Search

Background: Gender-affirming mastectomy is a fundamental step in the transition process of transmasculine patients following the initiation of hormone replacement therapy. Its perioperative management, however, remains underreported and controversial. In this study, a large series of mastectomies in transmen maintaining hormonal therapy is presented. Methods: Over a 10-year study period, a consecutive series of 180 transmasculine patients undergoing chest masculinizing surgery was evaluated. Demographical and surgical data were collected and analyzed for potential factors influencing outcome. Results: The overall rate of complications was 15.5%. Patients who underwent periareolar incision mastectomy were significantly more likely to develop any type of complication than patients with a sub-mammary incision (28.6% vs. 13.2%, p = 0.045). Hematoma was the most common reason for surgical revision. It occurred significantly more often among the periareolar group (21.4% vs. 7.9%, p = 0.041). Duration and type of hormonal therapy did not differ between patients with or without complications. In a multivariate regression analysis, smoking and type of incision were identified as significant predictors of the all-cause complication rate, whereas the influence of BMI and resection weight diminished after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusion: There is scarcity of information concerning the influence of perioperative hormonal therapy in patients undergoing chest wall masculinization. The observed complication rates—with special regard to hematoma—were comparable to current reports; yet further research is needed to profoundly evaluate this topic and provide evidence-based recommendations for the perioperative management of HRT of transmasculine patients. Level of Evidence IV: 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 http://www.springer.com/00266. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background  Due to the variable vascular anatomy preoperative perforator mapping facilitates anterolateral thigh (ALT) free flap harvesting. Dynamic infrared perforator imaging can assist preoperative planning by displaying hot spots that represent angiosomes. This study aims to compare previously described precooling methods to develop a standardized simplified protocol for ALT perforator planning. Methods  Fifty thighs were examined with a FLIR ONE thermal camera. Four different cold challenges, including alcoholic disinfection, wet laparotomy sponge cooling, fan cooling, and cold pack application, were compared. Hot spot locations within a 250 mm × 80 mm area were compared double-blinded to perforator locations determined by Doppler ultrasonography considered as gold standard. Results  The matching rate of thermographic hot spots and sonographically identified perforators was 34.9 ± 22.2%. An increased matching rate of 62.2 ± 42.2% was noted taking only favored perforators (septocutaneous course, diameter >1 mm, distance <3 cm to the center, and visible concomitant veins) into account. Precooling with a fan followed by alcoholic disinfection provided clearest thermograms and fastest results. Conclusion  Thermographic imaging is a reliable method for perforator imaging. Its supplemental use to ultrasound may reduce examination time and yield additional information. Precooling by air flow or alcoholic disinfection can be easily implemented and provide the best thermograms. The matching rate of thermographic hot spots and perforators increases when taking only clinically relevant perforators into account. Thermal perforator mapping therefore reduces distraction by negligible perforators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Capsular contracture most often leads to implant revision surgery for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes. However, little is known about which operation is chosen when revision surgery has to be performed. We performed analysis of revision indications and performed revision surgery considering implant removal or replacement and additional surgical procedures. To our knowledge, this study presents the largest German single-center analysis regarding implant revision surgery after the onset of complications. Methods: Retrospective 10-year data analysis of a single-center population undergoing breast implant revision surgery. Results: Capsular contracture was the most frequent finding before reoperation, both removal and replacement (p < 0.05). It was linked to longer duration of in situ implant placement (p < 0.05) and more frequently in reconstructive patients (p < 0.05). Implant replacement was performed more often before definite implant removal for reconstructive patients (p < 0.05). Mean duration of in situ implant placement before definite removal was lower for reconstructive patients (p = 0.005). Overall reconstructive patients were older than aesthetic patients (p < 0.05). After implant removal, 61.7% of aesthetic patients chose to undergo mastopexy, 54.7% of reconstructive patients opted for autologous breast reconstruction, and 25.4% did not choose an additional surgical procedure after implant removal. Conclusion: Significant differences are observed for reconstructive and aesthetic patients regarding indication leading to revision surgery, time of revision surgery, and the type of performed revision surgery itself. After implant removal, more than 60% of aesthetic patients undergo mastopexy, more than half of reconstructive patients choose autologous breast reconstruction, and over a quarter of patients choose no additional surgical procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wound‐healing disorders are common complications in bilateral reduction mammaplasty. Traditional electrosurgical devices generate large amounts of thermal energy, often causing extensive thermal‐related collateral tissue damage. This study aimed to retrospectively analyse the operative performance of a novel low‐thermal plasma dissection device (pulsed electron avalanche knife—PEAK PlasmaBlade™) compared with traditional electrosurgery. Twenty patients with breast hypertrophy were randomly treated with PEAK PlasmaBlade™ on one breast and conventional electrosurgery on the other. Primary outcome measures were resection weight, drain duration, total drainage volume, and drain output on the first postoperative day. Breasts treated with PEAK PlasmaBlade™ had significantly higher resection weights (728.0 ± 460.1 g vs 661.6 ± 463.4 g; P =.038), significantly lower drain output on the first postoperative day (15.9 ± 15.2 mL vs 27.6 ± 23.5 mL; P =.023), and significantly lower drain durations (2.8 ± 1.0 days vs 3.3 ± 1.0 days; P =.030). Mean total drainage volume was lower where breast reduction was performed with PEAK PlasmaBlade™, but this difference was not significant. No major complications occurred, but wound‐healing disorders were documented in almost one‐third of the patients (35.0%, n = 7). The PEAK PlasmaBlade™ seems to be superior to conventional electrosurgery for bilateral reduction mammaplasty in terms of tissue damage and wound healing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]