE, Sund SA, Noonan KJ. Comparing results of posterior spine fusion in patients with AIS: are two surgeons better than one? J Orthop. 2013;10:54–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Arlen AM, Powell CR, Hoffman HT, Kreder KJ. Buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty in the treatment of urethral strictures: experience using the two-surgeon technique. Sci World J. 2010;10:74–9.CrossRef
16.
Ludwig AT, Inampudi L, O’Donnell MA, Kreder KJ, Williams RD, Konety BR. Two-surgeon versus single-surgeon radical cystectomy and urinary diversion: impact on patient outcomes and costs. Urology. 2005;65:488–92.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Skinner A, Maoate K, Beasley S. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy: the effect of the learning curve, and concentrating expertise, on operating times. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010;20:383–5.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Ames CP, Barry JJ, Keshavarzi S, Dede O, Weber MH, Deviren V. Perioperative outcomes and complications of pedicle substraction osteotomy in cases with single versus two attending surgeons. Spine Deform. 2013;1:51–8.CrossRef
19.
Kilchenmann AJ, Lardi AM, Ho-Asjoe M, Junge K, Farhadi J. An evaluation of resource utilisation of single stage porcine acellular dermal matrix assisted breast reconstruction: a comparative study. Breast. 2014;23:876–82.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Daley BJ, Cecil W, Clarke PC, Cofer JB, Guillamondegui OD. How slow is too slow? Correlation of operative time to complications: an analysis from the Tennessee Surgical Quality Collaborative. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:550–8.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kim JY, Khavanin N, Rambachan A, McCarthy RJ, Mlodinow AS, De Oliveria GS, et al. Surgical duration and risk of venous thromboembolism. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:110–7.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Nwaogu I, Yan Y, Margenthaler JA, Myckatyn TM. Venous thromboembolism after breast reconstruction in patients undergoing breast surgery: an American College of Surgeons NSQIP analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:886–93.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Abedi N, Ho AL, Knox A, Tashakkor Y, Omeis T, Van Laeken N, et al. Predictors of mastectomy flap necrosis in patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction: a review of 718 patients. Ann Plast Surg. 2014 July 4 [Epub ahead of print].
24.
Chamberlain RS, Patil S, Minja EJ, Kordears IV K. Does residents’ involvement in mastectomy cases increase operative cost? If so, who should bear the cost? J Surg Res. 2012;178:18–27.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Chatterjee A, Chen L, Goldenberg EA, Bae HT, Finlayson SR. Opportunity cost in the evaluation of surgical innovations: a case study of laparoscopic versus open colectomy. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1075–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Metadata
Title
Does “Two is Better Than One” Apply to Surgeons? Comparing Single-Surgeon Versus Co-surgeon Bilateral Mastectomies
Authors
Melissa Anne Mallory, MD
Katya Losk, MPH
Kristen Camuso, MPH
Stephanie Caterson, MD
Suniti Nimbkar, MD
Mehra Golshan, MD
Publication date
01-04-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4956-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 4/2016 Go to the issue

Colorectal Cancer

Predictors of Pathologic Complete Response Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

Hepatobiliary Tumors

Is Tumor Detachment from Vascular Structures Equivalent to R0 Resection in Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases? An Observational Cohort

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Is There Any Role of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for T3N0M0 or T1N2M0 Gastric Cancer Patients in Stage II in the 7th TNM but Stage I in the 6th TNM System?

Melanomas

Australian Multicenter Study of Isolated Limb Infusion for Melanoma

Colorectal Cancer

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation: A Matched Case–Control Study

Breast Oncology

Residual Mammographic Microcalcifications and Enhancing Lesions on MRI After Neoadjuvant Systemic Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: Correlation with Histopathologic Residual Tumor Size