Artificial Intelligence, Genuine Outcome: Analysis of 72 Consecutive Cases of Subfascial Augmentation Mastopexy With Smooth Round Implants Supported by P4HB Scaffold.

BACKGROUND: Ptosis recurrence often leads to unsatisfactory results after mastopexy, even more so when additional stress is provided by implants on compromised native tissue. Poly-4-Hydroxybutyrate(P4HB) scaffold(GalaFLEX) with its favorable safety profile and proven long-term mechanical strength represents a preferred option for soft-tissue support. OBJECTIVES: Primary endpoint was to assess lower pole stretch from early post operative time up to 3 years. METHODS: Out of 151 patients operated by the first author from March 2020 to December 2023, a total of 72 with 12-month-mininum follow-up undergoing primary(46) or secondary(26) augmentation mastopexy with subfascial round smooth implants and P4HB scaffold support were included in the study. A 3-D artificial-intelligence (AI) software was used for all measurements. Further analysis included evaluation of ptosis recurrence and all complications. RESULTS: No recurrent ptosis, bottoming out, implant displacement or capsular contracture were reported during follow up (mean 24.8 months). Lower pole arch's elongation was 8.04% and 9.44% at 1 and 3 years respectively, comparing favorably with previous reports. Statistically significant correlation (p < 0.05) between implant size and lower pole stretch was noted, this being greater for larger implants (>400 cc; p = 0.0011) and primary cases (p = 0.1376). Progressive volume redistribution from upper to lower pole was observed in the first year with substantial stability thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest published series reporting long-term results (up to 45 months) in mastopexy augmentation with GalaFLEX, suggesting its supportive role in lower pole stability even in the setting of concurrent breast augmentation with smooth implants in a subfascial plane.

Evaluation of Different Breast Implant Shapes in the Same Patient: Is There Really a Difference between Round and Anatomical Implants?

Background: The choice of the right implant shape is one of the most frequent debates in cosmetic breast augmentation. In current literature, the question of whether there is a difference in the appearance of different implant shapes is still an argument of highly controversial discussion. The aim of the present work was, therefore, to analyze whether any difference exists in terms of aesthetic outcome between round and anatomical implants, and if they can be distinguished from each other in a like for like swap, making sure the evaluation was made in exactly similar conditions. Methods: Fourteen consecutive patients who underwent aesthetic breast augmentations received primarily an implant of a given volume, projection, and shape (round or anatomical) and then decided to undergo implant replacement to a different shape but maintaining the same volume and projection. At 12-months follow-up, standardized photographs were taken, blinded and randomized. They were evaluated by 10 plastic surgeons and 10 nurses. Results: All 20 observers could distinguish between round and anatomical shape in all 14 cases (100%), which was highly significant (P < 0.0001) for each observer. Conclusions: The present data indicate that there is a clear difference between anatomical and round-shaped implants in terms of aesthetic appearance, when a comparison is properly performed. With the use of both round and anatomical implant shapes, aesthetically appealing results can be achieved in cosmetic breast augmentation. The right implant choice must be made, based on patients' anatomy and desires.

Synthetic Reabsorbable Mesh (GalaFLEX) as Soft Tissue Adjunct in Breast Augmentation Revision Surgery.

BACKGROUND: A significant number of patients with a previous submuscular breast augmentation require a revision surgical procedure during their long-term follow-up period that involves changing the implant pocket from submuscular to subglandular. Reduced soft tissue thickness represents a major concern, discouraging surgeons from undertaking this approach. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a synthetic resorbable mesh used as a supplemental covering device was safe and yielded improved soft tissue thickness and protection against capsular contracture in patients undergoing implant plane shift to subglandular. METHODS: A retrospective review of 34 patients who underwent revision of a previous breast augmentation involving implant change in a subglandular pocket and upper pole GalaFLEX (Galatea Surgical, BD; Franklin Lakes, NJ) mesh coverage was conducted. Onset of minor and major complications was recorded during short- and medium-term follow-up. Patient satisfaction was assessed via an anonymous questionnaire administered 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, which ranged from a minimum of 6 months to a maximum of 28 months, no minor or major complications were reported. In particular, no wrinkling/rippling or significant capsular contracture onset was observed. High levels of patient satisfaction were determined, according to self-reporting questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The initial results of this preliminary report from this case series demonstrate the safety of GalaFLEX as a supplemental device in terms of improved soft tissue coverage of the implant for complex revisional cases in breast augmentation.

BIA-ALCL-Horizon Scanning.

BIA-ALCL is a subject that has dominated the world of breast implant surgery over the past 7 or 8 years. It is a controversial entity that has stoked much debate amongst the profession of plastic surgery and its associated scientific specialists. Whilst much has been learned about the disease, including its diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, there is still much debate related to aetiology and incidence. Experts remain divided on fundamental principles such as implant selection and appropriate advice to patients and expert bodies. The article is very much the authors' viewpoint based on the current literature and available data as it stands today.

Experience and Indications for the Use of the P4HB Scaffold (GalaFLEX) in Aesthetic Breast Surgery: A 100-Case Experience.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of utilizing mesh in the breast has varied over the years. It is well described, and yet there has been poor uptake of its utilization in aesthetic breast surgery. Poly-4-huydroxybutarate (P4HB; GalaFLEX, Galatea, Lexington, MA) has recently been described as a useful adjunct in supporting poor tissue quality with positive early outcomes and low complication rates. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine the outcome and range of indications of PH4B in aesthetic breast surgery to document its effectiveness in assisting with long-term outcomes in mastopexy. METHODS: Firstly, an observational study was undertaken standardizing mastopexy techniques with P4HB included in the procedure. Photographic measurements were taken to determine the extent of lower pole descent and lower pole stretch at 3 months and 1 year postoperative to observe change over time. Secondly, other indications were explored, including the correction of secondary defects such as inferior malposition and symmastia. RESULTS: The results of the mastopexy study were highly encouraging and comparable with those previously published in the literature, confirming sustained stability of the lower pole over time for mastopexies and implant mastopexies. In addition, the GalaFLEX was successfully employed in correcting many secondary defects. CONCLUSIONS: P4HB is extremely versatile and easy to utilize and has low complication rates. The results have led to a change in practice, with routine incorporation of GalaFLEX for all routine mastopexies. It has also replaced the utilization of acellular dermal matrices in aesthetic breast surgery.

2022 Practice Recommendation Updates From the World Consensus Conference on BIA-ALCL.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory and clinical research on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is rapidly evolving. Changes in standard of care and insights into best practice were recently presented at the 3rd World Consensus Conference on BIA-ALCL. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to provide practice recommendations from a consensus of experts, supplemented with a literature review regarding epidemiology, etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, socio-psychological aspects, and international authority guidance. METHODS: A literature search of all manuscripts between 1997 and August 2021 for the above areas of BIA-ALCL was conducted with the PubMed database. Manuscripts in different languages, on non-human subjects, and/or discussing conditions separate from BIA-ALCL were excluded. The study was conducted employing the Delphi process, gathering 18 experts panelists and utilizing email-based questionnaires to record the level of agreement with each statement by applying a 5-point Likert Scale. Median response, interquartile range, and comments were employed to accept, reject, or revise each statement. RESULTS: The literature search initially yielded 764 manuscripts, of which 405 were discarded. From the remaining 359, only 218 were included in the review and utilized to prepare 36 statements subdivided into 5 sections. After 1 round, panelists agreed on all criteria. CONCLUSIONS: BIA-ALCL is uncommon and still largely underreported. Mandatory implant registries and actions by regulatory authorities are needed to better understand disease epidemiology and address initial lymphomagenesis and progression. Deviation from current diagnosis and treatment protocols can lead to disease recurrence, and research on breast implant risk factors provide insight to etiology.

Safety Comparison of Abdominoplasty and Brazilian Butt Lift: What the Literature Tells Us.

BACKGROUND: Although abdominoplasty is a mainstay of the plastic surgeon, the safety of the Brazilian butt lift (BBL) has been questioned, effectively being prohibited in some countries. The central rationale for the safety concern over the BBL stems from a publication stating a mortality rate of one in 3000. The question remains: What is the real safety of these procedures? METHODS: Focusing on mortality, literature searches were performed for BBL and for abdominoplasty. The 2017 Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation survey data and publication were examined and analyzed. Additional data from the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgical Facilities were obtained independently. RESULTS: Abdominoplasty and BBL appear to have similar safety based on mortality; however, the nature of their mortalities is different. Although most abdominoplasty deaths are secondary to deep venous thrombosis/pulmonary embolism-inherent circulatory thrombotic abnormality-BBL mortality is associated with iatrogenic pulmonary fat embolism. BBL mortality rates from more recent surveys on BBL safety demonstrate a mortality of one in 15,000. CONCLUSIONS: Although deep venous thrombosis/pulmonary embolism will always remain an abdominoplasty risk, intraoperative BBL pulmonary fat embolism has the potential to be reduced dramatically with a better understanding of dynamic anatomy, surgical instrumentation, and technique. The authors are now presented with a better lens with which to view a more accurate safety profile of BBL surgery, including its place among other commonly performed aesthetic procedures.

The Use of Anatomic Implants in Aesthetic Breast Surgery.

Anatomic implants were introduced in the late 1980s, gaining popularity through the 1990s and beyond. The moratorium on silicone meant that the use of theses devices was less diffuse in the US and has remained so. Fifth-generation devices had improved form stability with more aggressive texturization to enhance soft tissue interaction. The ability to vary height, width and projection independently creates much versatility in their use for complex anatomical situations producing natural results. The impact of BIA-ALCL has had a significant impact on their use.

Why Do We Need Anatomical Implants? the Science and Rationale for Maintaining Their Availability and Use in Breast Surgery.

The choice between anatomical and round implants is an important decision in breast augmentation surgery; however, both have their place and the decision between them that should be made on a patient-by-patient basis, taking into account the patient's desires, anatomy, and surgical history. In some individuals, there are clear indications for using either anatomical or round devices, and there is good evidence that aesthetic outcomes are better with anatomical implants in some instances. When both types are an option, anatomical devices may offer increased flexibility and, despite a longer learning curve needed to properly manage them, they are associated with positive long-term outcomes and high levels of patient satisfaction. Concerns about implant rotation can be minimized with proper patient selection and surgical technique, and the overall complication rate may favor anatomical over round devices in appropriate patients. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma is an important issue, and while rare, it must be considered in the context of the entire patient risk profile. Both anatomical and round implants remain key elements of a complete surgical toolbox in breast augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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.

10-Year Experience Using Inspira Implants: A Review with Personal Anecdote.

The article summarizes the author's experience with Inspira implants. They were first introduced into the European market in 2006. The advent of the Inspira range heralded a fundamental change in the way round implants were perceived. The comprehensive matrix, the form stability of the gels, along with sophisticated manufacturing of the shell placed them as a premium product for use in both aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. The same principles of precise tissue-based planning, developed for anatomical implants, were being adopted for use with Inspira, leading to more predictable outcomes with high levels of patient satisfaction.

Implant Insertion Time and Incision Length in Breast Augmentation Surgery with the Keller Funnel: Results from a Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: The Keller funnel is an easy-to-use mechanical device that aids breast implant insertion. This study analyzed implant insertion time and incision length using the Keller funnel versus conventional manual insertion. METHODS: This was an analysis of two cohorts of adult patients undergoing primary breast augmentation with anatomical implants at a single center. In the 'insertion time cohort' (N = 20), implants were inserted with a Keller funnel on one side and manually on the other; follow-up lasted 4 years. In the 'incision length cohort,' both implants were inserted with a Keller funnel (N = 50) or manually (N = 50), with follow-up lasting 12 months. RESULTS: In the insertion time cohort, mean total insertion time (from implant sterile-package opening to final positioning in the pocket) was 35 s (range 13-76 s) with the Keller funnel and 25 s (range 13-43 s) using manual insertion (p = 0.07); the mean time needed to push the implant through the incision was 6 s (range 3-10 s) with the Keller funnel and 16 s (range 13-40 s) with manual insertion (p = 0.04). In the incision length cohort, mean incision length was shorter with the Keller funnel versus manual insertion (35.5 ± 2.1 mm vs. 46.2 ± 3.2 mm; p < 0.001). There were no differences in complications based on insertion method. CONCLUSION: The Keller funnel was associated with decreased incision length and reduced time to push the implant through the incision. This brings potential clinical advantages in minimizing scarring and reducing contamination of the device. 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 .

Corrigendum: Fat harvest using a closed-suction drain.

[This corrects the article on p. 288 in vol. 43.].

MBN 2016 Aesthetic Breast Meeting BIA-ALCL Consensus Conference Report.

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is an uncommon neoplasia occurring in women with either cosmetic or reconstructive breast implants. The actual knowledge about BIA-ALCL deriving from the literature presents several limits, and it remains difficult to make inferences about BIA-ALCL epidemiology, cause, and pathogenesis. This is the reason why the authors decided to organize an evidence-based consensus conference during the Maurizio Bruno Nava (MBN 2016) Aesthetic Breast Meeting held in Milan in December of 2016. Twenty key opinion leaders in the field of plastic surgery from all over the world have been invited to express and discuss their opinion about some key questions on BIA-ALCL, trying to reach a consensus about BIA-ALCL cause, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment in light of the actual best evidence.

Macrotextured Breast Implants with Defined Steps to Minimize Bacterial Contamination around the Device: Experience in 42,000 Implants.

BACKGROUND: Bacteria/biofilm on breast implant surfaces has been implicated in capsular contracture and breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL). Macrotextured breast implants have been shown to harbor more bacteria than smooth or microtextured implants. Recent reports also suggest that macrotextured implants are associated with a significantly higher incidence of breast implant-associated ALCL. Using techniques to reduce the number of bacteria around implants, specifically, the 14-point plan, has successfully minimized the occurrence of capsular contracture. The authors hypothesize that a similar effect may be seen in reducing the risk of breast implant-associated ALCL. METHODS: Pooled data from eight plastic surgeons assessed the use of macrotextured breast implants (Biocell and polyurethane) and known cases of breast implant-associated ALCL. Surgeon adherence to the 14-point plan was also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 42,035 Biocell implants were placed in 21,650 patients; mean follow-up was 11.7 years (range, 1 to 14 years). A total of 704 polyurethane implants were used, with a mean follow-up of 8.0 years (range, 1 to 20 years). The overall capsular contracture rate was 2.2 percent. There were no cases of implant-associated ALCL. All surgeons routinely performed all 13 perioperative components of the 14-point plan; two surgeons do not routinely prescribe prophylaxis for subsequent unrelated procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Mounting evidence implicates the role of a sustained T-cell response to implant bacteria/biofilm in the development of breast implant-associated ALCL. Using the principles of the 14-point plan to minimize bacterial load at the time of surgery, the development and subsequent sequelae of capsular contracture and breast implant-associated ALCL may be reduced, especially with higher-risk macrotextured implants. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

#PlasticSurgery.

BACKGROUND: Social media use is growing inexorably, and there is public appetite for evidence-based information. Little is known about engagement by plastic surgeons with social media. The aim of this study was to examine posting about plastic surgery on Twitter, to best inform how board-certified plastic surgeons could use the hashtag #PlasticSurgery as a tool to educate patients and the public. METHODS: A prospective analysis of 2880 "tweets" containing the words "plastic surgery" was performed. The following were assessed: identity of author, use of the hashtag #PlasticSurgery, subject matter, whether link to study was provided, and whether posts by surgeons were self-promotional or educational. RESULTS: Social media posting about plastic surgery is dominated by the public, accounting for 70.6 percent of posts versus only 6.0 percent by plastic surgeons. Only 5.4 percent of all tweets contained the hashtag #PlasticSurgery, although almost half of those that did were by plastic surgeons. Of these, 61.3 percent of posts by plastic surgeons were about aesthetic surgery; additional posts were about basic science, patient safety, and reconstruction (13.9, 4.0, and 2.3 percent, respectively). Eighteen scientific articles were referenced, with a link to the Journal site posted in two tweets. Of posts by plastic surgeons, 37.0 percent were self-promotional. CONCLUSIONS: The American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its Journal have recognized that social media may be used to educate and engage. Board-certified plastic surgeons have a great opportunity to promote evidence-based plastic practice by means of #PlasticSurgery in the interests of supporting patients and the profession.

Fat Harvest Using a Closed-Suction Drain.

We propose a safe, simple, and novel method to harvest fat using a standard liposuction cannula and a Redivac or alternative closed-suction drain. The authors have used this technique for both 'dry' and 'wet' liposuction. This technique is both easy to perform and cost-effective whilst providing both a silent and relatively atraumatic fat harvest. The lower negative pressure compared with traditional harvesting systems likely preserves fat integrity for lipofilling. This method maximises resources already held within a hospital environment.