Risk factors for unplanned reoperation during the expansion phase in two-stage breast reconstruction in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

BACKGROUND: The majority of postmastectomy breast reconstructions (PMBRs) are currently performed in two stages using a tissue expander (TE). However, complications during the expansion phase occur regularly, leading to unplanned reoperations and/or reconstruction failure. This study aimed to identify risk factors for unplanned reoperation after TE placement, assessed the time until unplanned and planned reoperation, and investigated indications for unplanned reoperation. METHODS: Patient and surgery-related characteristics of patients who underwent two-stage PMBR between 2017 and 2021 were collected from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR). Unplanned reoperation was defined as TE explantation followed by either no replacement or replacement with the same or a different TE. Co-variate adjusted characteristics associated with unplanned reoperation were determined using backward stepwise selection and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 2529 patients (mean age, 50.2 years) were included. Unplanned reoperation occurred in 19.4 percent of all registered TEs (n=3190). Independent factors associated with unplanned reoperation were BMI≥25 kg/m 2 (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR]=1.63;99% Confidence Interval [99%CI]=1.20-2.57 for BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2, aOR=2.57;99%CI=1.74-3.78 for BMI≥30 kg/m 2), low institutional volume (aOR=1.51;99%CI=1.06-2.18), no drains (aOR=2.06;99%CI=1.15-3.60), subcutaneous TE placement (aOR=5.71;99%CI=3.59-9.10), and partial pectoralis major muscle coverage (aOR=1.35;99%CI=1.02-1.79). Age<40 years (aOR=0.49;99%CI=0.32-0.74) and delayed PMBR (aOR=0.35;99%CI=0.19-0.60) reduced the risk of unplanned reoperation. Median time until reoperation was 97 days for unplanned and 213 days for planned reoperation. Deep wound infections were most often registered as indication for unplanned reoperation (34.4 percent). CONCLUSION: This study identified several risk factors for unplanned reoperation which may be used to reduce complications in expander-based PMBR.

Revision Incidence after Immediate Direct-to-Implant versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using National Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: In immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), large variation is observed in current practices between a direct-to-implant and a two-stage approach (insertion of a breast implant after a tissue expander). This population-based study aimed to compare unplanned short- and long-term revision incidence between direct-to-implant and two-stage IBBR in The Netherlands. METHODS: All patients who underwent immediate IBBR following a mastectomy between 2015 and 2019 were selected from the nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry. Short- and long-term unplanned revision incidences were studied per immediate IBBR, including revision indications and the total number of additional operations. Confounding by indication was limited using propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 4512 breast implants (3948 women) were included, of which 2100 (47%) were for direct-to-implant IBBR and 2412 (53%) were for two-stage IBBR. Median (IQR) follow-up was 29 months (range, 16 to 45 months) and 33 months (range, 21 to 47 months), respectively. Short-term revision incidence was 4.0% and 11.7%, respectively (conditional OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.42%). Long-term revision incidence was 10.6% (95% CI, 9.2 to 12.1%) and 16.4% (95% CI, 14.8 to 17.9%), respectively. In the propensity score-matched cohort, similar results were found. In the direct-to-implant group, more breasts were reconstructed within the planned number of operations than in the two-stage group. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned revision surgery occurred less often after direct-to-implant IBBR, and more breasts were reconstructed within the planned number of operations compared to two-stage IBBR. These results, based on real-world data, are important for improving patient counseling and shared decision-making. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Comparing 200,000 Breast Implants and 85,000 Patients over Four National Breast Implant Registries.

BACKGROUND: Growing awareness about breast implant-related adverse events has stimulated the demand for large, independent data resources. For this, data from breast implant registries could be combined. However, that has never been achieved yet. METHODS: Real-world data from four currently active national breast implant registries were used. All permanent breast implants from the Australian, Dutch, Swedish, and American registries were included. A subpopulation present across all registries between 2015 and 2018 was subsequently selected, including only permanent breast implants inserted during primary surgery for breast reconstruction or augmentation in patients without previous breast device surgery. Nationwide coverage, patient and implant characteristics, infection control measures, and revision incidences were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 207,189 breast implants were registered. Nationwide coverage varied between 3% and 98%. The subpopulation included 111,590 implants (7% reconstruction, 93% augmentation). Across the registries, mean patient age varied between 41 and 49 years ( P < 0.001) for reconstruction and 31 and 36 years ( P < 0.001) for augmentation. Variation was observed in implant preferences across the countries and over the years. Infection control measures were most frequently registered in Australia. Cumulative revision incidence at 2 years ranged from 6% to 16% after reconstruction and from 1% to 4% after augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, independent, national, registry-based data from four breast implant registries were combined. This is a powerful step forward in optimizing international breast implant monitoring, evidence-based decision-making, and patient safety.

Variation in the use of infection control measures and infection-related revision incidence after breast implant surgery in the Netherlands.

Background: The use and effect of most infection control measures (ICMs) in breast implant surgery are still debated, likely resulting in undesired variation in current practices. Objectives: This study investigated the relationship between the number and combinations of ICMs used and the infection-related revision incidence after breast implant surgery. Additionally, national variation between Dutch healthcare institutions in ICM use was evaluated. Methods: For this multicentre, population-based study, all patients who received a primary breast implant or tissue expander for breast augmentation or reconstruction between 2015 and 2019 were identified from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry. Seven prospectively collected ICMs were investigated: preoperative antibiotics, implant and/or pocket irrigation, glove change, nipple guards, insertion sleeve, postoperative drains, and postoperative antibiotics. Results: This study included 52,415 implants (85% augmentation, 15% reconstruction).The median (IQR) number of ICMs used was 3 (3-4) for augmentation and 4 (4-5) for reconstruction. Median follow-up was 30 months for augmentation and 34 months for reconstruction. Infection-related revision incidence was 0.1% for augmentation and 2.1% for reconstruction. Most infection-related revisions occurred within 2 months for augmentation and 2.5 months for reconstruction. The impact of ICM use on infection-related revision incidence remained unclear, given its low incidence. A significant variation was observed between institutions in the use of postoperative antibiotics and drains. Conclusions: Although the use of different ICMs varied considerably between institutions, the infection-related revision incidence after breast implant surgery was generally low. Most surgeons used four ICMs for breast reconstruction and three ICMs for breast augmentation. Further studies on the causes and effects of the observed variation are needed.

Using a Digital Implant Catalog Improves Data Quality and Reduces Administrative Burden in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

BACKGROUND: Correct registration of implant characteristics is essential to monitor implant safety within implant registries. Currently, in the nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR), these characteristics are being registered manually by plastic surgeons, resulting in administrative burden and potentially incorrect data entry. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the accuracy of manually registered implant data, possible consequences of incorrect data, and the potential of a Digital Implant Catalog (DIC) on increasing data quality and reducing the administrative burden. METHODS: Manually entered implant characteristics (fill, shape, coating, texture) of newly inserted breast implants in the DBIR, from 2015 to 2019, were compared with the corresponding implant characteristics in the DIC. Reference numbers were employed to match characteristics between the 2 databases. The DIC was based on manufacturers' product catalogs and set as the gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 57,361 DBIR records could be matched with the DIC. Accuracy of implant characteristics varied from 70.6% to 98.0%, depending on the implant characteristic. The largest discrepancy was observed for "texture" and the smallest for "coating." All manually registered implant characteristics resulted in different conclusions about implant performance compared with the DIC (P < 0.01). Implementation of the DIC reduced the administrative burden from 14 to 7 variables (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a DIC increases data quality in the DBIR and reduces the administrative burden. However, correct registration of reference numbers in the registry by plastic surgeons remains key for adequate matching. Furthermore, all implant manufacturers should be involved, and regular updates of the DIC are required.

The Dutch Breast Implant Registry: Registration of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma-A Proof of Concept.

BACKGROUND: The Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR) was established in April of 2015 and currently contains information on 38,000 implants in 18,000 women. As a clinical registry, it evaluates the quality of breast implant surgery, including adverse events such as breast implant-associated (BIA) anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). To examine the efficacy of the DBIR, the capture rate of BIA-ALCL was compared to the registration of BIA-ALCL in the Dutch Nationwide Network and Registry of Histo- and Cytopathology (PALGA) as a gold standard, in combination with matching these databases to obtain complementary information. METHODS: All BIA-ALCL patients diagnosed and registered in The Netherlands in 2016 and 2017 were identified separately in the PALGA and DBIR databases. In addition, both databases were matched using indirect key identifiers. Pathologic information from the PALGA and clinical and device characteristics from the DBIR were obtained for all patients. RESULTS: Matching of both databases gave a capture rate of BIA-ALCL in the DBIR of 100 percent (n = 6) in 2016 and 70 percent (n = 7) in 2017. In total, 17 patients were identified in the PALGA, of which 14 patients were also identified in the DBIR; three patients were not registered; and 10 patients were registered false-positive. Of all confirmed patients, symptoms, staging results, treatment, and implant information were registered. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, the DBIR contains 2 full registration years and captures most of the BIA-ALCL patients despite overestimation. Therefore, pathology confirmation remains essential. By matching these databases, complementary clinical and implant information could be retrieved, establishing the DBIR as an essential postmarketing surveillance system for health risk assessments.

High risk device registries: Global value, costs, and sustainable funding.

BACKGROUND: Well-designed implant registries have been shown to be a worthwhile investment, from both a health and economic perspective. However, many registries do not attain desirable capture rates or lack sufficient funding, potentially leading to premature termination. This study aims to provide information about rarely discussed, yet pivotal topics regarding the long-term survival of implant registries, focusing on costs, funding models, and the role of stakeholders. METHODS: Worldwide, relatively recently developed breast device (BD) registries were compared to long-standing, orthopaedic (OD) and cardiovascular device (CD) registries. A standardised questionnaire was sent to the registries' designated representatives with key positions, discussing start-up costs, costs of maintenance, value of investment, governance, stakeholders, funding, and sustainability. RESULTS: Thirteen registries were included, originating from nine countries (seven BD registries, five OD registries, one CD registry). In general, start-up costs were comparable, and younger registries were more expensive to maintain. Numerous stakeholders showed interest in registry outcomes. However, only 50% of the registries reported a sustainable funding structure. CONCLUSION: This study provides a global perspective on implantable device registries. All registries provided important information, serving three unique purposes by evaluating the quality of healthcare provided, the quality of all registered devices, and processing recall information. Yet, only half of the registries were certain of sustainable funding, and thus their future existence. It is of utmost importance to bring this to the attention of all parties involved.

Assessment of Functional Rhinoplasty with Spreader Grafting Using Acoustic Rhinomanometry and Validated Outcome Measurements.

BACKGROUND: Rhinoplasty is 1 of the most common aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgical procedures performed within the United States. Yet, data on functional reconstructive open and closed rhinoplasty procedures with or without spreader graft placement are not definitive as only a few studies have examined both validated measurable objective and subjective outcomes of spreader grafting during rhinoplasty. The aim of this study was to utilize previously validated measures to assess objective, functional outcomes in patients who underwent open and closed rhinoplasty with spreader grafting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive rhinoplasty patients. Patients with internal nasal valve insufficiency who underwent an open and closed approach rhinoplasty between 2007 and 2016 were studied. The Cottle test and Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation survey was used to assess nasal obstruction. Patient-reported symptoms were recorded. Acoustic rhinometry was performed pre- and postoperatively. Average minimal cross-sectional area of the nose was measured. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-eight patients were reviewed over a period of 8 years. Thirty-eight patients were included in this study. Of those, 30 patients underwent closed rhinoplasty and 8 open rhinoplasty. Mean age was 36.9 ± 18.4 years. The average cross-sectional area in closed and open rhinoplasty patients increased significantly (P = 0.019). There was a functional improvement in all presented cases using the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Closed rhinoplasty with spreader grafting may play a significant role in the treatment of nasal valve collapse. A closed approach rhinoplasty including spreader grafting is a viable option in select cases with objective and validated functional improvement.

Prospective, Double-Blind Evaluation of Umbilicoplasty Techniques Using Conventional and Crowdsourcing Methods.

BACKGROUND: Umbilical reconstruction is an important component of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. This study evaluated the aesthetics of three different umbilical reconstruction techniques during DIEP flap breast reconstruction. METHODS: From January to April of 2013, a total of 29 consecutive patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction were randomized intraoperatively to receive one of three umbilicoplasty types: a diamond, an oval, or an inverted V incision. Independent plastic surgeons and members of the general public, identified using an online "crowdsourcing" platform, evaluated aesthetic outcomes in a blinded fashion. Reviewers were shown postoperative photographs of the umbilicus of all patients and a four-point Likert scale was used to rate the new umbilicus on the size, scar formation, shape, localization, and overall appearance. RESULTS: Results for the focus group of independent plastic surgeons and 377 members of the public were retrieved (n = 391). A total of 10 patients (34.5 percent) were randomized into having the diamond incision, 10 (34.5 percent) had the oval incision, and nine (31.0 percent) had the inverted V incision. Patients were well matched in terms of overall characteristics. The general public demonstrated a significant preference for the oval incision in all five parameters. There was no preference identified among surgeons. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that a sample of the U.S. general public prefers the aesthetics of the oval umbilicoplasty incision, which contrasted with the lack of preference identified within this focus group of plastic surgeons. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Umbilical necrosis rates after abdominal-based microsurgical breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Umbilical stalk necrosis represents a rare, yet important complication after abdominal-based microsurgical breast reconstruction, which is both underrecognized and understudied in the literature. Once identified, umbilical reconstruction can be an extremely challenging problem. METHODS: All consecutive breast free flaps at a single institution from February 2004 to February 2016 were reviewed, excluding non-abdominal-based flaps. Patients were divided based on the development of umbilical necrosis postoperatively. Demographics, surgical characteristics, and other complications were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 918 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 29 developing umbilical necrosis identified (3.2%). Patients developing necrosis tended to be older (49.4 yrs versus 52.9 yrs; P < 0.01); have higher BMI (31.3 versus 27.8; P < 0.01); and were more likely to be smokers (27.5% versus 11.6%; P = 0.01). Umbilical necrosis was also associated with increased flap weight (830 g versus 656 g; P < 0.01), decreased time of perforator dissection (151 min versus 169 min; P = 0.02); bilateral cases (68.9% versus 44.7%; P < 0.01), and increased number of perforators per flap (2.5 versus 2.2; P = 0.03). There was no association with flap type (deep inferior epigastric perforator, superficial inferior epigastric artery, or free TRAM), diabetes, previous abdominal surgery, or use of preoperative imaging. Umbilical necrosis was not associated with any concomitant complications. CONCLUSIONS: Umbilical stalk necrosis was found to occur in 3.2% of patients and was associated with several preoperative comorbidities and intraoperative characteristics. This information should help influence intraoperative decision-making to prevent the development of this undesirable complication.

Prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities among women undergoing free tissue autologous breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Autologous breast reconstruction (BR) can be a stressful life event. Therefore, women undergoing mastectomy and autologous BR are required to have sufficient coping mechanisms. Although mental health problems are widespread, information regarding the prevalence of psychiatric diagnosis among these patients is scarce. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed using data from a large tertiary teaching hospital and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Patients undergoing autologous BR after mastectomy were included and evaluated for psychiatric disorders. Prevalence of each disorder, timing of diagnosis (preoperative or postoperative), and data per age group were reviewed. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2014, 817 patients were included from the institutional database and 26 399 from the NIS database. Preoperatively, 15.3% of the patients were diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder within our institution and 17.6% nationwide (P < 0.001). Postoperatively, 20.5% of the institutional patients were diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. No major differences in prevalence were seen between age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in six patients were diagnosed with a psychiatric comorbidity preoperatively. Postoperatively, an additional 20.5% developed a psychiatric disorder. There was no difference in prevalence and timing of diagnosis between age groups.

Medial Row Perforators Are Associated with Higher Rates of Fat Necrosis in Bilateral DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate perfusion-related complications in bilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction based on perforator selection. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed on all patients undergoing bilateral DIEP flap reconstruction at a single institution between 2004 and 2014. The hemiflaps were separated into three cohorts based on perforator location: lateral row only, medial row only, and medial plus lateral rows. Postoperative flap-related complications were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: There were 728 total hemiflaps: 263 (36.1 percent) based on the lateral row, 225 (30.9 percent) based on the medial row, and 240 (33.0 percent) based on both the medial and lateral rows. The groups were well matched by perforator number and flap weight. Fat necrosis occurrence was significantly higher in flaps based solely on the medial row versus lateral row perforators (24.5 percent versus 8.2 percent; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in fat necrosis between flaps based only on the lateral row versus flaps based on both the medial and lateral rows (8.2 percent versus 11.6 percent; p = 0.203). Generally, within the same row, increasing the number of perforators decreased the incidence of fat necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Perforator selection is critical for minimizing perfusion-related flap complications. In bilateral DIEP flaps, lateral row-based perforators result in significantly less fat necrosis than medial row-based perforators. The authors' data suggest that the addition of a lateral row perforator to a dominant medial row perforator may decrease the risk of fat necrosis. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.