Sensory Evaluation of the Nipple-Areolar Complex Following Primary Breast Augmentation: A Comparison of Incision Approaches.

BACKGROUND: The central inframammary incisional approach for breast augmentation surgery disrupts the fifth anterior intercostal nerve-artery-vein-plexus. The authors hypothesized that preservation of the fifth anterior intercostal neurovascular pedicle might completely preserve nipple-areola complex (NAC) sensitivity after implant breast augmentation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to analyze if the use of a laterally displaced incision achieves better sensitivity results than the conventional median submammary incision in females who underwent primary breast augmentation surgery. METHODS: A group of 25 female patients (50 breasts) underwent a surgical protocol for primary prepectoral implant breast augmentation with a laterally displaced submammary incision. This group was compared to a similar group of 25 patients (50 breasts) who underwent breast augmentation through a conventional submammary central approach. Sensitivity testing with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments was performed in both groups preoperatively and on postoperative days 2, 14, and 30, and after 6 months. RESULTS: Both groups were similar in age, BMI, comorbidities, and implant volumes. Preoperatively, all patients reported normal sensory function in both breasts. Postoperatively, in the laterally displaced incision group, sensory function remained normal in NAC areas, whereas in the conventional incision group, all cases presented the same degree of sensitivity diminution at Days 2, 14, and 30 (P = .000). At 6 months, all values were the same as at Day 30. CONCLUSIONS: Preservation of the fifth AIC pedicle resulted in complete preservation of preoperative NAC sensitivity. The laterally placed inframammary incision should be considered for patients undergoing primary prepectoral implant breast augmentation.

The Anatomy of the Frontalis Muscle Revisited: A Detailed Anatomic, Clinical, and Physiologic Study.

BACKGROUND: There are differing opinions with regard to the specific mechanical forces related to contraction of the frontalis muscle and how it exerts its effects on eyebrow motion. OBJECTIVES: To perform a detailed anatomic and clinical study of the frontalis muscle in cadavers and patients to better define the movement of the frontalis muscle. METHODS: This study consisted of four arms that included: 1) dynamic ecography to evaluate movement of the frontalis muscle, 2) anatomical study of the relationship between the frontalis muscle and the deep fascia, 3) histological study to define the frontalis muscle attachments and 4) clinical study to evaluate the action of the frontalis muscle in patients undergoing a temporal face lift. RESULTS: The frontalis muscle was attached, inserted, and adhered to the deep layer of the fascia in the superior cephalic and middle third of the forehead. In the superior cephalic third of the forehead, loose areolar tissue was observed deep to the frontalis muscle and the deep layer of the fascia. Within the middle third of the forehead, the deep layer of the galea was fused with the periosteum and firmly adhered. In the inferior caudal third of the forehead, the frontalis muscle was separated from the deep galeal aponeurosis and interdigitated with the orbicularis muscle. When the frontal muscle end was dissected free from the deep fascia by approximately 1 cm and pulled upward, no movement of the eyebrows was observed. Eyebrow elevation was only achieved by pulling on the inferior part of the muscle. CONCLUSIONS: Frontalis muscle movement occurs from the inferior caudal end towards the mid part of the muscle as it contracts centripetally on its superficial layer sliding over the deep part strongly attached to the deep fascia.

The Deltopectoral/Internal Mammary Artery Perforator Flap Revisited: Design Variations Based on Cadaveric and Clinical Investigation.

ABSTRACT: Current understanding of the vascular anatomy of the anterior chest wall suggests that perfusion of the deltopectoral flap may be compromised when crossing the midline at the anterior thoracic wall. The traditional deltopectoral flap is designed longitudinally over the ipsilateral side to avoid the risk of distal flap necrosis. The purpose of this article is to present our experience and results with 26 deltopectoral flaps that were designed and raised with the perforating vessels on the ipsilateral side with the majority of the flap crossing the midline extending to the contralateral side. This anatomic variation in flap design indicates that the sternal midline is not a barrier and that the internal mammary perforator flap may be raised on different longitudinal axes.

Large-Volume Autologous Fat Grafting to the Breast.

Autologous fat grafting in the setting of breast augmentation and reconstruction has become globally accepted and routinely performed. There is general consensus that small-volume grafting is reproducible and predictable; however, large-volume fat grafting (>100 mL) is less predictable and is not as commonly performed. The aim of this article was to review outcomes following large-volume and megavolume fat grafting in the setting of breast augmentation and reconstruction. Level of Evidence: 4.

What Are the Long-Term Aesthetic Issues in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction?

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral placement of prosthetic devices is rapidly becoming the preferred method of breast reconstruction. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to review long-term surgical and aesthetic outcomes following prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction. METHODS: The study included 90 patients (139 breasts). Follow-up for all patients ranged from at least 1 year up to a maximum of 4.3 years. Parameters analyzed included preoperative and postoperative breast symmetry, rippling, edge visibility, and capsular contracture, as well as secondary procedures such as fat grafting, implant exchange, contralateral procedures, and autologous flap conversion. RESULTS: The incidence of breast symmetry, which was noted preoperatively in 84.4% of patients, gradually declined to 68.9% after 1 to 2 years and to 56.7% after 2 to 5 years. Rippling and edge visibility were noted in 19.4% and 12.9% of patients, respectively. Explantation without replacement of the device was performed in 12 breasts (8.6%). Secondary procedures included autologous fat grafting (23.7%), implant replacement (7.2%), conversion to an autologous flap (12.2%), and a contralateral breast procedure in 15 of 41 patients (36.6%). Capsular contracture (grade 3-4) was demonstrated in 14 of 139 breasts (10.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral breast reconstruction can provide good to excellent short-term (1-2 years) and longer-term (2-4.3 years) benefits; however, over time, the quality of prepectoral breast reconstruction as well as breast symmetry can change due to various factors.

Early assessment of post-surgical outcomes with pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: A literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is an emerging surgical approach. This study provides an early assessment of outcomes with the technique. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed through searches of PubMed® /MEDLINE® to identify studies on pre-pectoral reconstruction. Patient characteristics and outcomes were extracted from studies and pooled. Linear relationships between complication rates and patient characteristics with pre-pectoral reconstruction were analyzed. A meta-analysis compared complication rates between pre-pectoral and dual-plane reconstruction. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (406 women/654 breasts) were included. The most common complications with pre-pectoral reconstruction were flap necrosis (7.8%), seroma (6.7%), capsular contracture (5.8%), and explantation (4.6%). No hyperanimation was reported. Significant correlation between previous radiation and flap necrosis, post-operative chemotherapy and infection, hypertension and flap necrosis, diabetes and dehiscence, and smoking and explantation were found. A meta-analysis of four studies comparing pre-pectoral (135 women/219 breasts) and dual-plane (230/408) reconstruction found no significant difference for likelihood of infection (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-1.30), explantation (0.83; 0.29-2.38), necrosis (1.61; 0.77-3.36), seroma (1.88; 0.71-5.02), dehiscence (1.84; 0.68-4.95), or capsular contracture (0.14; 0.02-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates are comparable following pre-pectoral and dual-plane reconstruction, indicating the pre-pectoral technique may be a feasible option for appropriate patients.

Innovations and advancements with prosthetic breast reconstruction.

Prosthetic breast reconstruction has evolved over the years to provide results that now mimic that of a natural breast. This is due to a variety of innovations and advancements related to mastectomy techniques, acellular dermal matrices, autologous fat grafting, and improved breast implants. The evolution of prosthetic breast reconstruction has gone full-circle and included prepectoral placement in the 1970s and 80s, partial or total subpectoral placement from 1985 to 2015, and now gradually trending back to prepectoral. There are several techniques and strategies that now allow for patients to achieve results that are superior to any time over the past 50 years. This manuscript will review the salient aspects of prosthetic breast reconstruction and how its evolution has progressed over the years.

Implant-based breast reconstruction: Strategies to achieve optimal outcomes and minimize complications.

Breast reconstruction using prosthetic devices is the most commonly performed procedure in women following mastectomy. The goal is to provide an outcome that is predictable and reproducible while minimizing complications and optimizing aesthetics. There are various strategies by which this can be achieved. It begins with proper patient selection because most adverse events occur in high-risk patients. This in turn is related to the timing of the reconstruction that can be performed immediately following the mastectomy or on a delayed basis. Many surgeons have been combining the use of acellular dermal matrices with prosthetic devices that require strict attention to detail to ensure success. There are various options for achieving device coverage that include total muscle, partial muscle, and subcutaneous coverage. The radiated patient poses additional challenges and limitations that must be understood to achieve a desired outcome. Finally, autologous fat grafting has become a valuable tool to improve outcomes in both radiated and non-radiated women. These factors will be reviewed with the intent of improving outcomes and minimizing complications in the setting of prosthetic breast reconstruction. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:895-905. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Autologous flap breast reconstruction: Surgical algorithm and patient selection.

Whole breast reconstruction using autologous tissue is the gold standard in many regions of the world. Reasons include breast replacement with native skin and fat, ability to shape and mold the tissue into a breast, no foreign materials are necessary, and it lasts forever when successful. There are now many options for autologous breast reconstruction and the decision making process regarding which flap to choose will depend on ones experience and comfort, ability to perform microvascular surgery, and the milieu in which one operates. This chapter will review many of the options for autologous breast reconstruction and provide an algorithmic approach for flap and patient selection. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:865-874. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Impact of Connective Tissue Disease on Oncologic Breast Surgery and Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The impact of connective tissue disease (CTD) on outcomes following breast surgery and reconstruction is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of both CTDs and systemic immunomodulatory therapy on outcomes following breast surgery and reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients from 2005 to 2010 with an active CTD who underwent breast surgery with or without reconstruction. Surgical events were assigned to 1 of 4 groups: ablative surgery alone, autologous reconstruction, implant reconstruction, and revision surgery. Logistic regression was utilized to examine the relationship between complications and type of surgery, CTD diagnosis, and immunomodulatory therapy. Four non-CTD control groups were then compiled for outcome comparison. The a priori P-value was set at P < 0.05, and all tests were 2 sided. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients with CTD underwent112 procedures. Diagnoses included psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (n = 12), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 10), lupus (n = 4), scleroderma (n = 3), Sjogren syndrome (n = 2), mixed CTD (n = 1), and seronegative polyarthritis (n = 1). Nineteen of 33 (58%) patients who received systemic treatment for CTD in the perioperative period were less likely to experience a minor complication compared with those without treatment (odds ratio= 0.69; P = 0.019). There were no differences in postoperative complications in patients with CTD compared with control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ablative breast surgery and reconstruction among patients with CTDs can be performed safely with low perioperative complication rates. Patients receiving systemic therapy, and continuing their regimens perioperatively, experience complication rates similar to those not requiring therapy.

Breast reconstruction and adjuvant therapy: A systematic review of surgical outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The impact of adjuvant therapy on the surgical outcomes following breast reconstruction is poorly understood. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate surgical outcomes following autologous and prosthetic reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) and adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic review of the English literature published from 2000 to 2015 in the Pubmed/MEDLINE database was performed to identify all manuscripts reporting outcome of breast reconstruction in patients receiving PMRT and/or adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Sixty-two manuscripts met the criteria for inclusion. This included 56 manuscripts (5437 patients) evaluating patients treated with PMRT and 11 manuscripts (820 patients) evaluating patients treated with chemotherapy. Pooled analysis of the PMRT cohort revealed significantly higher weighted incidences of re-operation (P < 0.0001), total complications (P < 0.0001), and reconstructive failure (P < 0.0001) in prosthetic reconstruction compared to autologous. There was little evidence to suggest that postoperative chemotherapy is associated with poorer overall outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PMRT was associated with an increased incidence of adverse events when compared to chemotherapy. There was little evidence to suggest that adverse events following breast reconstruction were related to adjuvant chemotherapy. Manipulating the method and timing of reconstruction may mitigate some of the undesirable outcomes associated with PMRT.