Search

Background: Different types of abdominoplasties have been developed to address individual patient characteristics. However, an analysis of complication rates and risk factors for different types of abdominoplasties has yet to be reported., Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the complication rates and risks associated with each type of abdominoplasty., Methods: Utilizing the CosmetAssure database, patients undergoing an abdominoplasty from 2015 to 2022 were identified. Demographic factors and major complications were recorded and analyzed with a chi-square test or analysis of variance. A logistic regression was performed to identify the risk for developing complications associated with each type of abdominoplasty., Results: A total of 55,596 patients underwent an abdominoplasty procedure by any method. The overall complication rate was 2.1%. There was a significant difference in the overall complication rates of all 7 types of abdominoplasties (P < .05), with fleur-de-lis abdominoplasty having the highest complication rate. The year of surgery, being underweight or morbidly obese, having diabetes, and being male placed patients at a significantly higher risk for developing a postoperative complication. Over 15,000 patients (27.2%) had concurrent procedures related to breast surgery, other body contouring, liposuction, or facial surgery. When accounting for various risk factors in a regression model, there was no significant added risk for major complications after a combination procedure with an abdominoplasty compared to abdominoplasty alone., Conclusions: Among the different types of abdominoplasties, a fleur-de-lis abdominoplasty has the highest complication rate. Concurrent cosmetic procedures with an abdominoplasty showed no added risk for major complications when compared to abdominoplasty alone., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Abstract: This study aimed to determine whether there is a difference in free flap failure based on the decision to undergo immediate versus delayed autologous tissue breast reconstruction after mastectomy. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for breast free flap procedures performed between 2015 and 2020. This study demonstrates that the decision to undergo immediate versus delayed autologous tissue breast reconstruction does not have a significant association with free flap failure. This remains true regardless of whether patients undergo unilateral mastectomy with reconstruction or whether patients choose to also undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with reconstruction., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: G.P. is a volunteer member of the Allergan Alliance for the Future of Aesthetics and receives instrument royalties from Eriem Surgical, Inc, and book royalties from Taylor and Francis Publishing. The rest of the authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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: Abdominal contouring surgery can provide both functional and cosmetic benefits to patients with abdominal soft tissue laxity. Although these procedures have been studied in the inpatient setting, few studies describe abdominal contouring surgery in the ambulatory setting., Objective: The purpose of this analysis was to investigate patterns in patient demographics between functional panniculectomy and cosmetic abdominoplasty using national data from the last four years., Methods: Using the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample, we analyzed outpatient abdominal contouring procedures between 2016 and 2019. Encounters with a CPT 15830 were included. Procedures with ICD Z41.1 or CPT 15847 modifiers were defined as cases of cosmetic abdominoplasty., Results: A weighted estimate of 95,289 encounters were included, with 66,531 (69.8%) functional panniculectomy and 28,758 (30.2%) cosmetic abdominoplasty procedures. Among patients with a history of bariatric surgery (23.8%; 95% CI, 22.3-25.4%), there was a 28.5% (4,866 in 2016 vs 6,254 in 2019) increase in panniculectomy and abdominoplasty. Compared with individuals who underwent cosmetic abdominoplasty, individuals who underwent functional panniculectomy were more racially diverse, had more comorbidities, and were more likely to be from low-income backgrounds., Conclusions: Rates of abdominal contouring surgery in the ambulatory setting have increased in recent years especially among individuals with previous bariatric surgery. There are important demographic and clinical differences between patients who underwent functional panniculectomy and cosmetic abdominoplasty including primary payer, comorbidities, and racial identity., 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: There are mixed results in surgical complications regarding the usage of prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive synthesis of surgical complications between the subpectoral and prepectoral reconstructive method., Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for literature published up until December 2022. Studies that compared subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction and reported at least one postoperative complication were included. The following 8 major outcomes were included: revision and reoperation, capsular contracture, explantation, seroma, hematoma, infection, skin necrosis, and animation deformity. Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare outcomes of the 2 techniques. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare whether practice differences in different countries may have an impact on outcomes., Results: A total of 18 studies were identified in our literature search. Two thousand three hundred sixty patients were included, representing a total of 3135 breasts. Our analysis demonstrated that prepectoral reconstruction had significantly lower odds of developing postoperative hematoma [odds ratio (OR), 0.62; P = 0.05], seroma (OR, 0.67; P = 0.01), infection (OR, 0.64; P = 0.03), revision and reoperation (OR, 0.44; P < 0.00001), and animation deformity (OR, 0.01; P < 0.00001), compared with the subpectoral method. Subgroup analysis showed that differences between 3 countries (United States, Korea, Italy) are low (all subgroup heterogeneity test P > 0.1)., Conclusions: While both subpectoral and prepectoral are safe methods for breast reconstruction, the prepectoral technique may lead to lower odds of developing multiple major postoperative complications., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: G.P. is a volunteer member of the Allergan Alliance for the Future of Aesthetics and receives instrument royalties from Eriem Surgical, Inc, and book royalties from Taylor and Francis Publishing. The other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Browlift is frequently combinedwith blepharoplasty; however, the literature is lacking on their combined effect on complication rates., Objectives: This study aims to evaluate major complication rates after blepharoplasty and brow lift and to determine if complication rates increase when blepharoplasty and brow lift were performed simultaneously., Methods: A prospective cohort of patients who underwent cosmetic blepharoplasty, brow lift, or a combination of the 2 procedures between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure Insurance database. The primary outcome was a postoperative major complication requiring emergency room evaluation, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days. Groups were compared with univariate analysis (significance, P < 0.05)., Results: A total of 6126 patients underwent aesthetic eye surgery, of which, 4879 (79.6%) underwent blepharoplasty, 441 (7.2%) brow lift, and 806 (13.2%) a combination the 2 procedures. Patients who underwent a combined procedure were older than patients who underwent isolated blepharoplasty or brow lift (55.5 ± 9.4 vs 54.6 ± 11.1 vs 53.3 ± 12.0 years; P < 0.01). In males, blepharoplasty was the most commonly performed procedure, followed by a combined procedure and brow lift (17.6% vs 12.9% vs 10.7%; P < 0.01). There were similar rates of smokers between the 3 groups (5.7% vs 8.0% vs 6.6%; P = 0.06). Between combined procedures, blepharoplasty, and brow lift there, were similar rates of major complications (0.4% vs 0.4% vs 0.7%; P = 0.65) and hematoma (0.2% vs 0.2% vs 0.5%; P = 0.49), which was the most common complication., Conclusions: Aesthetic eye surgery has a very low overall major complication rate (0.4%). When brow lift is combined with blepharoplasty, it poses no additional risk of major complications compared with either procedure alone., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: Blair A. Wormer, Timothy M. Rankin, Christodoulos Kaoutzanis, Salam Al Kassis, Varun Gupta, and Kent K. Higdon have no financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this article. James C. Grotting is a founder and shareholder of CosmetAssure (Birmingham, Ala), an author for Quality Medical Publishing (St Louis, Mo) and Elsevier (New York, NY), and a shareholder of Keller Medical (Stuart, Fla) and Ideal Implant (Dallas, Tex)., (Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tighter abdominal wall reconstruction may increase intra-abdominal pressure, which can decrease lower extremity venous return. Decreased venous return through the inferior vena cava has been demonstrated to increase risk of deep vein thrombosis., Objectives: Tighter abdominal wall plication during cosmetic abdominoplasty compared with functional panniculectomy may increase these risks. The purpose of this study was to determine whether cosmetic abdominoplasty increases risk for thromboembolic events compared with functional panniculectomy., Methods: Retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for excision of excessive subcutaneous infraumbilical skin and soft tissue at participating hospitals between 2015 and 2019. Procedures performed for cosmetic abdominoplasty versus functional panniculectomy were compared for occurrences of postoperative pulmonary embolism (PE)., Results: During the study interval, 11,137 patients underwent excision of excessive infraumbilical abdominal skin, including 57.4% (n = 6397) patients undergoing functional panniculectomy and 42.6% (n = 4740) patients undergoing cosmetic abdominoplasty. Patients undergoing functional panniculectomy were significantly more likely to have comorbidities than those undergoing cosmetic abdominoplasty ( P < 0.001). The risk for postoperative PE was independently associated with cosmetic abdominoplasty ( P < 0.001), elevated body mass index ( P = 0.001), preoperative recent weight loss ( P = 0.006), and concurrent hernia repair ( P = 0.049). Most PE events occurred outpatient after discharge (87.2%), and the average postoperative time from surgery until PE was 10.5 ± 6.7 days., Conclusions: Cosmetic abdominoplasty has greater than 4 times the risk of postoperative PE than functional panniculectomy. Risk of PE is further increased by concurrent hernia repair, elevated body mass index, and rapid weight loss in the immediate preoperative period. It may be advisable to caution patients to delay abdominal excisional body contouring procedures until their weight has plateaued., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Microvascular free tissue transfer is an increasingly popular modality for autologous tissue breast reconstruction. However, flap failure remains an ominous risk that continues to plague surgeons and patients even in the setting of meticulous surgical technique and monitoring. Venous and arterial thromboses are the leading causes of free flap failure. The purpose of this study was to determine whether thrombocytosis is associated with breast free flap failure., Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of breast reconstruction with free flaps in North America between 2015 and 2020 using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patient comorbidities and preoperative laboratory tests were used to determine risk factors for free flap failure., Results: During the study interval, 7522 female patients underwent breast reconstruction with free flaps, and flap failure occurred in 2.7% patients (n = 203). In multivariate regression analysis, breast free flap failure was significantly higher in patients smoking cigarettes within the past year (P = 0.030; AOR, 1.7) and dyspnea on moderate exertion or at rest (P = 0.025; AOR, 2.6). Furthermore, each 50 K/mcL elevation in platelet count was independently associated with an increased odds of flap failure (P < 0.001; AOR, 1.2). Patients experienced significantly higher rates of flap failure with platelet counts greater than 250 K/mcL (P = 0.004), which remained significant through progressively increasing thresholds up to 450 K/mcL., Conclusions: Platelet count greater than 250 K/mcL is associated with progressively increasing risk of free flap failure in breast reconstruction. Future studies of personalized patient anticoagulation protocols based on hemostatic metrics may improve free flap survival after autologous tissue breast reconstruction., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Amidst the rising trend of bariatric surgical procedures being performed across the country and around the world, patients seeking functional panniculectomy after massive weight loss represent a different population than those seeking cosmetic abdominoplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine whether certain complications are more likely to occur in patients undergoing functional panniculectomy, as well as identify risk factors that are implicated in the occurrence of adverse events., Methods: Retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients undergoing cosmetic abdominoplasty and functional panniculectomy in North America between 2015 and 2019 using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database sponsored by the American College of Surgeons. Comorbidities and postoperative complications between these two cohorts were analyzed with appropriate statistics., Results: During the study interval, 11,137 patients underwent excision of excessive infraumbilical abdominal skin, including 57.4% (n = 6397) patients undergoing functional panniculectomy and 42.6% (n = 4740) patients undergoing cosmetic abdominoplasty. Patients undergoing functional panniculectomy were significantly more likely to have comorbidities than those undergoing cosmetic abdominoplasty (p < .001). Overall adverse events (p < .001), medical complications (p = .047), surgical complications (p < .001), related readmission (p < .001), and related reoperation (p < .001) were significantly higher in patients undergoing functional panniculectomy. Surgical complications significantly higher in functional panniculectomy included superficial incisional infection (p < .001), deep incisional infection (p < .001), organ/space infection (p < .001), dehiscence (p = .003), and bleeding requiring transfusion (p = .003)., Conclusions: Patients undergoing functional panniculectomy are significantly more likely to have comorbidities and experience postoperative wound infection, dehiscence, sepsis, bleeding, related readmission, and related reoperation., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Authors do not have financial or nonfinancial conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Although there are many indications for periprosthetic breast capsulectomy, heightened public attention surrounding breast implant illness has resulted in increased rates of capsulectomy., Objectives: This study aimed to identify the incidence of major complications and risk factors associated with capsulectomy., Methods: From an examination of a prospectively enrolled cosmetic surgery insurance database, CosmetAssure (Birmingham, AL), patients undergoing capsulectomy between January 2, 2017 and July 31, 2019 were identified. Outcomes measured included the occurrence of and risk factors for major complication(s) necessitating an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or reoperation within 45 postoperative days., Results: Among 76,128 patients evaluated, 3048 (4.0%) underwent capsulectomy. There was a significant increase in number of capsulectomies following January 6, 2019 (2.7/day vs 5.2/day, P < 0.05). Capsulectomy patients were more likely to have any complication and specifically hematoma than those undergoing breast implant removal or replacement without capsulectomy (2.8% vs 1.9% and 1.6% vs 0.9%, respectively, P < 0.05). Eighty-four (2.8%) developed at least 1 complication. The most common complications included hematoma (1.6%) followed by infection (0.5%). American Society of Anesthesiologists Class III/IV was an independent risk factor for any complication and BMI ≥30 kg/m2 and office-based surgical suites were risk factors for infection., Conclusions: A growing number of capsulectomies are being performed. The most common major complication is hematoma. Patients undergoing capsulectomy experience a higher complication rate than those undergoing breast implant removal or replacement without capsulectomy. Patients should be counseled regarding the potential for major complications., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The US Health and Human Services Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force initiated a public-private partnership which led to the publication of its report in 2019. The report emphasized the need for individualized, multimodal, and multidisciplinary approaches to pain management that decrease the over-reliance on opioids, increase access to care, and promote widespread education on pain and substance use disorders. The Task Force specifically called on specialty organizations to work together to develop evidence-based guidelines. In response to this report's recommendations, a consortium of 14 professional healthcare societies committed to a 2-year project to advance pain management for the surgical patient and improve opioid safety. The modified Delphi process included two rounds of electronic voting and culminated in a live virtual event in February 2021, during which seven common guiding principles were established for acute perioperative pain management. These principles should help to inform local action and future development of clinical practice recommendations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JMS declares salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan; research funding from Neuros Medical (Willoughby, OH, USA), Setpoint Medical (Valencia, CA, USA), and Medtronic (Dublin, Ireland; legal consulting for Yates, McLamb and Weyher, LLP (Raleigh, NC, USA). KKKH is a consultant for True Digital Surgery (Goleta, CA, USA). GS is an advisory board member for Dorsal Health (New York, NY, USA) and consultant for Pacira Biosciences (Parsippany-Troy Hills, NJ, USA). SS is a consultant for Masimo (Irvine, CA, USA), Allergan (Dublin, Ireland), and SPR Therapeutics (Cleveland, OH, USA). These companies had absolutely no input into any aspect of the project design, Pain Summit, or manuscript preparation. None of the other authors has any financial interests to declare., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Post-mastectomy pocket irrigation solution choice is debated and primarily surgeon dependent. We compare triple antibiotic solution (TAS) with 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine surgical site infection (SSI) rates after utilizing TAS vs CHG for breast pocket irrigation in immediate tissue expander (TE) breast reconstruction., Methods: A prospective, blinded, randomized controlled trial was performed in patients (18-81 years old) who underwent bilateral mastectomy with TE reconstruction. In each patient, 1 mastectomy pocket was randomized to TAS and the other to CHG. Both the TE and the pocket were irrigated in the respective solution. The primary outcome was the incidence of SSI. Secondary outcomes were rates of mastectomy flap necrosis, hematoma, and seroma., Results: A total of 88 patients who underwent bilateral immediate breast reconstruction were enrolled. Demographic and operative characteristics were equivalent because each patient served as their own control. Between the TAS and CHG groups, the incidence of SSI did not differ (5 [4.5%] vs 7 [8.0%], P = 0.35), including minor infections (2 [2.3%] vs 1 [1.1%], P = 0.56), major infections (2 [2.3%] vs 6 [6.8%], P = 0.15), and those resulting in explantation (2 [2.3%] vs 5 [4.5%], P = 0.25). Necrosis, hematoma, or seroma formation also did not differ. No patients who developed SSI received radiation., Conclusions: This study does not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in SSI between TAS and CHG irrigation, though TAS approached statistical significance for lower rates of infectious complications., (© 2021 The Aesthetic Society. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.

Surgical site infections represent one of the most common postoperative complications in patients undergoing aesthetic surgery. As with other postoperative complications, the incidence of these infections may be influenced by many factors and varies depending on the specific operation performed. Understanding the risk factors for infection development is critical because careful patient selection and appropriate perioperative counseling will set the right expectations and can ultimately improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. Various perioperative prevention measures may also be employed to minimize the incidence of these infections. Once the infection occurs, prompt diagnosis will allow management of the infection and any associated complications in a timely manner to ensure patient safety, optimize the postoperative course, and avoid long-term sequelae., (© 2019 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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: Smoking has been associated with several postoperative adverse outcomes across multiple surgical disciplines, but the literature is limited for aesthetic surgical procedures., Objectives: To compare complication rates between smokers and nonsmokers undergoing common cosmetic procedures, identify specific cosmetic procedures where smoking increases the risk of complications, and evaluate smoking as an independent risk factor for major complications following aesthetic surgery., Methods: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Smoking was evaluated as a risk factor for major complications requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days after surgery. Multivariate regression analysis was performed controlling for the effects of age, gender, body mass index, type of surgical facility, type of procedure, and combined procedures., Results: Of the 129,007 patients, 10,621 (8.2%) were smokers. All procedures examined, except breast augmentation, were more frequently performed in the nonsmoker cohort. Overall major complications were similar between smokers and nonsmokers (2.0% vs 1.9%, P = 0.57). In univariate analysis, surgical site infections (0.6% vs 0.5%, P = 0.04) were significantly higher among smokers, but suspected venous thromboembolism (0.2% vs 0.1%, P = 0.01) was significantly higher among nonsmokers. Notably, smokers had a higher risk of major complications after body procedures (2.9% vs 1.0%, P = 0.01), as well as thigh lifts (23.8% vs 3.6%, P < 0.01) and male breast surgery (3.7% vs 1.4%, P = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, smoking was found to be an independent predictor of surgical site infections (relative risk 1.61, P < 0.01)., Conclusions: Smoking is an independent risk factor of major surgical site infections following aesthetic surgery. Body procedures, as well as thigh lifts and male breast surgery, have higher complication rates in smokers.

Hematomas represent one of the most common postoperative complications in patients undergoing aesthetic surgery. Depending on the type of procedure performed, hematoma incidence and presentation can vary greatly. Understanding the risk factors for hematoma formation and the preoperative considerations to mitigate the risk is critical to provide optimal care to the aesthetic patient. Various perioperative prevention measures may also be employed to minimize hematoma incidence. The surgeon's ability to adequately diagnose and treat hematomas after aesthetic surgery is not only crucial to patient care but also minimizes the risk of further complications or long-term sequelae. Understanding hematoma development and management enhances patient safety and will lead to overall increased patient satisfaction after aesthetic surgery.

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: The number of men undergoing cosmetic surgery is increasing in North America., Objectives: To determine the incidence and risk factors of major complications in males undergoing cosmetic surgery, compare the complication profiles between men and women, and identify specific procedures that are associated with higher risk of complications in males., Methods: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Gender specific procedures were excluded. Primary outcome was occurrence of a major complication in males requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated potential risk factors for major complications including age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, type of procedure, and combined procedures., Results: Of the 129,007 patients, 54,927 underwent gender nonspecific procedures, of which 5801 (10.6%) were males. Women showed a higher mean age (46.4 ± 14.1 vs 45.2 ± 16.7 years, P < 0.01). Men had a higher BMI (27.2 ± 4.7 vs 25.7 ± 4.9 kg/m2, P < 0.01), and were more likely to be smokers (7.1% vs 5.7%, P < 0.01) when compared to women. Men demonstrated similar overall major complication rates compared to women (2.1% vs 2.1%, P = 0.97). When specific complications were analyzed further, men had higher hematoma rates, but lower incidence of surgical site infection. Additionally, major complications after abdominoplasty, facelift surgery, and buttock augmentation were noted to preferentially affect males. On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of major complications in males included BMI (RR 1.05), hospital or ambulatory surgery center procedures (RR 3.47), and combined procedures (RR 2.56)., Conclusions: Aesthetic surgery in men is safe with low major complication rates. Modifiable predictors of complications included BMI and combined procedures.

Background: Postoperative hematomas are one of the most frequent complications following aesthetic surgery. Identifying risk factors for hematoma has been limited by underpowered studies from single institution experiences., Objectives: To examine the incidence and identify independent risk factors for postoperative hematomas following cosmetic surgery utilizing a prospective, multicenter database., Methods: A prospectively enrolled cohort of patients who underwent aesthetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of major hematomas requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to identify potential risk factors for hematomas including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, procedure by body region, and combined procedures., Results: Of 129,007 patients, 1180 (0.91%) had a major hematoma. Mean age (42.0 ± 13.0 years vs 40.9 ± 13.9 years, P < 0.01) and BMI (24.5 ± 5.0 kg/m2 vs 24.3 ± 4.6 kg/m2, P < 0.01) were higher in patients with hematomas. Males suffered more hematomas than females (1.4% vs 0.9%, P < 0.01). Hematoma rates were higher in patients undergoing combined procedures compared to single procedures (1.1% vs 0.8%, P < 0.01), and breast procedures compared to body/extremity or face procedures (1.0% vs 0.8% vs 0.7%, P < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of hematoma included age (Relative Risk [RR] 1.01), male gender (RR 1.98), the procedure being performed in a hospital setting rather than an office-based setting (RR 1.68), combined procedures (RR 1.35), and breast procedures rather than the body/extremity and face procedures (RR 1.81)., Conclusions: Major hematoma is the most common complication following aesthetic surgery. Male patients and those undergoing breast or combined procedures have a significantly higher risk of developing hematomas., Level of Evidence: 2., (© 2017 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Background: Limited surgical literature currently exists that evaluates postoperative complications after cosmetic surgery in adolescents., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of major postoperative complications in adolescent patients undergoing cosmetic surgery and compare their complication rates to older patients., Methods: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgical procedures between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Demographics, clinical characteristics, surgical procedures, and major complications in adolescent patients (age 10-19 years) and older patients (≥20 years old) were compared. Risk factors analyzed included age, gender, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, procedure by body region, and combined procedures., Results: Overall, 3519 adolescents and 124,409 older patients underwent cosmetic surgical procedures. The adolescent cohort contained more men (20.0% vs 6.0%, P < 0.01), lower mean body mass index (22.6 ± 4.1 vs 24.4 ± 4.6, P < 0.01), lower prevalence of diabetes (0.8% vs 1.9%, P <0.01), and fewer smokers (5.9% vs 8.3%, P < 0.01) compared to the older patient cohort. Most commonly adolescent patients underwent breast followed by face and body procedures. Overall adolescent patients demonstrated a lower incidence of major postoperative complications compared to older patients after single (0.6% vs 1.5%, P < 0.01) and combined (1.2% vs 3%, P = 0.03) cosmetic procedures. Adolescent patients had lower complications rates after face, breast, and body procedures compared to the older cohort. The most common postoperative complications in adolescent patients were hematoma (0.34%) and infection (0.28%)., Conclusions: Cosmetic surgical procedures in adolescent patients are safe with a lower rate of major postoperative complications compared to older patients., Level of Evidence: 2., (© 2017 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Background: Rhinoplasty remains one of the most common aesthetic procedures performed in the United States. Current literature on rhinoplasty complications is inconclusive and is based on retrospective reviews and small cohorts., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence and identify predictive risk factors for major complications following rhinoplasty alone or in combination with other aesthetic operations in a large, prospective, multicenter database study., Methods: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing rhinoplasty between May 2008 and May 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of major complications, defined as complications requiring an emergency room visit, hospital admission, or a reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated potential risk factors for major complications including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, and combined procedures., Results: A total of 129,007 patients were identified, of which 4978 (3.9%) underwent a rhinoplasty. The overall complication rate was 0.7% (n = 37). Hematoma was the most common complication (0.2%), followed by infection (0.2%), and pulmonary complications (0.1%). Age ≥40 years was found to be an independent risk factor for developing complications. Age ≥40 years was found to have a relative risk of 2.05 (P = 0.04) for any major complication. Complications increased from 0.58% in rhinoplasty alone cases to 1.02% (P < 0.05) with the addition of 1 other body region to 2.09% with the addition of 2 other body regions (P < 0.05). The risk of pulmonary complications increased from 0.1% to 1% (P < 0.05) with the addition of rhinoplasty with 2 other body regions. Gender, type of facility, smoking status, and BMI ≥25 did not appear to significantly impact the risk for major complications., Conclusions: The major complication rate following rhinoplasty remains low. The risk is increased with age ≥40 years and with the addition of other cosmetic procedures. Pulmonary complications, although rare, do occur, and also increase when combining rhinoplasty with other aesthetic surgery. These findings are important to consider when planning rhinoplasty and educating patients on the safety of combined aesthetic surgeries., Level of Evidence: 2., (© 2017 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Background: Major complications following aesthetic breast surgery are uncommon and thus assessment of risk factors is challenging., Objectives: To determine the incidence and risk factors of major complications following aesthetic breast surgery and concomitant procedures., Methods: A prospective cohort of patients who enrolled into the CosmetAssure (Birmingham, AL) insurance program and underwent aesthetic breast surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified. Major complications (requiring reoperation, readmission, or emergency room visit) within 30 days of surgery were recorded. Risk factors including age, smoking, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, type of surgical facility, and combined procedures were evaluated., Results: Among women, augmentation was the most common breast procedure (n = 41,651, 58.6%) followed by augmentation-mastopexy, mastopexy, and reduction. Overall, major complications occurred in 1.46% with hematoma (0.99%) and infection (0.25%) being most common. Augmentation-mastopexy had a higher risk of complications, particularly infection (relative risk [RR] 1.74, P < 0.01), than single breast procedures. Age was the only significant predictor for hematomas (RR 1.01, P < 0.01). Increasing age (RR 1.02, P = 0.03) and BMI (RR 1.09, P < 0.01) were risk factors for infection. Concomitant abdominoplasty was performed in 4162 (5.8%) female patients and was associated with increased risk of complications compared to breast procedures or abdominoplasty performed alone. Among men, correction of gynecomastia was the most common breast procedure (n = 1613, 64.6%) with a complication rate of 1.80% and smoking as a risk factor (RR 2.73, P = 0.03)., Conclusions: Incidence of major complications after breast cosmetic surgical procedures is low. Risk factors for major complications include increasing age and BMI. Combining abdominoplasty with any breast procedure increases the risk of major complications., Level of Evidence: 2., (© 2017 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the most feared postoperative complications in cosmetic surgery. The true rate of VTE in this patient population remains largely unknown with current American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) prophylaxis recommendations partially extrapolated from other surgical specialties., Objectives: This study analyzed the risk factors for VTE in cosmetic surgical procedures., Methods: A prospective cohort of patients who underwent aesthetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of a clinically significant VTE within 30 days of surgery. Risk factors analyzed included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, procedure by body region, and combined procedures., Results: A total of 129,007 patients were identified, of which 116 (0.09%) had a confirmed VTE. Combined procedures had a significantly higher overall rate of VTE compared to solitary procedures (0.20% vs 0.04%, P < .01). On multivariate logistic regression, significant risk factors for VTE (P < .05) included body procedures (RR 13.47), combined procedures (RR 2.4), increasing BMI (RR 1.06), and age (RR 1.02). Gender, smoking, diabetes, and type of surgical facility were not found to be significant risk factors. Face procedures (0.01%) and breast procedures (0.01%) had the lowest VTE rates, followed by combined face/body (0.16%), body procedures (0.21%), and combined body/breast procedures (0.28%)., Conclusions: The incidence of VTE after cosmetic procedures is relatively low. However, the risk increases with combined procedures as well as with particular body areas, most notably trunk and extremities. Equally, significant patient risk factors exist, including BMI and age.

Background: There has been a dramatic rise in office-based surgery. However, due to wide variations in regulatory standards, the safety of office-based aesthetic surgery has been questioned., Objectives: This study compares complication rates of cosmetic surgery performed at office-based surgical suites (OBSS) to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and hospitals., Methods: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 were identified from the CosmetAssure database (Birmingham, AL). Patients were grouped by type of accredited facility where the surgery was performed: OBSS, ASC, or hospital. The primary outcome was the incidence of major complication(s) requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days postoperatively. Potential risk factors including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of procedure, and combined procedures were reviewed., Results: Of the 129,007 patients (183,914 procedures) in the dataset, the majority underwent the procedure at ASCs (57.4%), followed by hospitals (26.7%) and OBSS (15.9%). Patients operated in OBSS were less likely to undergo combined procedures (30.3%) compared to ASCs (31.8%) and hospitals (35.3%, P < .01). Complication rates in OBSS, ASCs, and hospitals were 1.3%, 1.9%, and 2.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, there was a lower risk of developing a complication in an OBSS compared to an ASC (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.77, P < .01) or a hospital (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.68, P < .01)., Conclusions: Accredited OBSS appear to be a safe alternative to ASCs and hospitals for cosmetic procedures. Plastic surgeons should continue to triage their patients carefully based on other significant comorbidities that were not measured in this present study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3., (© 2016 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Despite a rise in thighplasties, outcomes and risk factors have not been well described., Objectives: This study investigated the incidence and risk factors of major complications following thighplasty in a large, prospective, multicenter database. It further evaluated the safety of combined procedures., Methods: Patients undergoing thighplasty between 2008 and 2013 were identified within the CosmetAssure database (Birmingham, AL). The primary outcome was the occurrence of major complication(s) requiring emergency department visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days postoperatively. Age, gender, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, type of facility, and combination procedures were evaluated as risk factors., Results: Among the 129,007 patients enrolled in CosmetAssure, 1493 (0.8%) underwent thighplasty. One thousand and eighty-eight (72.9%) thighplasties were combined with other procedures. Ninety-nine (6.6%) developed at least one complication. The most common complications were infection (2.7%), hematoma (2.1%), suspected venous thromboembolism (VTE) (1.1%), fluid overload (0.5%), and confirmed VTE (0.3%). Thighplasties performed in a hospital had higher complications (8.1%) than ambulatory surgical center (6.2%) and office-based surgical suite (3.1%). When thighplasty was performed alone, smoking was an independent risk factor to develop at least one complication (RR = 9.51) and hematoma (RR = 13.48). Compared to thighplasty alone, complication rate did not increase with the addition of concomitant procedures (4.7% vs 7.4%, P = .079)., Conclusion: Infection and hematoma are the most common major complications. In thighplasty alone, smoking is the only independent risk factor for overall complications and hematoma formation. The addition of concomitant cosmetic procedures does not increase complication rates., Level of Evidence: 2 Risk., (© 2016 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Brachioplasty is a popular procedure to correct upper arm ptosis. However, current literature on complications and risk factors is scant and inconclusive., Objectives: Using a large, prospective, multicenter database, we report the incidence of major complications and risk factors in patients undergoing brachioplasty., Methods: Patients who underwent brachioplasty between 2008 and 2013 were identified from the CosmetAssure (Birmingham, AL) database. The primary outcome was the occurrence of major complication(s), defined as complications requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the procedure. Risk factors including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, combined procedures, and type of surgical facility were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis., Results: Within the 129,007 patients enrolled in CosmetAssure, 2294 (1.8%) underwent brachioplasty. Brachioplasty patients were more likely to be older than 50 years (50.1%), obese (36.3%), diabetic (5.5%), but less likely smokers (5.5%). Major complications occurred in 3.4% brachioplasties with infection (1.7%) and hematoma (1.1%) being most common. Combined procedures, performed in 66.8% cases, had a complication rate of 4.4%, in comparison to 1.3% for brachioplasties performed alone. Combined procedures (RR = 3.58), males (RR = 3.44), and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) (RR = 1.92) were identified as independent risk factors for the occurrence of any complication. Combined procedures (RR = 12.42), and the male gender (RR = 8.89) increased the risk of hematoma formation., Conclusions: Complication rates from brachioplasty are much lower than previously reported. Hematoma and infection are the most common major complications. Combined procedures, male gender, and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) are independent risk factors for complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 2: Risk., (© 2016 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Nearly 70% of US adults are overweight or obese (body mass index, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m(2)), and more such patients are seeking aesthetic surgery. Previous studies have evaluated surgical risk in obese (BMI ≥ 30) or morbidly obese (BMI ≥ 40) patients, with mixed results., Objectives: This study evaluates BMI 25 to 29.9 and BMI ≥ 30 as independent risk factors of major complications following aesthetic surgery in a large, prospective, multi-center database., Methods: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing aesthetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database (Birmingham, AL). BMI was evaluated as a risk factor for major complications, defined as complications requiring an emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the procedure. Multivariate analysis controlled for variables including age, gender, smoking, diabetes, combined procedures, and type of surgical facility., Results: Of the 127,961 patients, 36.2% had BMI ≥ 25. Overweight patients were more likely to be male (12.5%), diabetic (3.3%), nonsmokers (92.8%), or have multiple procedures (41%). Complication rate steadily increased with BMI: 1.4% (BMI < 18.5); 1.6% (18.5-24.9); 2.3% (25-29.9); 3.1% (30-39.9); 4.2% (≥40). Infection (0.8%), venous thromboembolism (VTE, 0.4%), and pulmonary dysfunction (0.2%) were twice as common among overweight patients. Incidence of hematoma was similar in the two groups (0.9%). Complications following abdominoplasty (3.5%), liposuction (0.9%), lower body lift (8.8%), or combined breast and body procedures (4.2%) were significantly higher in overweight patients. On multivariate analysis, being overweight (BMI 25-29.9) or obese (BMI ≥ 30) were independent predictors of any complication (Relative Risk, RR 1.17 and 1.51), especially infection (RR 1.63 and 2.73), and VTE (RR 1.67 and 2.56)., Conclusions: Overweight (BMI 25-29.9) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30) are both independent risk factors for post-operative infection and VTE in aesthetic surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 2: Risk., (© 2016 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Diabetes mellitus has been linked with a variety of perioperative adverse events across surgical disciplines. There is a paucity of studies systematically examining risk factors, including diabetes, and complications of aesthetic surgical procedures., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare incidence and type of complications between diabetic and non-diabetic patients undergoing various aesthetic surgical procedures, to identify specific procedures where diabetes significantly increases risk of complications, and to study diabetes as an independent risk factor for major complications following aesthetic surgery., Methods: A prospective cohort of 129,007 patients who enrolled into the CosmetAssure insurance program and underwent cosmetic surgical procedures between May 2008 and May 2013 were reviewed. Diabetes was evaluated as risk factor for major complications, requiring hospital admission, emergency room visit, or a reoperation within 30 days after surgery. Multivariate regression analysis was performed controlling for the effects of age, smoking, obesity, gender, type of procedures, and surgical facility., Results: Overall, 2506 patients (1.9%) had a major complication. Diabetics had significantly more complications compared to non-diabetics (3.1% vs 1.9%, P < 0.01). In univariate analysis, infectious (1.1% vs 0.5%, P < 0.01) and pulmonary (0.3% vs 0.1%, P < 0.01) complications were significantly higher among diabetics. Notably, diabetics had higher risks of complication in body cases (4.3% vs 2.6%, P < 0.01) and specifically abdominoplasty (6.1% vs 3.0%, P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, diabetes was found to be an independent risk factor of any complication (relative risk 1.31, P = 0.03) and infection (relative risk 1.70, P < 0.01)., Conclusions: Diabetes is an independent risk factor of major complications, particularly infection, after aesthetic surgical procedures., (© 2016 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Facelift (rhytidectomy) is a prominent technique for facial rejuvenation with 126 713 performed in the United States in 2014. Current literature on facelift complications is inconclusive and derives from retrospective studies., Objectives: This study reports the incidence and risk factors of major complications following facelift in a large, prospective, multi-center database. It compares complications of facelifts done alone or in combination with other cosmetic surgical procedures., Methods: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing facelift between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of major complications, defined as complications requiring emergency room (ER) visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the procedure. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated risk factors including age, gender, BMI, smoking, diabetes, combined procedures, and type of surgical facility., Results: Of the 129 007 patients enrolled in CosmetAssure, 11 300 (8.8%) underwent facelifts. Facelift cohort had more males (8.8%), diabetics (2.7%), elderly (mean age 59.2 years) and obese (38.5%) induviduals, but fewer smokers (4.8%). Combined procedures accounted for 57.4% of facelifts. Facelifts had a 1.8% complication rate, similar to the rate of 2% associated to other cosmetic surgeries. Hematoma (1.1%) and infection (0.3%) were most common. Combined procedures had up to 3.7% complication rate compared to 1.5% in facelifts alone. Male gender (relative risk 3.9) and type of facility (relative risk 2.6) were independent predictors of hematoma. Combined procedures (relative risk 3.5) and BMI ≥ 25 (relative risk 2.8) increased infection risk., Conclusions: Rhytidectomy is a very safe procedure in the hands of board-certified plastic surgeons. Hematoma and infection are the most common major complications. Male gender, BMI ≥ 25, and combined procedures are independent risk factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 2: Risk., (© 2015 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.

Background: The proportion of elderly patients in North America is increasing. This has resulted in an increased number of elderly patients undergoing cosmetic procedures., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of postoperative complications in elderly patients (age ≥65) undergoing elective aesthetic plastic surgical procedures compared with younger patients., Methods: A total of 183,914 cosmetic surgical procedures were reviewed using the prospectively enrolled cohort of patients in the CosmetAssure database. Comorbidities and postoperative complications in elderly and younger patient groups were recorded and compared. A separate analysis of postoperative complications was performed in the octogenarian subgroup (age ≥80)., Results: A total of 6786 elderly patients who underwent cosmetic procedures were included in the study. Mean ages (±standard deviation) in elderly and younger patients were 69.1 ± 4.1 and 39.2 ± 12.5 years, respectively. The elderly patient population had more men, a higher mean body mass index (BMI), a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM), and fewer smokers compared with the younger patients. The overall postoperative complication rate was not significantly different between elderly and younger patients. When stratified by type of cosmetic procedure, only abdominoplasty was associated with a higher postoperative complication rate in elderly compared with younger patients. The most common postoperative complications in elderly patients were hematoma and infection. The overall postoperative complication rate in octogenarians was 2.2%, which was not significantly different from the younger population., Conclusions: Cosmetic procedures in elderly patients, including octogenarians, remain safe with an acceptable complication rate compared to younger patients., (© 2015 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Summary: The authors present a case in which a patient sustained 2 shotgun wounds at close range, resulting in a ruptured silicone breast implant and no other injuries.

Cryoamputation, or physiologic amputation, is a well-described procedure typically used to amputate gangrenous lower extremities. In such cases the patient is too unstable for transport to the operating room, so cryoamputation using dry ice or other refrigerant allows for immediate bedside intervention and later operative amputation when the patient is more stable. In this study the authors describe the use of cryoamputation to stabilize a burn patient with a nonviable upper extremity considered to be contributing significantly to his metabolic acidosis. This experience suggests that cryoamputation may be a reasonable technique to consider when a burn patient presents with a nonviable extremity but is too unstable for immediate operative amputation.

High-dose glucocorticoid therapy (GCT) for the late fibroproliferative phase of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is controversial and has shown mixed results in medical patients. No studies have evaluated GCT in trauma/surgical critical care patients. The purpose of this study is to review the outcomes of trauma/surgical critical care patients with refractory ARDS treated with GCT. From January 2001 through September 2005, a pharmacy log was used to identify critically ill trauma/surgical patients in refractory ARDS (7 males and 2 females) who received GCT in an attempt to salvage them. GCT consisted of 200 mg intravenous methylprednisolone bolus for one dose and then 3 mg/kg per day divided every 6 hours for 6 weeks or until weaned off the ventilator. All patients as well as the survivors were analyzed. Outcome data was analyzed with SPSS (Chicago, IL) and the paired sample test. A P value < or = 0.05 was considered significant. Data is presented as mean +/- standard deviation. The Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective chart review. Seven patients (6 males and 1 female; age, 31 +/- 16 years) survived (78%), weaned off of the ventilator, and were discharged from the hospital. The 2 deaths were secondary to refractory respiratory failure as well as cardiac arrest (n = 1) and anoxic brain injury from septic hypotension (n = 1). In survivors (n = 7), hospital length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit LOS was 71 +/- 30 days and 53 +/- 16 days, respectively. Duration of GCT administration was 17 +/- 6.4 days (range, 11-30 days). Ventilator time before GCT, during GCT, and after GCT was 22 +/- 8.4, 15 +/- 7.5, and 1.6 +/- 6.0 days, respectively. During GCT, 8 patients developed pneumonia, 5 had urinary tract infection, and 3 had bacteremia. All infections were effectively treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, except in one patient who died of sepsis. PaO2/FIO2 ratio just before and after GCT was 100 +/- 36 and 247 +/- 56, respectively (n = 7; P < 0.001). Sequential organ failure assessment score just before and after GCT was 9.1 +/- 2.3 and 5.0 +/- 1.6, respectively (n = 7; P < 0.001). GCT rescue may have a role in salvaging critically ill trauma/surgical critical care patients in late-stage ARDS. More patients, however, need to be studied.

One of the greatest advances for biomedical research has been the use of tissue culture to study the effects and the mode of action of various organic compounds. However, there are myriad problems associated with the classical approach to pharmaceutical studies in tissue culture, such as contamination, the logistical problems inherent in intermittent dosing, and near-lethal drug doses required to achieve effective physiological doses. This has given impetus to a search for better means of effective delivery routes in a tissue culture setting. The specific objectives of this investigation were: (1) to develop a ceramic delivery system for the novel purpose of releasing sustained levels of the anti-cancer drug combination inositol hexaphosphate (IP6) + inositol (I) in a tissue culture setting; (2) to assess the proliferation rate and viability of HTB 122 Intraductile Breast Cancer (IBC) cells exposed to sustained levels of IP6 + I compared to conventional means of drug delivery (dissolved in media); (3) to evaluate the morphological changes associated with this treatment process. Sterile aseptic techniques were employed during the entire study (72 hours of incubation). Data obtained from this investigation suggests the following: (1) TCPL delivery system can be utilized in the tissue culture setting to deliver IP6 + I in a sustained manner for 72 hours; (2) the use of IP6 + I at the physiological dose did not induce any significant change in the biochemical marker (MDA); (3) morphological evaluation of cells treated with sustained delivery resulted in cellular atrophy, as well as fragmentation, compared to the treatment by conventional means and to the sham group (empty capsule); and (4) regardless of route of administration, treatment with IP6 + I resulted in a decrease in total protein content compared to the sham capsules and control groups. In conclusion, this approach is a novel use of ceramic delivery systems in tissue culture that gives breakthrough information for basic research on limiting and eliminating contamination and the logistical problems associated with intermittent dosing in tissue culture.