Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on Permanent Implants or Tissue Expanders: Which is Better?

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates complications and reconstructive failure rates in implant-based reconstruction with radiotherapy. BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy radiotherapy may adversely affect breast reconstructive outcomes. However, the comparative effect of radiotherapy on direct-to-implant versus tissue expander-implant reconstruction has not been examined. METHODS: Single institution retrospective review was performed and patients were followed 2 to 10 years. RESULTS: Of 1566 patients, 265 patients received radiation (149 immediate implants and 116 tissue expanders). Demographics were similar except more smokers in the expander group (7.7% vs 1.3%; P = 0.012). Patients who received radiation with an expander in place had overall more complications (32.8% vs 11.4%; P < 0.001), skin necrosis (10.3% vs 4.0%; P = 0.043), wound breakdown (9.5% vs 2.7%; P = 0.029), and infections (16.4% vs 4.03%; P = 0.001) leading to a higher rate of explantation (16.4% vs 4.0%; P < 0.001). A radiation boost likewise predicted complications [odds ratio (OR) 2.199, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.154-4.188, P = 0.017]. When comparing reconstructive outcomes, radiated expanders had a higher failure rate (21.6% vs 11.4%; P = 0.025). Revision for capsular contracture was similar between the 2 cohorts (11.4% vs 11.2%; P = 0.959) as were revision rates for contour asymmetry and breast asymmetry. In our multivariable logistic regression analysis, radiation to the expander had a higher risk of reconstruction failure than radiation to the permanent implant (OR 2.020, 95% CI 1.010-4.037, P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Most patients had successful implant-based reconstructions after mastectomy and radiotherapy. Our study showed radiotherapy after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction had a lower rate of complications and reconstructive failure compared to tissue expander-implant reconstruction.

Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in Digital Replantation versus Revision Amputation.

Background Earlier, digit viability judged the success of digital replantation. Now, utility health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures can better assess the impact of digital replantation. Methods Overall, 264 digital injury patients were sent a regimen of utility measures: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions, visual analog scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and standard gamble (SG). Overall, 51 patients responded completely to all of these-36 replantation patients and 15 revision amputation patients. The utility results of these patients were stratified between replantation versus revision amputation; dominant hand replantation versus nondominant hand replantation; and dominant hand revision amputation versus nondominant hand revision amputation. Results The mean VAS score of replant (0.84) and revision amputation (0.75) groups was significantly different (p = 0.05). The mean DASH score of dominant hand replantations (29.72) and nondominant hand replantations (17.97) was significantly different (p = 0.027). The dominant hand revision amputation had higher anxiety levels in comparison to nondominant hand revision amputation (p = 0.027). Patients with two or more digits replanted showed a significant decrease in VAS, TTO, and SG scores in comparison to patients who only had one digit replanted (p = 0.009, 0.001, and 0.001, respectively). Conclusions This study suggests that HRQOL can offer better indices for outcomes of digital replantation. This shows some specific replantation cohorts have a significantly better quality of life when compared with their specific correlating revision amputation cohort. These findings can be employed to further refine indications and contraindications to replantation and help predict the quality of life outcomes.

A Decade of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Lessons Learned in 3035 Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy is commonly performed for breast cancer treatment or prevention. The authors present one of the largest breast reconstruction series in the literature. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was conducted from 2007 to 2019. RESULTS: The authors' query identified 3035 implant-based breast reconstructions after nipple-sparing mastectomy, including 2043 direct-to-implant and 992 tissue expander-to-implant reconstructions. The overall major complication rate was 9.15%, and the nipple necrosis rate was 1.20%. Therapeutic mastectomy was associated with higher overall complications and explantations compared with prophylactic mastectomy ( P < 0.01). In comparisons of unilateral and bilateral procedures, bilateral mastectomy had an increased risk for complications (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.997 to 2.145; P = 0.05). Tissue-expander reconstructions had higher rates of nipple necrosis (1.9% versus 0.88%; P = 0.015), infection (4.2% versus 2.8%; P = 0.04), and explantation (5.1% versus 3.5%; P = 0.04) compared with direct-to-implant reconstruction. When assessing plane of reconstruction, the authors found similar rates of complications between subpectoral dual-plane and prepectoral reconstruction. There was no difference in complications between reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix or mesh compared with total or partial muscle coverage without acellular dermal matrix/mesh (OR, 0.749; 95% CI, 0.404 to 1.391; P = 0.361). Multivariable regression analysis revealed preoperative radiotherapy (OR, 2.465; 95% CI, 1.579 to 3.848; P < 0.001), smoking (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.581 to 4.054; P < 0.001), and a periareolar incision (OR, 3.657; 95% CI, 2.276 to 5.875; P < 0.001) to be the strongest predictors of complications and nipple necrosis ( P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction has a low rate of complications. In this series, radiation therapy, smoking, and incision choice predicted overall complications and nipple necrosis, whereas direct-to-implant reconstruction and acellular dermal matrix or mesh did not increase risk. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Analysis of Presentation and Outcomes in Acute Limb Ischemia Patients During COVID-19 State of Emergency.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, cardiovascular patients were found to be presenting to hospitals with myocardial infarctions and cerebrovascular accidents at progressed disease states. We noticed a parallel in acute limb ischemia (ALI) patients presenting during Massachusetts' COVID-19 State of Emergency declaration. We question whether patients developed a hesitancy to seek medical attention at hospitals due to fear of COVID-19. Our objective was to compare acuity of ALI, interventions, and limb survival in patients presenting before, during, and after a state of emergency. METHODS: Four timeframes were set to compare patients presenting peri-2020 COVID-19 State of Emergency and patients presenting during a pre-pandemic era at a tertiary, academic institution. A reference period from 2019, Pre-State of Emergency period, State of Emergency period, and Post-State of Emergency period were designated. Patient characteristics, interventions, and outcomes data were collected. Unpaired t-test, ANOVA, and Chi-square statistical analyses were used. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients presenting with ALI were identified. Compared to Reference group, state of emergency group had more patients presenting with Rutherford Class III, 12.9% vs 35%, and less patient presenting with Class I, 45.1% vs 0%, P = .02. State of emergency group had more delayed presentations with ≥6 hours after symptom onset, 45% vs 85%, P = .01. Above-knee amputations were performed in 20% of patients during state of emergency and 31.6% for Post-State of Emergency, vs 6.5% in the Reference group; P = .03. There was no difference in intensive care unit admission, length of stay, or mortality between patients from different groups. CONCLUSION: During a state of emergency, ALI patients were noted to present later from symptom onset, have greater disease severity, and more likely to undergo amputations. We suspect delay in presentation and limb lost to be attributed to reluctance to seek immediate medical attention.

Clockwise and Counterclockwise Le Fort I Movements Influence Nasolabial Morphology Differently.

BACKGROUND: Le Fort I maxillary advancements affect nasal proportions. However, there are no data on the three-dimensional nasal changes that occur with differential lateral plane adjustment (clockwise and counterclockwise movements) during Le Fort I maxillary advancements. This study analyzes and compares nasolabial soft-tissue changes after Le Fort I clockwise and counterclockwise repositioning. METHODS: Single-piece Le Fort I advancements were included. A retrospective study of patients split into clockwise and counterclockwise groups was performed. Preoperative and postoperative three-dimensional photographs (VECTRA 3D) were analyzed. Nasolabial anthropometric measurements were recorded using Mirror software. Statistical analysis involved paired t test to compare preoperative and postoperative measurements. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were evaluated (12 per group), with 22 distinct nasolabial relationships measured. Counterclockwise movement showed a statistically significant increase in alar width (3.6 mm; p < 0.001), alar base width (1.6 mm; p = 0.009), oral width (3.2 mm; p = 0.02), and lip projection (3.4 mm; p = 0.04). Clockwise movement showed no statistically significant changes, with the largest position changes noted in alar width (2.7 mm; p = 0.07) and alar base width (1.7 mm; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Clockwise and counterclockwise Le Fort I advancements have a different effect on postoperative nasolabial morphology. Counterclockwise movements exhibit significant changes, widening the alar base and width and the oral and philtral widths. The impact on the nostril morphology and columella was similar between the groups. The differential impact on nasolabial appearance is important to recognize for treatment planning and patient counseling. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Impact of Patient Subtype and Surgical Variables on Abdominoplasty Outcomes: A 12-Year Massachusetts General Hospital Experience.

BACKGROUND: The traditional abdominoplasty is one of the most common surgical procedures performed. This study evaluates the impact of different surgical techniques and clinical patient factors on abdominoplasty outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing abdominoplasty was performed. RESULTS: Seven hundred seventy-nine patients with a mean age of 43.7 years and a body mass index of 27 kg/m underwent abdominoplasty. The majority were women (92.9 percent), and massive weight loss was present in 34.8 percent. Abdominoplasty techniques included traditional (59.4 percent), belt lipectomy (17.9 percent), fleur-de-lis (16.4 percent), umbilical float (9.2 percent), and mini-abdominoplasty (2.8 percent). Half of the study population [n = 384 (49.3 percent)] had concurrent surgical procedures. Total complications (23.0 percent) consisted primarily of wound- and scar-related complications (15.3 percent). Approximately 60 percent of patients received heparin chemoprophylaxis, with overall thromboembolic and hematoma rates less than 1 percent. Univariate analysis revealed that massive weight loss (p = 0.04), fleur-de-lis (p = 0.03) or belt lipectomy (p = 0.05) techniques, and concurrent medial thigh lift (p < 0.001) all significantly increased complications. Previous scars, amount of weight loss, operative time, liposuction, and other concurrent procedures did not affect total complications. Male sex (OR, 1.96; p = 0.04), fleur-de-lis technique (OR, 1.71; p = 0.04), and medial thigh lift (OR, 3.3; p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for total postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that abdominoplasty alone or in combination with liposuction and aesthetic breast surgery can be performed safely, with an acceptable complication profile. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Revisions in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: How Does Direct-to-Implant Measure Up?

BACKGROUND: Immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is increasingly performed for breast cancer treatment or prevention. The advantage over traditional tissue expander/implant reconstruction includes the potential for fewer surgical procedures. METHODS: Retrospective, single-institution, three-surgeon review identified patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction from 2006 to 2011. RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-two reconstructions were performed in 432 women with an average follow-up of 5 years. Four hundred sixty-five were direct-to-implant reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix while 217 were tissue expander/implant reconstructions without acellular dermal matrix. The overall revision rate in direct-to-implant reconstruction was 20.9 percent. There was no difference in total revision rates between direct-to-implant and tissue expander reconstruction (20.9 percent versus 20.3 percent; p = 0.861). Subgroup analysis showed no difference in revision for malposition (3.4 percent versus 5.5 percent; p = 0.200), size change (6.7 percent versus 5.5 percent; p = 0.569), fat grafting (8.6 percent versus 9.7 percent; p = 0.647), or capsular contracture (4.5 percent versus 3.2 percent; p = 0.429). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed complications were associated with higher rates of revision for malposition or size in both groups (OR, 2.8; 95 percent CI, 1.56 to 5.13; p = 0.001). Smoking, preoperative irradiation, skin necrosis, and one surgeon were associated with higher rates of fat grafting, whereas increasing body mass index was associated with lower rates. Postoperative radiotherapy and hematoma were predictive of revision for capsular contracture. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year revision rate in this series of direct-to-implant reconstruction was approximately 21 percent and similar to the revision rate in tissue expander/implant reconstruction. Surgical complications, radiotherapy, and the surgeon influenced the rate of revision similarly in both groups. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Nipple Loss following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Nipple preservation at the time of mastectomy is increasingly performed to enhance the overall result from the reconstruction. Unfortunately, some of these patients may lose their nipples for oncologic reasons or because of necrosis. Several studies have investigated risk factors associated with nipple loss, but few data exist on the incidence of cancer in the nipple specimen, nipple removal for cosmesis or symmetry, and whether these patients subsequently pursue nipple reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on nipple-sparing mastectomies and immediate reconstruction from 2007 to 2013. RESULTS: Of 443 patients (775 breasts), 51 nipples (6.6 percent) were removed. Of the 51 nipple losses, 76 percent had total nipple or nipple-areola complex loss and 24 percent had partial loss. Twenty-five of the nipples (49 percent) required excision for oncologic reasons, 18 nipples (35 percent) were either partially or totally lost because of necrosis, and one nipple (2 percent) was excised for cosmetic reasons. In cases of bilateral reconstruction and unilateral nipple loss, 65 percent of contralateral normal nipples were retained and 35 percent (n = 7) were removed for symmetry. Fourteen nipples had residual cancer or atypia, whereas 37 had normal pathologic findings. Twenty-one nipples (40 percent) were reconstructed and 30 were not. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, the incidence of nipple loss following nipple-sparing mastectomy was 6.6 percent and related primarily to positive oncologic margins. The rate of removal for cosmesis was low, suggesting that for most patients the nipple lies in an acceptable position. After removal, 40 percent of patients had nipple reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with previous breast surgery: comparative analysis of 775 immediate breast reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of women are candidates for nipple preservation with mastectomy. It is unclear how previous breast surgery impacts nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed between June of 2007 and June of 2013. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-four patients underwent 775 immediate breast reconstructions after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Of these, 160 patients and 187 reconstructions had previous breast surgery, including 154 lumpectomies, 27 breast augmentations, and six reduction mammaplasties. Two hundred eighty-four patients with 588 reconstructions without previous breast surgery served as the control group. The previous breast surgery patients were older (49.6 years versus 45.8 years; p < 0.001) but otherwise had similar demographics. Previous breast surgery reconstructions were more often unilateral, therapeutic, and associated with preoperative radiotherapy (p < 0.001 for each). Extension of breast scars was common with previous breast surgery, whereas the inframammary incision was most frequent if no scars were present (p < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis showed that previous breast surgery was not a significant risk factor for ischemic complications or nipple loss. Subgroup analysis showed extension of prior irradiated incisions was predictive of skin flap necrosis (OR, 9.518; p = 0.05). A higher number of lumpectomy patients had preoperative radiotherapy (41 versus 11; p < 0.001), and patients with breast augmentation had more single-stage reconstructions (85.2 percent versus 62.9 percent; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction can be performed in patients with prior breast surgery with no significant increase in nipple loss or ischemic complications. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: predictors of complications, reconstruction outcomes, and 5-year trends.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy is increasingly used for treatment and prevention of breast cancer. Few data exist on risk factors for complications and reconstruction outcomes. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed between 2007 and 2012. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-five patients underwent 500 nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures for breast cancer (46 percent) or risk reduction (54 percent). The average body mass index was 24, and 6 percent were smokers. The mean follow-up was 2.17 years. Immediate breast reconstruction (reconstruction rate, 98.8 percent) was performed with direct-to-implant (59 percent), tissue expander/implant (38 percent), or autologous (2 percent) reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix was used in 71 percent and mesh was used in 11 percent. Seventy-seven reconstructions had radiotherapy. Complications included infection (3.3 percent), skin necrosis (5.2 percent), nipple necrosis (4.4 percent), seroma (1.7 percent), hematoma (1.7 percent), and implant loss (1.9 percent). Positive predictors for total complications included smoking (OR, 3.3; 95 percent CI, 1.289 to 8.486) and periareolar incisions (OR, 3.63; 95 percent CI, 1.850 to 7.107). Increasing body mass index predicted skin necrosis (OR, 1.154; 95 percent CI, 1.036 to 1.286) and preoperative irradiation predicted nipple necrosis (OR, 4.86; 95 percent CI, 1.0197 to 23.169). An inframammary fold incision decreased complications (OR, 0.018; 95 percent CI, 0.0026 to 0.12089). Five-year trends showed increasing numbers of nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction and more single-stage versus two-stage reconstructions (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nipple-sparing mastectomy reconstructions have a low number of complications. Smoking, body mass index, preoperative irradiation, and incision type were predictors of complications. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.