Search

Background: There are important differences between patients requiring sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and those who do not require axillary surgery at the time of breast reconstruction. We aimed to perform a propensity score-matched analysis to evaluate the impact of SLNB at the time of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) with tissue expanders compared with IBBR alone., Methods: Consecutive female patients undergoing total mastectomy and immediate two-stage IBBR between January 2011 and May 2021 were included. A 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching method without replacement was implemented with a caliper width of 0.01. Patients were matched for age, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, premastectomy radiotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the plane of prosthesis placement, mastectomy specimen weight, number of drains, and radiation of the expander., Results: We included 320 two-stage immediate IBBRs after propensity score matching, 160 reconstructions per group. Relevant surgical variables were comparable between groups. A higher rate of 30-day seroma formation was reported in immediate reconstructions that had SLNB at the time of mastectomy compared with reconstructions that did not have axillary surgery (16.3% versus 8.1%, p = 0.039). The time to complete outpatient expansions and time for expander-to-implant exchange were comparable between patients who underwent IBBRs with SLNB and those who did not., Conclusion: SLNB performed at the time of mastectomy and IBBR with tissue expander increased the risk of seroma formation compared with reconstructions that did not have axillary surgery. The rate of infection, hematoma, and unplanned procedures to manage complications did not differ between groups., (Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Obesity is a multisystem disease process that confers increased surgical risk. In patients who are not surgical candidates for breast reconstruction with implants/tissue expanders or abdomen-based flaps, the latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) remains a versatile alternative due to its safety profile. We conducted an analysis of patients who underwent reconstruction with LDFs and compared outcomes between two groups: obese and nonobese patients., Methods: We reviewed records from patients undergoing total mastectomy and breast reconstruction with LDFs between January 2011 and December 2021. We compared the surgical outcomes between obese and nonobese patients. Associations between risk factors and the presence of wound-related complications were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models., Results: One-hundred ten reconstructions were performed in obese patients (67.5%) and fifty-three in nonobese patients (32.5%). The median body mass index was 34.96 kg/m 2 [32.6-39.2] in the obese patients' group and 26.8 kg/m 2 [25.7-28.9] in the nonobese group (P < 0.001). The mean age was comparable between groups (54 years; P = 0.632). The rate of donor-site and recipient-site complications was similar between groups. The rate of revision procedures for secondary fat grafting and donor- or recipient-site revisions was comparable between obese and nonobese patients. Preoperative radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.44), nipple-sparing mastectomy (HR, 3.26), and vertical pattern mastectomy (HR, 2.86) were associated with an increased risk of wound disruption., Conclusion: The LDF is a reliable and safe alternative for autologous breast reconstruction in obese patients. The rates of surgical site complications were comparable between obese and nonobese patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors did not receive any compensation or financial support for this study. The authors have no commercial associations to disclose related to this study., (Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Approximately 80% of patients undergoing total mastectomy in the US opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). A two-stage reconstruction with tissue expander (TE) remains the most common technique. Since the implementation of ADMs, a prepectoral approach has gained popularity and is becoming the standard of care. Herein, we compared the surgical and postoperative outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage IBBR., Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed between January 2011 and December 2020. We included female patients undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR. The primary outcomes of this study were to compare the 30-day morbidity and the overall rate of complications during the first and second stages of reconstruction, and to compare the time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Propensity score matching was implemented., Results: After matching, 154 reconstructions were analyzed, 77 in each group. The two matched groups exhibited comparable (p > 0.05) characteristics for all analyzed demographic and intraoperative independent variables. Reconstructions in the prepectoral group had a shortened median time for drain removal (13-days vs. 15-days, p = 0.001). The intraoperative expansion volumes were higher in the prepectoral group (300 ml versus 200 ml, p = 0.025). The 30-day morbidity and first- and second-stage complication rates were not significantly different between groups. The time to start postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) was not significantly different between groups (134-days versus 126.5-days, p = 0.58)., Conclusion: Prepectoral and subpectoral TE placement had comparable complication rates during the first and second stages of IBBR. Timing for TE-to-Implant exchange and initiation of PMRT were comparable between the two approaches., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript., (Copyright © 2022 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite several efforts have been made to increase the volume of the latissimus dorsi (LD) flap, few studies have reported the outcomes of LD flap and immediate fat transfer (LIFT) to restore a natural native breast appearance during the initial reconstructive procedure. The aim of this study was to report the different surgical techniques used when implementing LIFT for breast reconstruction and evaluate the postoperative outcomes., Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE®, and Scopus. We included articles reporting postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent breast reconstruction with LIFT., Results: We included nineteen studies reporting outcomes of 704 breast reconstructions with LIFT (57.09%). The average age and BMI of patients were 51 years and 26.01 kg/m 2 . The pooled rate of patients requiring additional fat grafting following LIFT was 64.9% (95% CI 43.3%-86.5%). The overall pooled incidence of total flap loss was 3% (95% CI <0%-7.2%), wound-related complications was 14.5% (95% CI 7.3%-21.7%), seroma was 18.2% (95% CI 5.1%-31.2%), and fat necrosis was 14.5% (95% CI 4.5%-24.4%). When compared with abdominal free flaps, we found a significantly lower risk difference of developing wound-related complications favoring LIFT (RD, 0.066; 95%CI 0.004-0.129; p = 0.038)., Conclusions: LIFT offers a totally autologous, less morbid type of reconstruction in breast cancer patients who are not ideal candidates for reconstruction with free tissue transfer. However, immediate fat transfer during reconstruction with the LD flap does not eliminate the need for further fat grafting., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Despite some reports that have shown an increase in safety, efficiency, and accuracy during feminizing craniofacial procedures utilizing three-dimensional (3D) technology, there are no reports summarizing the available evidence on this matter for facial feminization surgery (FFS). Here, we aimed to systematically review the application of 3D technology on FFS., Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search across PubMed, SCOPUS, Ovid MEDLINE®, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect looking for studies reporting the use of 3D surgical planning in the setting of FFS following the PRISMA guidelines. We extracted data on photographic assessment, imaging, surgical application, and surgical technique and outcomes., Results: This review included 10 studies comprising 1473 transgender female patients and 50 cadaveric cranial specimens. Four studies employed virtual surgical planning (VSP) and the concomitant use of prefabricated cutting guides. One study reported the implementation of 3D VSP using a female skull as a reference. One study used computer-aided design cutting guides and custom plates for FFS. Standardized incorporation of 3D printed models allowed for preoperative planning in three studies. Three studies reported VSP using 3D reconstruction of CT images, but without the use of 3D printing. Three studies used 3D photography with specialized camera technology to enrich clinical documentation and provide a comprehensive facial analysis of soft tissue. Accuracy ranged from 85.7% to 97%. Morbidity ranged from 0% to 12.5%., Conclusion: Based on this data, we believe 3D VSP has promising outcomes in terms of accuracy and low morbidity, encouraging its implementation in FFS. However, further prospective double-arm cohort studies are required., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article. All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is sparse literature studying the functional morbidity of subpectoral implant- based breast reconstruction. We aimed to prospectively investigate this technique's impact on objective upper extremity function and patient-reported outcomes., Methods: Women undergoing mastectomy and immediate subpectoral tissue expander insertion with ADM sling were enrolled from November 2014 to August 2016. Preoperative evaluation of shoulder range of motion, pectoralis major strength, and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) and Breast-Q surveys were conducted before surgery and at 1 month and 6 months postoperatively, or until return to baseline pectoralis major strength., Results: Eighteen women (mean age, 51 years, SD 9.6, range 35-72 years) comprising 26 breast reconstructions completed postoperative follow-up. The average follow-up length was 9 months (range, 3 -18 months; SD, 144 days). At 1-month follow-up, there was a statistically significant decrease in lower and non dominant upper fiber pectoralis strength from preoperative baseline (p < 0.05). At final postoperative follow-up, 24 reconstructions (92.3%) recovered to at least 80% of preoperative strength in upper and lower fibers. From preoperative to final postoperative follow-up, QuickDASH scores showed a statistically significant (p = 0.008) increase from 4.1 (range 0-20.5, SD 6.1) to 18.7 (range 0-45.5, SD 13.4). Physical well-being: The chest was the only Breast-Q domain in which the average score significantly decreased (p = 0.02) between preoperative assessment and final follow-up., Conclusions: After implant-based breast reconstruction, patients achieve the return of objective upper extremity function, but patient-reported outcomes do not return to baseline as shown by increased QuickDASH scores. Thus, pectoralis-sparing reconstructive strategies such as prepectoral implant insertion should be pursued., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Current guidelines in the United States require reporting only the 30-day postoperative outcomes to standardized databases, including the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). Thus, many breast implant-related complications go unreported in standard databases. We sought to characterize late periprosthetic infections following implant-based breast reconstruction., Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all women who underwent expander/implant reconstruction from 2005 to 2014 at two institutions. All periprosthetic infections were identified and divided into early and late cohorts (≤30 days or >30 days). Infection was defined as any episode where antibiotics were initiated or a prosthetic device was explanted because of clinical evidence of the infection., Results: In the 1820 patients (2980 breasts) identified, 421 periprosthetic infections occurred (14%). Of these, 173 (41%) were early and 248 (59%) were late (mean time to infection = 66.4 ± 101.9 days). Patients with late infections were more likely to be current smokers or have diabetes than patients with early infections (p < 0.034 for both). Infections caused by gram-negative bacteria and antimicrobial-resistant strains of Staphylococcus were more common in the early infection group (p < 0.001 for both). Implant loss due to infection was more common in the late infection group (p = 0.037)., Discussion: Late periprosthetic infections following implant-based breast reconstruction are underestimated in national outcome databases and have unique risk factors and microbiology compared to early infections. A system-level change in reevaluating and redefining a timeline for tracking and treating implant infections is necessary, given the substantial morbidity associated with, and frequency of, late periprosthetic infections., (Copyright © 2017 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)