Prospective Study of Clinical Outcomes From a Breast Implant Assessment Service.

BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation remains the commonest cosmetic surgical procedure worldwide, in spite of recent regulatory action. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate women with breast implants attending a breast implant assessment clinic and to capture clinical and implant data in women presenting to the service. METHODS: Patients were enrolled prospectively between January 2018 and December 2021. Clinical, implant, and practitioner data were recorded. Patients reported satisfaction on size, shape, and overall outcome as well as the presence or pain. Radiological evaluation, where indicated, was performed and data were included on these findings. RESULTS: A total of 603 patients were assessed. Their mean age was 42.7 years and mean age at implantation was 29.1 years. The most common complications were capsular contracture followed by pain, waterfall deformity, and double bubble, with rupture/contracture rates increasing after the 10-year mark. The risk of double bubble was significantly lower if patients were operated on by certified practitioners (odds ratio = 0.49, P = 0.011). There was almost universally poor awareness of the risks of breast implants in patients presenting for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown benefit in a breast implant assessment clinic to gather information on adverse events and patient-reported outcomes following breast implant surgery. Having appropriately trained and certified practitioners perform cosmetic augmentation significantly lowers the risk of implant malposition and deformity. Any adverse event occurring within 5 years of initial surgery should be flagged as a mandatory reportable clinical indicator and trigger further investigation.

The Use of Absorbable Mesh in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A 7-Year Review.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is most frequently performed using implants or expanders. Adjunctive materials such as acellular dermal matrix and synthetic meshes are used to support the implant or expander. A paucity of large studies exist on the use of synthetic mesh for breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients over the past 7 years who had implant reconstruction with synthetic absorbable mesh at the Massachusetts General Hospital was performed. Data were collected on demographic and surgical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients (376 mastectomies) were treated with direct-to-implant subpectoral reconstruction with absorbable mesh from 2011 to 2017. The infection rate was 2.1 percent. The rate of capsular contracture was 4.8 percent. Patients who had radiation therapy either preoperatively or postoperatively had a higher rate of complications, including capsular contracture. Cost savings for using mesh instead of acellular dermal matrix surpassed $1.2 million. CONCLUSION: Synthetic absorbable mesh is a safe alternative to acellular dermal matrix in prosthetic breast reconstruction and provides stable results along with significant cost savings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Objective assessment of reconstructed breast hardness using a durometer.

BACKGROUND: Whether a durometer was suitable for objectively measuring reconstructed breast hardness was evaluated. METHODS: Subjects were 81 women who underwent expander-implant reconstructions following breast cancer ablation. Capsular contracture was evaluated with Baker grading. Capsular thickness was measured with T1-weighted MRI at the upper areola area. The durometer was placed on the upper areola. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to compare variables. RESULTS: On Baker grading, 17 breasts were Baker grade I, 52 breasts were Baker grade II, 11 breasts were Baker grade III, and 1 breast was Baker grade IV. Mean capsular thickness on MRI was 1.1 (SD 0.4) mm with Baker grade I, 1.2 (SD 0.3) mm with Baker grade II, 1.4 (SD 0.4) mm with Baker grade III, and 1.9 mm with Baker grade IV. Mean durometer value was 0 with Baker grade I, 0.2 (SD 0.5) with Baker grade II, 2.0 (SD 1.7), with Baker grade III, and 8 with Baker grade IV. Baker grade IV was excluded from analysis because there was only one case. When Baker grade III was defined as positive for hardness, multiple logistic regression analysis showed that durometer value was associated with Baker grade III (p = 0.0005), but capsular thickness was not. On receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the durometer value for Baker grade III, the optimal cutoff value was 0.5 (sensitivity 0.92, 1-specificity 0.17, area under the curve 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: The durometer offers an objective index of hardness that might replace the subjective Baker grading. Further studies are needed to confirm the utility of this index.

Acellular dermal matrices in secondary aesthetic breast surgery: indications, techniques, and outcomes.

Acellular dermal matrices are integrally involved in the majority of expander-implant reconstructions and complex hernia repairs today, and they are now making their way into secondary aesthetic breast surgery. The number of revisional breast surgery cases has continued to increase as the materials and repair techniques have improved. The aesthetic outcome bar is constantly being raised, and the complexity of patient deformities often requires additional tissues to achieve a successful repair. The most common complications in breast augmentation are reviewed, along with indications and some current repair techniques, general principles, and specific caveats to help plastic surgeons deal with these complex and challenging patient problems utilizing acellular dermal matrices.

The use of acellular dermal matrices in revisional breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The use of acellular dermal matrices in breast surgery has become popular in the last two decades, with a corresponding increase in experience and literature. The authors reviewed the literature and summarize key technical points regarding use of acellular dermal matrices in reconstructive breast surgery. METHODS: Current applications have emphasized both primary and secondary breast reconstruction. Newer approaches focus on breast revisional surgery, especially when matrix material is used to correct deformities commonly arising after breast implant placement. In these situations, matrices have widened the indications and improved results by providing additional support to the lower pole, extending the pectoralis major muscle, and smoothing surface irregularities. Increased use of these products has also spurred our understanding of their biological properties of cell infiltration, tolerance, and inflammation. RESULTS: Acquired deformities, such as symmastia, rippling, malposition, and lower pole bottoming out, that were previously difficult to treat are significantly improved by placement of acellular dermal matrix in the affected area. Although most of the available studies demonstrate short-term results (1 to 2 years of follow-up), our technical ability to treat complications after breast augmentation and mastopexy has expanded. Use of onlay grafts of matrix in areas of capsulectomy and capsulorrhaphy, placement of grafts of varying thickness for thinned tissues, and the wide variety of shapes and sizes of product available are reducing unfavorable aesthetic results. CONCLUSIONS: Increased complications, including seroma formation, infection, wound dehiscence, and implant exposure, remain challenging problems. Long-term studies will be needed to prove the durability of acellular dermal matrices in breast revisional surgery.