Single Institution Review of Patients With Prior Breast Augmentation Undergoing Breast Conservation Therapy for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Increasing number of patients with preexisting breast implants desire breast conservation therapy for breast cancer. There is paucity of comparative data on tumor margins and re-excisions in these patients. High re-excision rates up to 25% have been reported in breast conservation therapy patients; efforts to obtain cosmesis and avoid implant rupture might increase this further. We analyzed tumor margins, re-excision rates, and recurrence in previously augmented versus non-augmented patients undergoing lumpectomy for breast cancer. We preserved preexisting implants if feasible with oncologic clearance and cosmesis. METHODS: Institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis was performed on patients undergoing lumpectomy with history of prior breast augmentation (N = 52) and consecutively selected non-augmented patients (N = 51). Based on tumor distance to inked margin, we grouped margins as negative (≥2 mm), close (<2 mm), and positive. Patients were followed up clinically and with imaging in the outpatient clinic, and recurrences were documented. RESULTS: Patients in the non-augmented group were significantly more likely to have larger tumors (T2 and above; P = 0.05) compared with the augmented group. Although more patients in the augmented group had positive margins, this was not statistically significant (6 vs 3, P = 0.86). No difference was noted between re-excision rates among the augmented versus non-augmented groups (21.1% vs 19.6%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-2.37; P = 0.85); these remained unchanged even when adjusting for tumor stage (P = .75) and margins (P = 0.73). Although more patients in the augmented group recurred (4 vs 0), this was not statistically significant (P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that, from the oncological standpoint, patients with prior augmentation can undergo lumpectomy with equivalent tumor margins and re-excision rates. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported comparative study between these 2 groups.

Complications and Recurrence in Implant-Sparing Oncologic Breast Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of prior breast augmentation and newly diagnosed breast cancer represent a rapidly expanding and unique subset of patients. Prior studies have described changes in breast parenchyma and characteristic body habitus of previously augmented patients, as well as increased rates of capsular contracture associated with breast conservation therapy. In our current study, we aimed to study the risk factors contributing to morbidity and whether recurrence rates are higher in patients with prior breast augmentation undergoing lumpectomy or mastectomy for breast cancer and identify differences in complications between these 2 groups. METHODS: Retrospective analysis approved by institutional review board was performed on patients with prior breast augmentation undergoing lumpectomy (N = 52) and mastectomy (N = 64) for breast cancer. RESULTS: Patients with prior breast augmentation undergoing mastectomy had a higher rate of complications compared with those undergoing lumpectomy (20.3% vs 5.9% respectively, P = 0.031), after adjusting for patient-specific factors including body mass index [odds ratio (OR), 0.242; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.063-0.922; P = 0.0376], tumor stage (OR, 0.257; 95% CI, 0.064-1.036; P = 0.0562), smoking status (OR, 0.244; 95% CI, 0.065-0.918; P = 0.0370), and chemotherapy (OR, 0.242; 95% CI, 0.064-0.914; P = 0.0364). Four patients (7.7%) developed late complications in the lumpectomy group with 2 developing capsular contractures, 1 had fat necrosis and 1 needed complex reconstruction because of flattening of the nipple-areolar complex. There was no difference in recurrence or tumor margins between lumpectomy and mastectomy groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prior breast augmentation undergoing mastectomy have higher complication rates compared with lumpectomy even after adjusting for tumor stage. There appears to be no increased oncologic risk associated with either procedure given our current follow-up. Understanding these operative risks may help in patients' decision-making process with regards to type of oncologic surgery.

Avoiding the medial brachial cutaneous nerve in brachioplasty: an anatomical study.

OBJECTIVE: With more patients undergoing bariatric surgery procedures, there has been an increased demand on plastic surgeons to manage excess skin around the body from massive weight loss. The upper arm is one of the areas that require surgical attention. One of the complications of brachioplasty is injury to cutaneous nerves of the arm. We report our findings of the location of the medial brachial cutaneous nerve on the basis of anatomical landmarks to aid the reconstructive surgeon in planning his or her operative approach and procedure. METHODS: Eight fresh cadaver arms were dissected under loupe magnification. The brachial plexus was dissected from proximal to distal to evaluate the branching points of the cutaneous nerves. Measurements were taken from the medial epicondyle to cutaneous branches off the main nerve. RESULTS: At about 7 cm proximal to the medial epicondyle, there is an arborization of 2 to 3 cutaneous branches. This nerve sends 3 to 4 branches through the muscular fascia across the ulnar nerve to skin of the medial arm at about 15 cm proximal to the medial epicondyle. In most cadavers, this was found in the midportion of the arm. CONCLUSIONS: The plastic surgeon will be challenged to effectively manage excess skin from weight loss. Placing the incisions more posteriorly on the arm will help avoid morbidity associated with injury to these nerves, while still providing an acceptable aesthetic outcome. Knowledge of the anatomy of the course of the medial brachial cutaneous nerve can help the surgeon better plan his or her operative approach to maximize aesthetic benefit and limit nerve injury.