Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis provided earlier shoulder function restoration compared with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis during the recovery phase.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the clinical outcomes of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for symptomatic biceps tenosynovitis. Although both techniques have pros and cons, no studies have compared clinical and functional outcomes during the recovery phase. Previous studies show that suprapectoral tenodesis has a higher probability of Popeye deformity and postoperative bicipital pain and stiffness, whereas subpectoral tenodesis has a higher risk of nerve complications and wound infections. This study aimed for clinical comparison between arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of institutional records of patients with biceps tendinitis who underwent open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis. Surgical indications included biceps tenosynovitis, biceps partial tear, and biceps pulley lesion. Patients with prior shoulder surgery, preoperative shoulder stiffness, or full-thickness tear of rotator cuff were excluded. Tenodesis was considered when the pain recurs within 3 months despite conservative treatment including at least 2 triamcinolone injections on the biceps tendon sheath. Visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, presence of the night pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, and range of motion were assessed preoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively and the last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients (33 with arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodeses and 39 with open subpectoral biceps tenodeses) were included in analysis. At postoperative 6 months, lower VAS score (0.4 ± 0.8 vs. 1.7 ± 1.9, P < .001), and the presence of the night pain (2 [6%] vs. 14 [36%], P = .002), ASES score (89.6 ± 9.2 vs. 81.4 ± 14.6, P = .006), and Constant score (89.4 ± 5.6 vs. 82.0 ± 12.5, P = .003) compared with the subpectoral group. The mean number of postoperative steroid injections for pain control in the subpectoral group (0.51 ± 0.80) was significantly higher than that in the suprapectoral group (0.18 ± 0.40) (P = .031). However, postoperative clinical outcomes were restored similar between the 2 groups at 12 months and the last follow-up. DISCUSSION: Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis performed statistically better than the subpectoral biceps tenodesis for the VAS, ASES, night pain, and Constant score at postoperative 6 months. However, only night pain and the Constant score showed differences that exceeded minimum clinically important difference during the recovery phase. At postoperative 12 and 24 months, biceps tenodesis provided satisfactory clinical outcomes and pain relief regardless of the fixation technique and suture anchor location.

Biomechanical Comparisons of All-Suture Suspensory Button versus Interference Screw for Inlay Subpectoral Bicep tenodesis.

BACKGROUND: All-suture buttons (ASB) and interference screw (IS) are commonly utilized in the inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis. However, the biomechanical characteristics of these two methods have not been compared directly. The aim of present study was to compare the biomechanical properties of ASB versus IS for inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis in a human cadaveric model. METHODS: Sixteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were randomly divided into two experimental inlay biceps tenodesis groups: ASB or IS. After tenodesis, every specimen was preloaded at 5 N for 2 minutes, followed with a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70 N for 500 load cycles. Then the load-to-failure test was performed. Afterwards, the humerus was placed in a cylinder tube and secured with anchoring cement. Lastly, a two-point bending test was performed to determine the strength of the humerus. Destructive axial force was applied, and the failure strength and displacement were recorded. RESULTS: No difference in stiffness was observed between the two groups (ASB=27.4 ± 3.5 N/mm vs IS= 29.7 ± 3.0 N/mm; P=.270). Cyclic displacement was significantly greater in the ASB group (6.8 ± 2.6 mm) than the IS group (3.8 ± 1.1 mm; P=.021). In terms of failure load, there were no statistical differences among the two groups (P=.234). The ASB group was able to withstand significantly greater displacement (11.9 ± 1.6 mm) before failure than the IS group (7.8 ± 1.5mm; P=.001). During the humeral bending test, the ASB group exhibited significantly greater maximal load (2354.8 ± 285.1 N vs 2086.4 ± 296.1 N; P=.046) and larger displacement (17.8 ± 2.8mm vs 14.1± 2.8 mm; P=.027) before fracture. CONCLUSIONS: In inlay subpectoral bicep tenodesis, ASB fixation appears to offer comparable stiffness and failure load to that of IS fixation. Additionally, the ASB group exhibited greater resistance to load and displacement before humeral fracture. However, the ASB group did demonstrate increased cyclic displacement compared to IS group.

Evaluation of Nipple-Areola Circulation in Central Pedicle Mastopexy Patients with Subpectoral Implant Placement: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

OBJECTIVE: Mastopexy is a procedure which is used in breast lift and reconstruction surgery and requires a small amount of parenchymal resection. In this procedure, the preservation of nipple-areola circulation is vital. The purpose of this study is to evaluate nipple-areola circulation in patients undergoing central pedicle mastopexy with subpectoral implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHOD: In this observational quasi-experimental study, data were collected retrospectively from electronic medical records. The perioperative nipple-areola circulation of patients undergoing central pedicle mastopexy with subpectoral implant placement was evaluated by integrated laser Doppler flowmetry. Descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance, and Tukey's range tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The preoperative, skin dissection, pectoral elevation, implant placement, 24th hour, and 2nd week nipple-areola circulation statuses of each patient who underwent central pedicle mastopexy with subpectoral implant placement were examined using an integrated laser Doppler flowmeter, and the results were compared. At each stage, all measurements were in the range of 1.8-3.6 ml/min/100g. There was no statistically significant difference between the measurement results. CONCLUSION: Central pedicle mastopexy with subpectoral implant placement seems highly advantageous in terms of better functionality and aesthetics in the reconstruction of heavy and sagging breasts. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/0026.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with cortical button fixation.

BACKGROUND: Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSBT) with cortical button fixation has been shown to deliver acceptable results in the short and intermediate term for long head of the biceps (LHB) pathology with the benefit of smaller bone tunnel diameter and a reduced risk of postoperative humeral shaft fracture. The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether OSBT with cortical button fixation results in significant improvements in patient reported outcomes (PROs) from pre-operative to long-term final follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent OSBT with cortical button fixation at a single institution between the years of 2012 and 2014 was conducted and PROs were collected in the intermediate (> 2 years follow-up) and long term (> 9 years follow-up). PROs were measured pre-operatively, at intermediate follow-up, and at long-term follow-up using three validated questionnaires: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, and Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS). Patients were additionally asked at final follow-up if they would undergo the same procedure again if they needed it. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (29) patients with a mean age of 51.16 ± 9.06 years at the time of surgery were included in the study at final follow-up. Mean final follow-up time was 10.2 ± 0.5 years (range: 9.2-11.1 years). All PROs (ASES, OSS, and DASH) demonstrated statistically significant improvements from pre-operative to final follow-up with p < 0.01 for each. The proportions of patients exceeding established values for minimum clinically important difference (MCID) were 96.55%, 93.10%, and 75.86% for ASES, OSS, and DASH respectively. Only one patient had required re-operation as of final follow-up. None experienced humeral fractures post-operatively. A significant majority (89.66%; p < 0.01) of patients reported that they would undergo the same procedure again if they needed it. Fifty-three (53) patients were included in the study at intermediate follow-up with a mean follow-up time of 3.5 ± 1.4 years (range: 2-5.3 years). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the PRO measures from intermediate to long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study reported a minimum 9-year follow-up of patients undergoing OSBT with cortical button fixation for the management of LHBT pathology in the setting of concomitant shoulder procedures. All patients had significantly improved functional outcomes assessed with ASES, OSS, and DASH and no obvious differences in median group scores were found between patients assessed at intermediate (mean 3.5 years) and final (mean 10.2 years) follow-up. No infections, fractures, or fixation failures were reported.

Aesthetic transaxillary subpectoral placement of vagus nerve stimulator in children and young adults: A technical note.

INTRODUCTION: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulation therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE), refractory status epilepticus, and treatment-resistant depression. The lead is tunneled into the subcutaneous space and connected to the generator, which is usually implanted in a subcutaneous pocket below the clavicle. Surgical complications in the chest region include skin breakdown or infection. An alternative approach is to perform a subclavear subpectoral implantation. In our surgical series, we report a new aesthetic implantation method for VNS generators in children and young patients: the transaxillary subpectoral placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2021 to May 2023, 10 vagus nerve stimulation generators were placed subpectorally with a transaxillary approach by the authors. We considered operative time, surgical complications such as blood loss, infections, device migration, pain, and adverse events at follow-up. RESULTS: In this surgical series, we reviewed all cases of subpectoral implantation of VNS generators in children and young adults at our institution in the last 2 years. All patients were treated with subpectoral Sentiva 1000 (Livanova PLC) insertion with axillary access by a neurosurgeon and a pediatric surgeon. The operative time was slightly longer compared to the traditional subcutaneous implant. All generators reported impedances within the optimal range. Blood loss was not significant and no other perioperative complications were reported. Patients and families were highly satisfied with the outcomes in terms of comfort and aesthetic results after surgery and at the last follow-up. No cases of infection occurred, and no malfunctions or displacements of the generator were registered at clinical follow-up. CONCLUSION: The transaxillary subpectoral placement of theVNS generator is an aesthetic and anatomic approach, which provides several benefits to children and young adults.

Subpectoral biceps tenodesis with BicepsButton fixation in the young population: which technique works best?

BACKGROUND: Injuries of the long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon are a prevalent source of anterior shoulder pain and are commonly treated with tenodesis. Not only a stable fixation of the LHB but also anatomic restoration of the length-tension relationship plays a central role in providing satisfactory functional and cosmetic outcomes, especially in young patients. We report the clinical outcomes of 2 different subpectoral tenodesis techniques using unicortical button fixation. METHODS: Patients aged ≤ 50 years who were treated between April 2015 and January 2020 with 1 of the 2 following subpectoral tenodesis techniques were retrospectively selected and enrolled to undergo a follow-up examination at least 2 years after surgery: subpectoral in situ tenodesis followed by resection of the intra-articular portion leaving a residual tendon stump in the bicipital groove (group I) vs. tenotomy followed by resection of the stump and subpectoral tenodesis (group II). Patients who underwent concomitant rotator cuff repair, subsequent shoulder surgery, or contralateral biceps surgery were excluded. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the LHB score and the Constant-Murley Score (CMS), as well as measurements of isometric elbow flexion and forearm supination strength. Sonographic evaluation included assessment of the integrity of the LHB and tenodesis, examination for signs of inflammation within the sulcus or around the tendon, and measurements of the distalization of the myotendinous junction of the LHB compared with the nonoperative side. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients comprising group I (24 men; mean age at time of surgery, 40.3 years; mean follow-up period, 57.2 months) and 24 patients comprising group II (19 men; mean age at time of surgery, 39.8 years; mean follow-up period, 51.9 months) were evaluated. The total CMS, as well as the scores for each CMS subcategory, did not reveal significant differences between the groups. The overall LHB score was on average 10 points higher in group I (mean, 94 points) than in group II (mean, 84 points) (P = .016). Regarding the LHB score subcategories, group I showed significantly better results for patient-dependent cosmesis (mean, 15 points in group I vs. 12 points in group II; P = .005) and examiner-dependent cosmesis (mean, 14 points in group I vs. 10 points in group II; P = .001). This finding was substantiated by a significantly higher distalization of the myotendinous junction in group II (mean, 3.0 cm in group I vs. 3.8 cm in group II; P = .030). CONCLUSION: This study shows that subpectoral in situ tenodesis of the LHB followed by arthroscopic resection of the intra-articular portion provides higher LHB scores and better cosmetic outcomes compared with proximal intra-articular tenotomy followed by subpectoral tenodesis.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q.

BACKGROUND: Over the years, plastic surgery has acquired a central role in the integrated treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using the prepectoral approach has emerged as an alternative to reconstruction using the subpectoral technique to overcome the complications arising from this type of surgery resulting as a consequence of muscle elevation. The satisfaction and quality of life of patients undergoing DTI breast reconstruction were evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire, comparing the prepectoral and the subpectoral technique. METHODS: A single-center cross-sectional study on patients who underwent mastectomy and DTI breast reconstruction at our institution between 2013 and 2021 was conducted. Eighty-one patients were included and mainly divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: 52 patients undergoing a subpectoral breast reconstruction approach and 29 patients receiving a prepectoral breast reconstruction. In order to assess the quality of life, the postoperative BREAST-Q module was administered electronically to the enrolled patients. RESULTS: Higher scores in BREAST-Q domains were recorded from patients who underwent mastectomy and breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique: psychosocial well-being (P<0.0085), sexual well-being (P<0.0120), physical well-being: lymphoedema (P<0.0001) and satisfaction with information received (P<0.0045). There were further statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to postoperative complications (p<0.0465) and the need for reoperation (p<0.0275). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique were more satisfied in terms of psychosocial, sexual and also physical well-being. These patients also had statistically lower complications and reoperations compared to patients who received breast reconstruction with the subpectoral technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors 38 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 39 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 40 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 41 Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Postoperative Complications Following Prepectoral Versus Partial Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of evidence comparing the safety of prepectoral and partial subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADM). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the postoperative complications of the two approaches. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The rates of the complications were, respectively, pooled, and relative risk (RR) was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the incidence between the two cohorts. RESULTS: Ten articles reporting on 2667 breast reconstructions were eligible. The hematoma rate was lower in the prepectoral group (RR = 0.590, 95% CI 0.351-0.992). No significant difference was observed in terms of seroma (RR = 1.079, 95% CI 0.489-2.381), skin flap necrosis (RR = 0.936, 95% CI 0.587-1.493), infection (RR = 0.985, 95% CI 0.706-1.375), tissue expander/implant explantation (RR = 0.741, 95% CI 0.506-1.085), wound dehiscence (RR = 1.272, 95% CI 0.605-2.673), capsular contracture (RR = 0.939, 95% CI 0.678-1.300) and rippling (RR = 2.485, 95% CI 0.986-6.261). The RR of animation deformity for the prepectoral group compared with the subpectoral group was 0.040 (95% CI, 0.002-0.853). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggested that with appropriate patient selection, prepectoral breast reconstruction could avoid animation deformity without incurring higher risk of early wound complications, capsular contracture or rippling than partial subpectoral breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should complete a comprehensive assessment of the patients before choosing appropriate surgical approaches in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh reopened the possibility for the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction (PBR). The complications of single-stage breast reconstruction after PRB are controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction. Our aim was to evaluate the different postoperative complications between patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) on single-stage breast reconstruction. METHODS: A comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature evaluating the effect of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2020. All included studies were evaluated the complications after single-stage breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1724 patients. In general, compared with SBR group, the PBR significantly reduced the risk of total complications (including seroma, hematoma, necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, capsular contraction, implant loss/remove, and rippling) after single-stage breast reconstruction (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.67, p < 0.001). Compared with the SBR group, the PBR had remarkably decreased capsular contracture (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58, p < 0.001) and postoperative infection (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.95, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The PBR is a safe single-stage breast reconstruction with fewer postoperative complications. It is an alternative surgical method for SBR.

Outcomes and quality of life in immediate one-stage versus two-stage breast reconstructions without an acellular dermal matrix: 17- years of experience.

BACKGROUND: Advantages of one-stage implant-based reconstructions include expedited surgery and recovery. This study aimed to investigate clinical and patient-reported outcomes in one-stage implant-based breast reconstructions without acellular dermal matrix (ADM). METHODS: A prospectively collected database from 2002 to 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. One-stage and two-stage groups were compared for demographics, implant properties, early complications (hematoma, seroma, poor wound healing, implant removal), late complications (skin necrosis, capsular contracture, implant exposure, implant rupture), revision procedures, and Breast-Q questionnaire outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients, 187 one-stage (84%) and 36 two-stage (16%) patients were recruited. At a mean follow-up of 124.9 and 92.5 months, respectively (p < .01), there were no differences in early (p = .85) or late (p = .23) complications or revision procedures (p = .12). Eighty patients (36%) returned the Breast-Q questionnaire (60 one-stage, 20 two-stage patients). There were no statistical differences in patient reported outcomes in breast well-being (p = .07), psychosocial well-being (p = .84), or sexual well-being (p = .78). CONCLUSIONS: One-stage implant-based breast reconstruction without an ADM is a viable reconstruction providing comparable outcomes to two-stage procedures, with the benefit of minimal complications, a shorter reconstructive journey, and satisfactory quality of life.

Pectoral placement of tissue expanders affects inpatient opioid use.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction promises to minimize breast animation deformity and decrease pain associated with subpectoral dissection and tissue expansion. This latter benefit is particularly timely given the ongoing opioid epidemic; however, this theoretical benefit remains to be demonstrated clinically. As such, this study aimed to compare inpatient opioid use and prescription practices following prepectoral and subpectoral expander-based breast reconstruction. A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing immediate tissue expander placement between January 2017 and April 2018. Medical records were reviewed for surgical details, 24-hour inpatient PRN opioid usage (oral morphine equivalents [OME]), and discharge prescriptions. Comparisons were made using chi-squared and student's t tests where appropriate. Two hundred and thirty-one patients were identified, (mean age 48.8 years), 222 of which met inclusion criteria. 89 underwent subpectoral and 133 prepectoral tissue expander placements. All but two subpectoral patients and two prepectoral patients were opioid-naïve. The rate of bilateral procedures did not differ between cohorts (P = .194). Overall, 94% of patients were discharged within 24 hours, and length of stay did not differ between cohorts (P = .0753). Two subpectoral and two prepectoral patients required prolonged admission due to postoperative pain. All patients were ordered standing acetaminophen, celecoxib, and gabapentin, and subpectoral patients cyclobenzaprine. Narcotic pain medication was offered on an "as needed" (PRN) basis. Opioid usage within the first 24-hours was halved in the prepectoral cohort (22.2 vs 44.5 OME, P = .0003), which was not associated with bi/unilaterality of procedure or the presence of any psychiatric conditions. The amount of opioids prescribed on discharge was not significantly different between cohorts (308.42 OME prepectoral vs 336.99 subpectoral, P = .3197). Prepectoral expander placement appears to be associated with decreased inpatient opioid use postoperatively. This may represent an opportunity to improve patient satisfaction and safety by decreasing outpatient opioid prescriptions.

Comparison of subpectoral versus dual-plane implant based immediate breast reconstruction after nipple-areola sparing mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Selection of implant pocket and size is a dilemma for surgeons especially if radiation therapy is envisaged after implant based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The aim of this study is to compare complication rates between subpectoral and the dual plane polyglactin mesh supported IBR after nipple-areola sparing mastectomy. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Reconstructive analysis of 208 breasts of 190 patients with breast cancer undergoing implant based IBR at a single university hospital were evaluated. The patients were reconstructed with either dual-plane polyglactin mesh supported (n=91) or subpectoral (n=117) implant based IBR after nipple-areola sparing mastectomy. Demographic data, and postoperative complications were compared. RESULTS: The mean age was 43.3 years. Early complications encountered in 12% (n=25) and late complications occurred in 18% (n=37) of breasts. Both early (13,7% vs 9.9%, P=0.406) and late complications (24.8% vs 8.8%, P=0.003) were more common in subpectoral group, but only late complication occurrence rate was statistically significant. Capsular contracture (P=0.000), inframammary fold problems (P=0.010), bottoming-out (P=0.370), mechanical shift (P=0.036) and animation deformity (P=0.007) were all more common in subpectoral group. Only rippling deformity (P=0.011) was more common in dual plane group. CONCLUSIONS: Dual plane IBR has acceptable complication rates compared to subpectoral IBR. It is associated with less capsular contracture, fewer animation and bottoming-out deformity and better inframammary fold appearance.

Salvage of Infected Cardiac Implantable Electrical Devices with Subpectoral Plane Pocket Revision.

Introduction Infection of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) may lead to serious complications. Complete CIED explantation is expensive, requires expertise, not free from complications, and may not be an option in patients with device dependence. Aim To highlight that carefully selected infected CIEDs can be salvaged by placing the device in a subpectoral pocket below the pectoralis major muscle. We conducted a retrospective descriptive observational study. Material and Methods Twelve patients (10 male and two female) with erosion, exposure or infection of infraclavicular, subcutaneously placed CIED were treated over a 30-month period between July 2018 and December 2020. The technique involved debridement and excision of a peridevice capsule, creating a subpectoral pocket beneath the pectoralis major muscle, and placing the CIED in a new pocket with total muscle coverage and closure of skin without tension. Results Twelve patients ( m = 10; f = 2) with a mean age of 65 years (range, 46-82 years) presented with infection of CIED within 9 months of implantation. None had sepsis or endocarditis. In nine patients, CIEDs were successfully salvaged with relocation to subpectoral pocket. Mean follow-up was 20 months (range, 8-30 months). Three out of 12 developed reinfection that ultimately required CIED explantation. There was no mortality. Conclusion In the absence of sepsis or endocarditis, infected CIEDs may be attempted at salvage by subpectoral pocket placement. This obviates the need for potentially risky explantation or replacement of expensive CIEDs.

A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction.

Background and objectives: Until now subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) has been the predominant form; however, it can present with pectoralis muscle contraction and animation deformity. To avoid these complications, surgeons have begun placing breast implants in the same anatomic space as the breast tissue that was removed. We report a comparative analysis of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) versus subpectoral breast reconstruction to analyze their differences. Materials and Methods: Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) performed from February 2015 to February 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We then compared the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of the two groups (prepectoral vs. subpectoral) based on the overall incidence of complications, pain scale, and the duration of drainage. Results: A total of 167 patients underwent unilateral DTI, with SBR 114 (68.3%) and PBR 53 (31.7%). Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of seroma, infection (requiring intravenous antibiotics), hematoma, and skin necrosis. Implant loss rates in the SBR 6.1% (n = 7) and PBR 9.4% (n = 5) were also not statistically significant (p = 0.99). The hemovac duration period was significantly longer in the SBR (14.93 ± 5.57 days) group than in the PBR group (11.09 ± 4.82 days) (p < 0.01). However, post-operative pain scores are similar between two groups, although it is not clear whether this was due to the effect of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia. Conclusions: A SBR is a commonly used procedure with various advantages, but there are many problems due to damage to the normal pectoralis major muscle. According to the results of our study, the PBR group had a shorter hemovac duration period compared to the SBR group, although there was no significant difference in complication rate. A PBR is a simple and safe technique allowing early discharge without increasing the incidence of long-term complications.

Giant Phyllodes Tumor in Ectopic Breast Tissue.

Breast masses are uncommon in children and adolescents. Ectopic breast tissue is further uncommon and may be present in locations such as the face, back, and thigh. A 12-year-old female child presented with a hard, nonmobile lump in the right breast. On exploration by submammary incision, the lump was found to be below the pectoralis major muscle and had no communication with the overlying orthotopic breast tissue. Histopathological examination revealed a well-encapsulated biphasic lesion, with features characteristic of a phyllodes tumor. We report a hitherto unreported case of aberrant breast tissue lying under the pectoralis muscle and containing phyllodes tumor.

Double on-lay fixation using all suture-type anchor for subpectoral biceps tenodesis has favorable functional outcomes and leads to less cosmetic deformities than single on-lay fixation.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between single on-lay and double on-lay subpectoral biceps tenodesis (SPBT) using all-suture type anchor in patients with concomitant long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions and rotator cuff tears. METHODS: The study included 130 patients who underwent SPBT using all-suture type anchor and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Single and double anchor on-lay fixations were performed in 69 patients (group A) and 61 patients (group B), respectively. In 16 patients of group A and 36 patients of group B, a metallic wire was embedded at tenodesis site and difference of wire location pre-and postoperatively was measured using simple radiography. RESULTS: In both groups, the mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score during motion, the mean UCLA and constant scores significantly improved at the last follow-up (all p < 0.001). These scores were not significantly different between two groups. However, postoperatively, a significant difference was observed in the incidence of cosmetic deformity between two groups (p = 0.019). The cosmetic deformity was noted in 9 (13.0%) patients (Popeye deformity 7.2% and biceps softening 5.8%) in group A and 1 (1.6%) patient (Popeye deformity) in group B. In the subgroup analysis on biceps migration after the surgery, the mean migration distance of metal wire was 2.5 ± 3.0 mm in group A and 1.9 ± 2.6 mm in group B (n.s.). No patient had migration of > 10 mm. CONCLUSIONS: SPBT using all-suture type anchor was a favorable treatment option for lesions of the LHBT with rotator cuff tear. The clinical relevance of this study is the finding that double on-lay fixation with all-suture type anchor would result less cosmetic deformity than the single on-lay fixation for those who need subpectoral biceps tenodesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Complications of biceps tenodesis based on location, fixation, and indication: a review of 1526 shoulders.

BACKGROUND: Long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) tenodesis is predominantly performed for 2 reasons: anterior shoulder pain (ASP) or structural reasons (partial tear, dislocation). METHODS: Between 2006 and 2014, all cases of primary LHBT tenodesis performed at an integrated health care system were retrospectively reviewed. Complications were analyzed by tenodesis location (below or out of the groove [OOG] vs leaving tendon in the groove [ITG]), fixation method (soft tissue vs implant), and indication (preoperative ASP vs structural). RESULTS: Among 1526 shoulders, persistent ASP did not differ by fixation method (11.0% for implant vs 12.8% for soft tissue, P = .550) or location (10.8% for OOG vs 12.9% for ITG, P = .472). Soft-tissue tenodesis cases had more frequent new-onset ASP (11.9% vs 2.6%, P < .001) and subjective weakness (8.50% vs 3.92%, P < .001) but less frequent revisions (0% vs 1.19%, P = .03) than implant tenodesis cases. No difference was found between ITG and OOG for persistent ASP (12.9% vs 10.8%, P = .550), new-onset ASP (6.5% vs 2.8%, P = .339), cramping (1.70% vs 2.31%, P = .737), deformity (4.72% vs 4.62%, P = .532), or subjective weakness (6.23% vs 4.32%, P = .334), but ITG cases had more revisions (1.51% vs 0.60%, P = .001). Among implant tenodesis cases, 1 shoulder (0.085%) sustained a fracture. CONCLUSION: The overall complication rate of LHBT tenodesis was low. Of the shoulders, 10.8% to 12.9% continued to have ASP, regardless of whether the LHBT was left ITG. Soft-tissue tenodesis cases had higher rates of new-onset ASP and subjective weakness. No significant difference for tenodesis ITG or OOG was found in biceps-related complications.

Complications Following Subpectoral Versus Prepectoral Breast Augmentation: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Subpectoral and prepectoral planes have commonly been used in implant-based breast augmentation. The effect of implant plane on complication rate was still unclear. This meta-analysis demonstrated current evidence with regard to comparison of complication rates between subpectoral and prepectoral breast augmentation. METHODS: Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane library were searched to December 2018. The results of selected studies were meta-analyzed to obtain a pooled odds ratio of the effect of subpectoral versus prepectoral breast augmentation on rates of complications. RESULTS: There were significantly lower rates of capsular contracture and hematoma but higher rates of implant displacement and animation deformity in the subpectoral group compared with the prepectoral group. There was no significant difference with regard to rates of reoperation, seroma, rippling, infection and implant rupture between these two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Subpectoral and subglandular breast augmentations both have their merits and demerits with regard to complications. The pros and cons of each procedure should be fully explained to patients and selection of implant plane should be considered more comprehensively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Rotator cuff tear with concomitant long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) degeneration: what is the preferred choice? Open subpectoral versus arthroscopic intraarticular tenodesis.

BACKGROUND: Lesions associated with the biceps tendon are commonly detected during arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears. Acquiring a preferable technique to repair both cuff and long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions was the aim of several recent studies. This study aimed to compare clinical and functional outcomes of open subpectoral versus arthroscopic intraarticular tenodesis in patients with repairable rotator cuff tear associated with LHBT degeneration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 60 eligible candidates for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (mean age 55.7 ± 6.9 years) were allocated to a control group (open subpectoral, SP) or intervention group (intraarticular, IA). In the IA group, an anchor suture was used for both rotator cuff repair and LHBT tenodesis. In the SP group, after arthroscopic repair of the rotator cuff, subpectoral tenodesis of LHBT was performed using an interference screw. Patients were evaluated for 2 years follow-up regarding pain intensity using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and shoulder function using the Constant Score and Simple Shoulder Test. RESULTS: The two groups were similar with regard to demographic characteristics and preoperative evaluations (all P > 0.05). The functional status of both groups was improved, but not significantly differently so between the two groups (P = 0.1 and P = 0.4, respectively). Pain intensity decreased during the 2-year follow-up period, similarly so in the two groups. Patient satisfaction was also similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Large and massive rotator cuff tears (tears > 3 cm) associated with LHBT pathologies benefited from intraarticular or subpectoral tenodesis similarly, with no differences in short- or mid-term results between these two techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

A simple technique for relocating chronic CIED leads to a subpectoral position for relief of erosion and pain.

BACKGROUND: Methodology specific for moving superficial chronically implanted transvenous pacing leads to a subpectoral pocket is not described in the literature. Relocation of prepectoral leads and generator to a submuscular pocket for relief of erosion and pain with minimal pectoral trauma is possible by applying a variant of a previously described submammary tunneling technique. METHODS: All patients presenting for device follow-up, elective battery replacement, or system upgrade over an 8-month period were considered for relocation if experiencing significant thinning or pain over their prepectoral implant. Those selected for relocation then had their system moved subpectorally via the tunneling technique. Patients were followed for 6 months postoperatively for procedurally related complications and resolution of preprocedure symptoms. RESULTS: Thirty-two leads in 14 patients were all successfully relocated. Of the relocated leads, five (16%) were a three-pin connector implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead. Three patients (21%) in the group required short-term prescription analgesia in the immediate postdischarge period. Pain and erosion concerns abated in the study group by the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Relocation of superficial pacing leads with CIED generator to a subpectoral pocket facilitated by this tunneling method is successful, safe, and can accommodate single and multipin leads with minimal pectoral trauma and no nerve damage.