Search

Background: Capsular contracture is one of the most frequent indications for revision following breast augmentation. Management goals focus on restoring breast aesthetics and minimizing subsequent recurrence of capsular contracture. As new data emerge, close review of the data are merited to build evidence-based clinical guidelines to inform surgical practice and management of capsular contracture., Methods: A systematic review of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases was conducted to characterize the surgical management of capsular contracture in revision breast augmentations. The primary endpoint was capsular contracture recurrence rate., Results: The review was conducted in November of 2021. Primary search revealed 14,163 results. Initial screening by title left 1223 articles. Abstract review left 90 articles for full-text review, of which 34 were ultimately included and were all observational in nature., Conclusions: Capsular contracture management remains an important topic, with limited high-level evidence for establishing clear evidence-based treatment guidelines. Although more evidence is required to assess the effects of capsulectomy, implant exchange, and plane change, these appear to be useful mechanisms for reducing recurrent capsular contracture. There is more evidence regarding the use of acellular dermal matrix, although this still requires long-term follow-up studies. New developments regarding textured implants limit the revision breast augmentation surgeon to smooth devices., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Hematoma after non-oncologic breast surgery is a common concern requiring expeditious treatment. The purpose of this study is to perform an evidence-based review of perioperative factors that may contribute to hematoma in non-oncologic breast procedures., Methods: A comprehensive literature review was performed of non-oncologic breast procedures: breast augmentation, single-stage augmentation-mastopexy, mastopexy, and reduction. In total, 28 studies highlighting incidence and potential risk factors for hematoma were included; overall level of evidence was established regarding each perioperative factor examined and hematoma rate., Results: The hematoma rate in breast augmentation ranges from 0.2 to 5.7%. There is inconclusive evidence to support an association between pocket choice or incision location and hematoma rate (Level III) and no evidence of an association between implant type and hematoma (Level V). Single-stage augmentation-mastopexy may have a lower hematoma rate than augmentation alone (Level II). Hematoma may increase the risk of capsular contracture (Level III). In breast reduction, the hematoma rate ranges from 1.0 to 9.3%. Evidence of an association between incision choice and hematoma rate is inconclusive (Level III). Use of epinephrine-containing solution, pedicle choice, and resection weight do not appear to affect hematoma rate (Level V, II, and II, respectively). The use of postoperative drains and ketorolac do not affect the incidence of hematoma (Level I and III, respectively). Intraoperative hypotension may increase the risk of hematoma after breast reduction (Level III)., Conclusions: Breast hematomas are not uncommon complications. Current literature lacks ample evidence for risk factors for hematoma after non-oncologic breast procedures, warranting further, high-powered investigations., Level of Evidence Iii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 ., (© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.)