Search

Background: There is limited evidence regarding the factors causing a prolonged time for tissue expander (TE) exchange into a definitive implant using two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). This study aimed to review our experience with IBBR, focusing on the time for TE-to-implant exchange and determining which factors cause a prolonged time for exchange., Methods: A retrospective review was performed to include women undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR with TEs after total mastectomy between January 2011 and May 2021. Reconstructions with irradiated TEs were excluded. Cases that had a prolonged time for TE-to-implant exchange were defined as those undergoing exchange longer than 232 days, which corresponds to the 75th percentile of the overall study group., Results: We included 442 reconstructions in our analysis. The median age for our series was 51 years and the median body mass index was 26.43-kg/m 2 . The median time for TE-to-implant exchange was 155 days [IQR, 107-232]. Cases that had a prolonged time for TE-to-implant exchange were defined as those undergoing exchange on postoperative day 232 or afterward. Diabetes (OR 4.05, p = 0.006), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 2.76, p = 0.006), an increased length of stay (OR 1.54, p = 0.013), and a lengthier time to complete outpatient expansions (OR 1.018, p < 0.001) were independently associated with a prolonged time for exchange., Conclusion: As evident from our analysis, the time for exchange is highly heterogeneous among patients. Although several factors affect the timing for TE-to-implant exchange, efforts must be directed to finalize outpatient expansions as soon as possible to expedite the transition into a definitive implant., 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 ., (© 2023. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.)

Background: Limited comparability between study groups can generate significant selection and observer bias when evaluating the efficacy of the SPY system and fluorescence imaging for implant-based breast reconstruction. In this study, the authors compared the surgical outcomes and complications during the first stage of reconstruction between reconstructions evaluated intraoperatively with fluorescence imaging using the SPY system and clinical assessment using a matched analysis., Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing total mastectomy and immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with TEs from January of 2011 to December of 2020. The rate of complication, time for TE-to-implant exchange, and time to start radiotherapy were compared between groups (intraoperative fluorescence imaging versus clinical assessment) using a propensity score-matched analysis., Results: After propensity score matching, 198 reconstructions were evaluated. There were 99 reconstructions in each group. The median time for TE-to-implant exchange (140 days versus 185 days; P = 0.476) and time to initiate adjuvant radiotherapy (144 days versus 98 days; P = 0.199) were comparable between groups. The 30-day rate of wound-related complications (21% versus 9%; P = 0.017) and 30-day rate of wound-related unplanned interventions were significantly higher in reconstructions evaluated with clinical assessment when compared with the SPY system (16% versus 5%; P = 0.011). A higher 30-day rate of seroma (19% versus 14%; P = 0.041) and hematoma (8% versus 0%; P = 0.004) were found in reconstructions assessed intraoperatively with the SPY system., Conclusions: After matching, reconstructions evaluated with fluorescence imaging exhibited a lower incidence of early wound-related complications when compared with clinical evaluation alone. Nonetheless, the Wise pattern for mastectomy was found to be the only independent predictor associated with early wound-related complications., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: The Wise pattern adapted to mastectomy incisions has become a valuable asset for breast reconstruction in patients with large and ptotic breasts. The authors compared the time for exchange, time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy, and complication rates between Wise pattern and transverse incision pattern reconstructions., Methods: Records of patients who underwent immediate, two-stage, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) between January of 2011 and December of 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Two cohorts were compared according to the incision pattern: Wise pattern versus transverse incision pattern. Complications were compared after propensity score matching., Results: The authors initially analyzed 393 two-stage immediate IBBRs in 239 patients [91 IBBRs (23.2%) in the Wise pattern group and 302 (76.8%) in the transverse pattern group]. Expansion time (53 days versus 50 days, P = 0.9), time for tissue expander-to-implant exchange (154 versus 175 days, P = 0.547), and time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy (144 days versus 126 days, P = 0.616) were not different between groups. Before propensity score matching, the 30-day rate of wound-related complications (32% versus 10%, P < 0.001) and the 30-day rate of wound complications requiring excision/débridement and closure procedures (20% versus 7%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the Wise pattern group. After propensity score matching, the 30-day rate of wound complications was persistently higher (25% versus 10%, P = 0.03) in the Wise pattern group., Conclusions: The Wise pattern mastectomy independently increases the incidence of wound-related complications versus only transverse patterns during two-stage IBBR, even after propensity score matching. Delayed tissue expander placement may improve the safety profile of this procedure., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most common technique for breast reconstruction. The primary resource for correcting deformities, once patients have achieved an adequate volume with two-stage IBBR, is autologous fat grafting. We compared the surgical outcomes of simultaneous fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange (SFG + TtIE) versus no fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange (No-FGX)., Methods: A retrospective review was performed of all consecutive patients undergoing two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with TE from January 2011 to December 2020. Propensity score matching was implemented to optimize comparability. The control group did not receive fat grafting at the time of TE-to-implant exchange., Results: After propensity score matching, 196 reconstructions were evaluated, 98 in each group. Reconstructions in the SFG + TtIE received larger implants during exchange in comparison with the No-FGX group (539 ± 135.1-cc versus 495.97 ± 148-cc, p=0.035). The mean volume of fat lipoinjected during TE-to-implant exchange in the SFG + TtIE group was 88.79 ± 41-ml. A higher proportion of reconstructions in the SFG + TtIE group underwent additional fat grafting after exchange versus the No-FGX group (19% versus 9%, p = 0.041). After propensity score matching, only the rate of fat necrosis after exchange was significantly higher in the SFG + TtIE group (10% versus 2%, p = 0.017). The rate of breast cancer recurrence (3% versus 5%, p = 1.00) was comparable between the groups., Conclusion: SFG + TtIE is a safe procedure to improve the envelope of reconstructed breasts during two-stage IBBR. SFG + TtIE does not increase the rate of periprosthetic infection or wound-related complication versus no fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange, but increases the rate of fat necrosis., Level of Evidence Iii: Therapeutic study. 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., (© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.)

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: 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.)

Background: Capsular contracture is a devastating complication of postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction. Unfortunately, capsular contracture rates are drastically increased by targeted radiotherapy, a standard postmastectomy treatment. Thy1 (also called CD90) is important in myofibroblast differentiation and scar tissue formation. However, the impact of radiotherapy on Thy1 expression and the role of Thy1 in capsular contracture are unknown., Methods: The authors analyzed Thy1 expression in primary human capsular tissue and primary fibroblast explants by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction, Western blotting, and immunohistochemistry. Thy1 was depleted using RNA interference to determine whether Thy1 expression was essential for the myofibroblast phenotype in capsular fibroblasts. Furthermore, human capsular fibroblasts were treated with a new antiscarring compound, salinomycin, to determine whether Thy1 expression and myofibroblast formation were blocked by salinomycin., Results: In this article, the authors show that radiation therapy significantly increased Thy1 mRNA and protein expression in periimplant scar tissue. Capsular fibroblasts explanted from scar tissue retained the ability to make the myofibroblast-produced scar-forming components collagen I and α-smooth muscle actin. Depletion of Thy1 decreased the fibrotic morphology of capsular fibroblasts and significantly decreased α-smooth muscle actin and collagen levels. Furthermore, the authors show for the first time that salinomycin decreased Thy1 expression and prevented myofibroblast formation in capsular fibroblasts., Conclusions: These data reveal that ionizing radiation-induced Thy1 overexpression may contribute to increased capsular contracture severity, and fibroblast scar production can be ameliorated through targeting Thy1 expression. Importantly, the authors' new results show promise for the antiscarring ability of salinomycin in radiation-induced capsular contracture., Clincal Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, V.

Background: Capsular contracture remains one of the major problems following prosthetic implantation of the breast, especially in postmastectomy breast reconstruction patients receiving radiation therapy. Advances in this area have been hampered by the absence of an acceptable animal model. This study evaluates a new murine model with which to facilitate research into the cellular and molecular pathways underlying capsular contracture and provides a surrogate for evaluating potential therapies., Methods: On day 0, mice were implanted with silicone gel implants. Postoperatively, animals were imaged using live-scan micro-computed tomography. Animals in the irradiation group then received a 10-Gy directed radiation dose from a slit-beam cesium source. On days 21, 28, 35, and 42, both irradiated and nonirradiated animals were imaged again and histologic evaluation was performed., Results: Nonirradiated implants demonstrated little change in contour from day 0 through day 42 on micro-computed tomography, whereas irradiated implants demonstrated consistent shape deformation and irregularities in contour at these time points. Histologic evaluation showed that irradiated specimens developed thicker capsules and more disorganized capsules than nonirradiated specimens at each time point., Conclusions: In this article, the authors introduce a novel animal model with which to study capsular contracture. This model is the first of its kind to use radiation to induce, and live-scan micro-computed tomography to evaluate, capsular contracture. Radiation was shown to cause reproducible changes that can be consistently evaluated with micro-computed tomography and histology. Future studies with this model will study the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying capsular contracture using knockout and transgenic mouse strains.

Background: Female plastic surgeons are well suited to make a personal choice regarding breast reconstruction options, based on their knowledge of the actual procedures and first-hand experience with results. The authors surveyed this group to elicit their personal views on various modalities of breast reconstruction and to ascertain which types of reconstruction they would choose if faced with such a decision., Methods: All board-certified female plastic surgeons in the United States and Canada were surveyed by means of e-mail. This survey included questions regarding basic demographic and practice data. Respondents were requested to rank desired methods of reconstruction for themselves and to cite reasons for these choices., Results: A total of 435 surveys were sent: 350 were delivered (85 had invalid e-mail addresses), and 143 were returned (response rate, 41 percent). Overall, 66 percent of respondents chose implant-based reconstruction, 25 percent chose autologous reconstruction, and 9 percent chose no reconstruction. Respondents selecting autologous reconstruction cited cosmetic outcome as the most important factor considered in 47 percent of cases, compared with 14 percent of those choosing implant-based breast reconstruction (p = 0.0001). Invasiveness of the procedure/recovery time was cited as the most important factor by 83 percent of those surgeons opting for no breast reconstruction and by 51 percent of those choosing implant-based breast reconstruction (p = 0.0175)., Conclusions: Board-certified female plastic surgeons exhibit a strong desire to pursue implant-based breast reconstruction over autologous reconstruction. When it was chosen, autologous reconstruction was felt to offer improved aesthetic outcomes. When making such a decision, patients can use female plastic surgeons as a resource for information, thus helping them to make an informed decision.