Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction in High-Body Mass Index Patients.

BACKGROUND: The effect of body mass index (BMI) on complication rates in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is not well established. The purpose of this study was to compare complication rates between different BMI groups in subpectoral and prepectoral reconstruction. METHODS: A single-surgeon, 4-year, retrospective review was performed of consecutive prosthetic breast reconstructions. During this time, the senior author's practice shifted from a subpectoral to prepectoral technique. Patients were stratified into BMI subgroups (<25, 25-35, and >35 kg/m2) and complication rates were analyzed. A survey was administered to blinded medical personnel and patients comparing esthetic results. RESULTS: Implant-based reconstructions were performed in 195 patients (103 subpectoral and 92 prepectoral). No significant difference in major complication rate was observed between techniques. Among patients with BMI greater than 35 kg/m2, implant exposure occurred at a significantly higher rate in the prepectoral group (P = 0.04). In patients with BMI greater than 25 kg/m2, minor asymmetry was more prevalent with prepectoral reconstruction (12.3% vs 0%; P = 0.02). Regardless of technique, the odds of reoperation increased by 7% per point increase in BMI, although this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.07; odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.15).A total of 66 survey responses were received. Physicians rated esthetic results more positively than patients did. Patients with a BMI of less than 25 kg/m2 were rated better than other BMI groups in nearly all categories. The position of submuscular reconstruction was rated significantly better than prepectoral. CONCLUSIONS: There is a trend toward higher complication rates in prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction with increasing BMI. Nonetheless, the technique appears to be safe, with comparable clinical and cosmetic results.

Outcomes of Endoscopic Versus Open Spring Assisted Surgery for Sagittal Craniosynostosis.

Spring-assisted surgery (SAS) has been shown to be an effective technique for correction of isolated sagittal craniosynostosis in patients less than 6 months of age. At their institution, the authors adopted a minimally invasive technique in 2010, using a shorter incision and an endoscope. A retrospective chart review of 101 patients with isolated, nonsyndromic, sagittal craniosynostosis, who underwent SAS, was performed in order to compare perioperative and clinical outcomes of the open (n = 51) and minimally-invasive (n = 50) approaches. Surgeries were performed by 2 neurosurgeons and 3 plastic surgeons, between 2005 and 2018. The pre and postoperative cephalic indices were not significantly different in both groups. Minimally-invasive spring placement required a longer operative time than the open approach, with the mean minimally-invasive operative time at 65 minutes, compared to 53 minutes (P < 0.0001). Spring removal operative time was not significantly different, with the minimally-invasive operative time at 31 minutes versus 29 minutes (P = 0.48). There were no significant differences in major or minor complications when comparing the open and minimally-invasive approaches. In conclusion, both the open and the minimally-invasive SAS techniques are effective for early correction of isolated sagittal craniosynostosis, although the minimally-invasive approach requires a longer operative time for spring placement.

Long-Term Outcomes of Spring-Assisted Surgery for Sagittal Craniosynostosis.

BACKGROUND: Spring-assisted surgery is an accepted alternative to cranial vault remodeling for treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis. The long-term safety and efficacy profiles of spring-assisted surgery have not been established. METHODS: This study is a retrospective examination of all patients treated with spring-assisted surgery (n = 175) or cranial vault remodeling (n = 50) for sagittal craniosynostosis at the authors' institution from 2003 to 2017. Data collected included demographic and operative parameters, preoperative and postoperative Cephalic Indices, and complications. Whitaker grades were assigned blindly by a craniofacial surgeon not involved in patients' care. RESULTS: The mean age at surgery was significantly lower for the spring-assisted surgery group compared with the cranial vault remodeling group (4.6 months versus 22.2 months; p < 0.001). Even when combining spring placement with spring removal operations, total surgical time (71.1 minutes versus 173.5 minutes), blood loss (25.0 ml versus 111.2 ml), and hospital stays (41.5 hours versus 90.0 hours) were significantly lower for the spring-assisted surgery cohort versus the cranial vault remodeling group (p < 0.001 for all). There were no differences in infection, reoperation rate, or headaches between the groups. The percentage improvement in Cephalic Index was not significantly different at 1 (p = 0.13), 2 (p = 0.99), and 6 (p = 0.86) years postoperatively. At 12 years postoperatively, the spring-assisted surgery group had persistently improved Cephalic Index (75.7 preoperatively versus 70.7 preoperatively). Those undergoing spring-assisted surgery had significantly better Whitaker scores, indicating less need for revision surgery, compared with the cranial vault remodeling group (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Compared with the authors' cranial vault remodeling technique, spring-assisted surgery requires less operating room time and is associated with less blood loss, but it has equivalent long-term Cephalic Indices and subjectively better shape outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.