Search

Background: With ongoing investigations of the impact of device texturing on breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), studies have begun comparing complication profiles of tissue expanders. However, there is a paucity of timing and severity data of complications. The aim of this study was to provide a comparative survival analysis of postoperative complications between smooth (STEs) and textured tissue expanders (TTEs) in breast reconstruction., Methods: A single-institution experience with tissue expander breast reconstruction was reviewed for complications up to 1 year after second-stage reconstruction from 2014 to 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, operation-related variables, and complications were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazard models, and a consensus-based ordinal logistic regression model were used to compare complication profiles., Results: Of 919 total patients, 600 (65.3%) received TTEs and 319 (34.7%) received STEs. There was increased risk of infection ( P < 0.0001), seroma ( P = 0.046), expander malposition ( P < 0.0001), and wound dehiscence ( P = 0.019) in STEs compared with TTEs. However, there was also a decreased risk of capsular contracture ( P = 0.005) in STEs compared with TTEs. Failure of breast reconstruction ( P < 0.001) and wound dehiscence ( P = 0.018) occurred significantly earlier in STEs compared with TTEs. Predictors for significantly higher severity complications included the following: smooth tissue expander use ( P = 0.007), shorter time to complication ( P < 0.0001), higher body mass index ( P = 0.005), smoking history ( P = 0.025), and nipple-sparing mastectomy ( P = 0.012)., Conclusions: Differences in the timing and severity of complications contribute to the safety profiles of tissue expanders. STEs are associated with increased odds of higher severity and earlier complications. Therefore, tissue expander selection may depend on underlying risk factors and severity predictors., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the commonly used fat grafting techniques-Telfa rolling and a closed washing system-in breast reconstruction patients., Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing fat grafting were retrospectively reviewed and grouped by technique. Patients with less than 180 days of follow-up were excluded. Demographics, operative details, and complications were compared using univariate analysis with significance set at p < 0.05., Results: Between January of 2013 and September of 2017, 186 women underwent a total of 319 fat grafting procedures. There was no difference in demographics, number of procedures performed, volume of fat grafted, and number of days after reconstruction that fat grafting was performed between groups (p > 0.05). Telfa rolling patients had longer operative times for second fat grafting procedures (implant exchange often completed prior) [100.0 minutes (range, 60.0 to 150.0 minutes) versus 79.0 minutes (range, 64.0 to 94.0 minutes); p = 0.03]. Telfa rolling breasts had more palpable masses requiring imaging (26.0 percent versus 14.4 percent; p = 0.01) and an increased incidence of fat necrosis (20.6 percent versus 8.0 percent; p < 0.01). The closed washing system was found to be an independent predictor of decreased rates of imaging-confirmed fat necrosis (OR, 0.29; p = 0.048). There was no difference in fat necrosis excision or cancer recurrence between the groups., Conclusion: The closed washing system was independently associated with decreased rates of imaging-confirmed fat necrosis compared to Telfa rolling without an increase in other complications., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III.

Background: The numerous office visits required to complete expansion in implant-based breast reconstruction impact patient satisfaction, office resources, and time to complete reconstruction. This study aimed to determine whether prepectoral compared to subpectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction offers expedited tissue expansion without affecting complication rates., Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from January of 2016 to July of 2017 by a single surgeon were grouped into subpectoral (partial submuscular/partial acellular dermal matrix) or prepectoral (complete acellular dermal matrix coverage), and reviewed. The primary outcomes were total days and number of visits to complete expansion. Groups were compared by univariate analysis with significance set at p < 0.05., Results: In total, 101 patients (subpectoral, n = 69; prepectoral, n = 32) underwent 184 immediate implant-based breast reconstructions (subpectoral, n = 124; prepectoral, n = 60). There was no difference in age, body mass index, smoking, or diabetes between the groups (all p > 0.05). Follow-up was similar between groups (179.3 ± 98.2 days versus 218.3 ± 119.8 days; p = 0.115). Prepectoral patients took fewer days to complete expansion (40.4 ± 37.8 days versus 62.5 ± 50.2 days; p < 0.001) and fewer office visits to complete expansion (2.3 ± 1 .7 versus 3.9 ± 1.8; p < 0.001), and were expanded to greater final volumes than subpectoral patients (543.7 ± 122.9 ml versus 477.5 ± 159.6 ml; p = 0.017). Between prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions, there were similar rates of minor complications (25 percent versus 18.5 percent; p = 0.311), readmissions (5 percent versus 2.4 percent; p = 0.393), seromas (8.3 percent versus 5.6 percent; p = 0.489), reoperations for hematoma (3.3 percent versus 1.6 percent; p = 0.597), and explantations (5 percent versus 2.4 percent; p = 0.393)., Conclusion: This novel analysis demonstrates that prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction can facilitate expansion to higher total volumes in nearly half the office visits compared to subpectoral placement in similar populations without increasing complication rates., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III.

Background: Use of biological implants such as acellular dermal matrices in tissue expander breast reconstruction is a common adjunct to submuscular implant placement. There is a paucity of published prospective studies involving acellular matrices. The authors sought to evaluate a porcine-derived acellular peritoneal matrix product for immediate breast reconstruction., Methods: A prospective, single-arm trial was designed to analyze safety and outcomes of immediate tissue expander-based breast reconstruction with a novel porcine-derived acellular peritoneal matrix surgical mesh implant. Twenty-five patients were enrolled in this industry-sponsored trial. Patient demographics, surgical information, complications, histologic characteristics, and satisfaction (assessed by means of the BREAST-Q questionnaire) were evaluated., Results: Twenty-five patients (44 breasts) underwent mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction using tissue expanders with acellular peritoneal matrix. Sixteen reconstructed breasts experienced at least one complication (36 percent). Seroma and hematoma occurred in one of 44 (2.3 percent) and two of 44 breasts (4.6 percent), respectively. Wound dehiscence occurred in four of 44 breasts (9.1 percent). Three subjects experienced reconstruction failure resulting in expander and/or acellular peritoneal matrix removal (6.8 percent); all failures were preceded by wound dehiscence. Histologic analysis showed cellular infiltration and product resorption. Results of the BREAST-Q demonstrated a level of postoperative patient satisfaction consistent with results in the available literature., Conclusions: Prepared porcine-derived acellular peritoneal matrix is a safe adjunct in immediate two-stage tissue expander-based breast reconstruction. Further studies are required to determine efficacy compared to current commercially available acellular matrices., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, IV.

Background: Enhanced recovery pathway programs have demonstrated improved perioperative care and shorter length of hospital stay in several surgical disciplines. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients undergoing autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction before and after the implementation of an enhanced recovery pathway program., Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction performed by two surgeons before and after the implementation of the enhanced recovery pathway at a university center over a 3-year period. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and 45-day postoperative outcomes were compared between the traditional standard of care (pre-enhanced recovery pathway) and enhanced recovery pathway patients. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for length of hospital stay. Cost analysis was performed., Results: Between April of 2014 and January of 2017, 100 consecutive women were identified, with 50 women in each group. Both groups had similar demographics, comorbidities, and reconstruction types. Postoperatively, the enhanced recovery pathway cohort used significantly less opiate and more acetaminophen compared with the traditional standard of care cohort. Median length of stay was shorter in the enhanced recovery pathway cohort, which resulted in an extrapolated $279,258 savings from freeing up inpatient beds and increase in overall contribution margins of $189,342. Participation in an enhanced recovery pathway program and lower total morphine-equivalent use were independent predictors for decreased length of hospital stay. Overall 45-day major complication rates, partial flap loss rates, emergency room visits, hospital readmissions, and unplanned reoperations were similar between the two groups., Conclusion: Enhanced recovery pathway program implementation should be considered as the standard approach for perioperative care in autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction because it does not affect morbidity and is associated with accelerated recovery with reduced postoperative opiate use and decreased length of hospital stay, leading to downstream health care cost savings., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III.

Background: Among aesthetic surgery procedures, abdominoplasty is associated with a higher complication rate, but previous studies are limited by small sample sizes or single-institution experience., Methods: A cohort of patients who underwent abdominoplasty between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Major complications were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed evaluating risk factors, including age, smoking, body mass index, sex, diabetes, type of surgical facility, and combined procedures., Results: The authors identified 25,478 abdominoplasties from 183,914 procedures in the database. Of these, 8,975 patients had abdominoplasty alone and 16,503 underwent additional procedures. The number of complications recorded was 1,012 (4.0 percent overall rate versus 1.4 percent in other aesthetic surgery procedures). Of these, 31.5 percent were hematomas, 27.2 percent were infections and 20.2 percent were suspected or confirmed venous thromboembolism. On multivariate analysis, significant risk factors (p < 0.05) included male sex (relative risk, 1.8), age 55 years or older (1.4), body mass index greater than or equal to 30 (1.3), multiple procedures (1.5), and procedure performance in a hospital or surgical center versus office-based surgical suite (1.6). Combined procedures increased the risk of complication (abdominoplasty alone, 3.1 percent; with liposuction, 3.8 percent; breast procedure, 4.3 percent; liposuction and breast procedure, 4.6 percent; body-contouring procedure, 6.8 percent; liposuction and body-contouring procedure, 10.4 percent)., Conclusions: Abdominoplasty is associated with a higher complication rate compared with other aesthetic procedures. Combined procedures can significantly increase complication rates and should be considered carefully in higher risk patients., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Risk, II.