Implant Attributes or Patient Characteristics? Factors Affecting Outcome after Breast Augmentation in Transgender Women.

Implant-based breast augmentation is a valuable tool for treatment of gender dysphoria in transgender women. The aim was to assess whether implant attributes, plane selection, and patient characteristics had an impact on the surgical outcome, and to compare these parameters between transgender and cisgender breast augmentations. Methods: A cohort of transgender women who underwent breast augmentation at our department during 2009-2018 were retrospectively studied. The cohort was also compared with a cohort of 12,884 mainly cisgender women registered in the Swedish breast implant registry (BRIMP) during 2014-2019. Results: A total of 143 transgender individuals were included, with a median follow-up of 5.7 years. Complications occurred in 20 patients (14.0%), four patients (2.8%) underwent acute reoperation, and 20 patients (14.0%) had secondary corrections. No differences were seen in complication rates when comparing prepectoral with subpectoral placement (15.1% versus 12.9%; P = 0.81); size, less than 400 mL versus greater than or equal to 400 mL (14.7% versus 13.3%; P = 0.81), or the shape of the implants, round versus anatomic (10.7% versus 22.2%; P = 0.10). In comparison with the cohort from BRIMP, the transgender cohort had more round implants (72.0% versus 60.7%; P < 0.01), larger implants (44.1% had volumes of 400-599 mL, compared with 25.4%; P < 0.0001), and more prepectoral placement (51.0% versus 7.3%; P < 0.0001). The risk of reoperation less than 30 days was 1.2% in BRIMP and 2.8% in the transgender cohort (P = 0.08). Conclusions: In transgender women, implants are often larger, round, and placed prepectoral' compared with cisgender women. Despite these differences, complication rates were equivalent. Implant attributes, surgical techniques, and patient characteristics were not independently associated with the rate of complications.

Improved Surgical Outcome with Double Incision and Free Nipple Graft in Gender Confirmation Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy and chest-wall contouring is the most common gender confirmation surgery. With increasing prevalence of transgender individuals, there is a demand for better surgical outcomes and aesthetic results. Our aim was to evaluate surgical techniques used and assess modifications in gender confirmation mastectomies at Karolinska University hospital in Stockholm, Sweden. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on 464 patients undergoing gender confirmation mastectomies in our department between 2009 and 2018. Patient demographics, psychiatric comorbidity, surgical method, and outcome were analyzed. Follow-up was at least one year. RESULTS: The most frequently used surgical technique for gender confirmation mastectomies was double incision with free nipple graft (243 patients, 52.4%), followed by periareolar incision (113 patients, 24.4%) and semicircular incision (67 patients, 14.4%). The double incision technique and periareolar technique were associated with 18.9% and 28.3% complications, 3.3% and 12.4% acute reoperations, 28.4% and 65.5% secondary revisions, respectively. The double incision technique increased from being used in 17.8% of all mastectomies during 2009-2013 to 62.9% during 2014-2018, while periareolar incision decreased from 43.0% to 18.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The current study describes a successful transition of surgical technique from periareolar incision to double incision with free nipple graft in gender confirmation mastectomy, leading to significant improvements in the overall outcome with fewer complications, less acute reoperations and less secondary corrections. Hence, we consider the double incision with free nipple graft technique to be the favored technique in the vast majority of cases in female-to-male chest wall contouring.

Minimally invasive versus sternotomy mitral valve surgery when initiating a minimally invasive programme.

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of mitral valve operations are performed using minimally invasive procedures. The initiation of a minimally invasive mitral valve surgery programme constitutes a unique opportunity to study outcome differences in patients with similar characteristics operated on through a sternotomy versus a minimally invasive procedure. The goal of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of patients undergoing mitral valve surgery before versus those having surgery after the introduction of a minimally invasive programme. METHODS: The single-centre study included mitral valve procedures performed through a sternotomy or with a minimally invasive approach between January 2012 and May 2019. Propensity score matching was performed to reduce selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 605 patients (294 sternotomy, 311 minimally invasive) who underwent mitral valve surgery were included in the analysis. Propensity score matching resulted in 251 matched pairs. In the propensity score-matched analysis, minimally invasive procedures had longer extracorporeal circulation duration (149 ± 52 vs 133 ± 57 min; P = 0.001) but shorter aortic occlusion duration (97 ± 36 vs 105 ± 40 min, P = 0.03). Minimally invasive procedures were associated with a lower incidence of reoperation for bleeding (2.4% vs 7.2%; P = 0.012), lower need for transfusion (19.1% vs 30.7%; P = 0.003) and shorter in-hospital stay (5.0 ± 2.7 vs 7.2 ± 4.6 days; P < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was low in both groups (0.4% vs 0.8%; P = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery was associated with short-term outcomes comparable to those with procedures performed through a sternotomy. Initiating a minimally invasive mitral valve programme with a limited number of surgeons and a well-executed institutional selection strategy did not confer an increased risk for adverse events.