Search

Purpose: The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) ranks neighborhoods by deprivation based on US Census data. This study utilizes ADI scores to investigate the impact of neighborhood deprivation on complication rates following breast reconstruction., Patients and Methods: Patients who received implant-based reconstruction from 2019 to 2023 were identified at a single institution in New York. Patients were linked to a state-specific ADI score and categorized into groups: "High ADI" (6-10) and "Low ADI" (1-5). Patient characteristics and complication rates were compared between the ADI groups with Chi-Square analysis and t-tests. The predictive value of ADI scores on complication rates was assessed using logistic regression models., Results: In total, 471 patients were included, of which 16% (n = 73) were in the High ADI group, and 84% (n = 398) were in the Low ADI group. There were no baseline differences between the 2 groups, except that there were more patients of Hispanic descent in the High ADI group (30% vs. 15%, P < .01). The High ADI group had a higher overall complication rate than the Low ADI group (34% vs. 21%, P < .01), as well as higher individual rates of hematoma (12% vs. 3%, P < .01) and unexpected reoperations (18% vs. 7%, P < .01). After adjusting for differences in race, High ADI scores predicted hematoma, reoperations, and any complication (P < .05)., Conclusion: Patients living in neighborhoods with high ADI had a higher incidence of postoperative complications, independent of comorbidities and race. This measure of disparity should be considered when counselling patients about their risk of complications following procedures like implant-based breast reconstruction., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have no other potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Despite a lack of data demonstrating causation, there is growing concern over breast implants and systemic illness. This study examines the impact of rising public interest in breast implant illness (BII) and its implications on breast implant removals (BIR)., Methods: A Google Trends (GT) analysis of each year between 2010 and 2022 was performed globally, and then separately for the United States alone (US), using the search terms "capsular contracture," "breast implant illness," and "breast implant(s) removal". Linear regression was performed to determine significant correlations. Data on BII-related Facebook advocacy groups, relevant pop culture events, numbers of BIR surgeries, and number of BII-related publications were collected and analyzed alongside GT data to determine relevance., Results: For global GT, there was a significant relationship between "breast implant illness" and "breast implant(s) removal" in 2016 (R 2 =0.62, β =0.33, p<0.01), 2020 (R 2 =0.53, β =0.23, p=0.01), and 2022 (R 2 =0.60, β =0.44, p=0.01). In the US, 2016 (R 2 =0.53, β =1.75, p=0.01) 2018 (R 2 =0.61, β =1.93, p<0.01) and 2020 (R 2 =0.72, β=0.91, p<0.01) were significant. In 2020, "capsular contracture" and "breast implant(s) removal" was significant in the US (R 2 =0.58, β=0.4, p=0.01). In 2016, Facebook was the platform for the largest BII advocacy group and in 2020 YouTube was the platform for the first BII documentary and TEDx talk. From 2010 to 2020, PubMed publications containing "ASIA" and "BII" increased 24-fold and ASPS reports on BIR rose 70%., Conclusion: This study suggests that BII is a topic of global concern and has implications on both academic medicine and clinical practice., Level of Evidence V: 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 ., (© 2023. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.)

Background: There are currently four companies offering FDA-approved breast implants: Allergan, Sientra, Mentor, and Ideal Implant. In 2015, our paper "Objective Comparison of Commercially Available Breast Implant Devices" sought to provide a unique conceptual framework to better understand the similarities and differences between FDA-approved breast implant products and tissue expanders. This paper uses the same variables, such as fill material, shape, relative dimensions, and surface coating, to aid understanding of both the surgical trainee and the operating surgeon of what devices each company offers, with a focus on how the market has evolved over the ensuing 5 years., Methods: The product catalogs of each FDA-approved company were carefully explored to determine the current available breast implants and tissue expanders. Subsequently, flow charts were created to provide a clear and objective survey of each companies' offerings, highlighting where there are overlap and deficiencies, and where there has been contraction or growth., Results: Disruptions to the industry, including both technological innovation and the recognition of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), have caused a significant shift in the details of the available permanent breast implants, breast tissue expanders, sizers, and warranty programs., Conclusion: As it has been in 2015, company jargon and brand names continue to make it challenging to discern the similarities and differences between company devices and programs. This project remained independent of any company's funding, support, or input, making it a uniquely objective and informative survey of the current breast implant market that should assist surgeons in decision-making regarding the breast implant procedures., 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.)

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has become a popular method of postmastectomy breast reconstruction due to its numerous benefits in properly selected patients. Prepectoral reconstruction, as compared with retropectoral position, offers the advantage of leaving the pectoralis muscle undisturbed and in its original anatomic position, resulting in significantly decreased acute and chronic pain, improved upper extremity strength and range of motion, and avoidance of animation deformity. The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) allows for precise control of the breast pocket, resulting in aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. ADMs have the added benefit of reducing capsular contracture, especially in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy. Although prepectoral breast reconstruction is effective, the breast implant is placed closer to the skin flap with less vascularized soft tissue coverage. Therefore, optimizing outcomes in prepectoral breast reconstruction requires careful patient selection, intraoperative mastectomy flap evaluation, and perioperative surgical algorithms specific to prepectoral reconstruction., (© 2020 The Aesthetic Society. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.)