Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 7.052
Filter
2.
ACS Biomater Sci Eng ; 10(5): 3006-3016, 2024 May 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38640484

ABSTRACT

Soft implantable devices are crucial to optimizing form and function for many patients. However, periprosthetic capsule fibrosis is one of the major challenges limiting the use of implants. Currently, little is understood about how spatial and temporal factors influence capsule physiology and how the local capsule environment affects the implant structure. In this work, we analyzed breast implant capsule specimens with staining, immunohistochemistry, and real-time polymerase chain reaction to investigate spatiotemporal differences in inflammation and fibrosis. We demonstrated that in comparison to the anterior capsule against the convex surface of breast implants, the posterior capsule against the flat surface of the breast implant displays several features of a dysregulated foreign body reaction including increased capsule thickness, abnormal extracellular remodeling, and infiltration of macrophages. Furthermore, the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines increased in the posterior capsule across the lifespan of the device, but not in the anterior capsule. We also analyzed the surface oxidation of breast explant samples with XPS analysis. No significant differences in surface oxidation were identified either spatially or temporally. Collectively, our results support spatiotemporal heterogeneity in inflammation and fibrosis within the breast implant capsule. These findings presented here provide a more detailed picture of the complexity of the foreign body reaction surrounding implants destined for human use and could lead to key research avenues and clinical applications to treat periprosthetic fibrosis and improve device longevity.


Subject(s)
Breast Implants , Fibrosis , Foreign-Body Reaction , Surface Properties , Breast Implants/adverse effects , Humans , Foreign-Body Reaction/pathology , Foreign-Body Reaction/metabolism , Foreign-Body Reaction/immunology , Female , Silicones/chemistry , Silicone Gels/adverse effects , Cytokines/metabolism , Inflammation/pathology , Inflammation/metabolism , Macrophages/metabolism , Macrophages/immunology
3.
Breast Cancer ; 31(3): 456-466, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38580855

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Implants and DIEP flaps have different outcomes regarding postoperative breast sensation. When compared to the preoperative healthy breast, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) negatively influences postoperative breast sensation. However, it is currently unknown whether a prior IBBR also influences postoperative sensation of a replacing DIEP flap. The goal of this cohort study is to evaluate the influence of an IBBR on the postoperative sensation of a replacing DIEP flap. METHODS: Women were included if they received a DIEP flap reconstruction after mastectomy, with or without prior tissue expander (TE) and/or definitive breast implant. Sensation was measured at four intervals in 9 areas of the breast with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments: T0 (preoperative, implant/no reconstruction), T1 (2-7 months postoperative, DIEP), T2 (± 12 months postoperative, DIEP), Tmax (maximum follow-up, DIEP). Linear mixed-effects models were used to investigate the relationship between an implant/TE prior to the DIEP flap and recovery of breast sensation. RESULTS: 142 women comprising 206 breasts were included. 48 (23.3%) breasts did, and 158 (76.7%) breasts did not have a TE/IBBR prior to their DIEP. No statistically significant or clinically relevant relationships were found between a prior implant/TE and recovery of DIEP flap breast sensation for the flap skin, native skin, or total breast skin at T1, T2, or Tmax. There were also no relationships found after adjustment for the confounders radiation therapy, BMI, diabetes, age, flap weight, follow-up, and nerve coaptation. CONCLUSIONS: An implant/TE prior to a DIEP flap does not influence the recovery of postoperative breast sensation of the DIEP flap.


Subject(s)
Breast Implants , Breast Neoplasms , Epigastric Arteries , Mammaplasty , Perforator Flap , Sensation , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Perforator Flap/blood supply , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Epigastric Arteries/surgery , Mammaplasty/methods , Adult , Breast Implants/adverse effects , Sensation/physiology , Mastectomy/adverse effects , Aged , Postoperative Period , Breast/surgery , Breast Implantation/methods , Breast Implantation/adverse effects , Breast Implantation/instrumentation
4.
Gan To Kagaku Ryoho ; 51(4): 460-462, 2024 Apr.
Article in Japanese | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38644322

ABSTRACT

Recently, the cases of breast augmentation for cosmetic purposes are rapidly increasing, there are more opportunities to examine for patient with breast augmentation history than before. In some cases, breast cancer screening is difficult due to the effects of breast augmentation. At our clinic, even in cases diagnosed with breast cancer after breast augmentation, we actively perform immediate breast reconstruction using silicone implant. However, it is necessary to consider the condition and type of breast augmentation at the time of diagnosis and also treatment. We will share our algorithm for immediate breast reconstruction using silicone implant for breast cancer after augmentation mammaplasty.


Subject(s)
Algorithms , Breast Implants , Breast Neoplasms , Mammaplasty , Humans , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Female , Mammaplasty/methods , Silicones
5.
Ann Plast Surg ; 92(4S Suppl 2): S223-S227, 2024 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38556678

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction methods vary based on factors such as medical history, breast size, and personal preferences. However, disparities in healthcare exist, and the role race plays in accessing to different reconstruction methods is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the influence of race and/or ethnicity on the type of breast reconstruction chosen. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Magee Women's Hospital database, including patients who underwent breast cancer surgery from 2011 to 2022. Multivariate analysis examined race, reconstruction, and reconstruction type (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The database included 13,260 women with breast cancer; of whom 1763 underwent breast reconstruction. We found that 91.8% of patients were White, 6.8% Black, and 1.24% were of other races (Asian, Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, unknown). Reconstruction types were 46.8% implant, 30.1% autologous, and 18.7% combined. Among Black patients, autologous 36.3%, implant 32.2%, and combined 26.4%. In White patients, autologous 29.5%, implant 48%, and combined 18.2%. Among other races, autologous 36.3%, implant 40.9%, and combined 22.7%. In patients who underwent breast reconstruction, 85.2% underwent unilateral and 14.7% of patients underwent bilateral. Among the patients who had bilateral reconstruction, 92.3% were White, 6.1% were Black, and 1.5% were of other ethnicities. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed differences in breast reconstruction methods. Autologous reconstruction was more common among Black patients, and implant-based reconstruction was more common among Whites and other races. Further research is needed to understand the cause of these variations.


Subject(s)
Breast Implants , Breast Neoplasms , Mammaplasty , Female , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Mammaplasty/methods , Mastectomy/methods , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Healthcare Disparities
6.
Ann Plast Surg ; 92(4S Suppl 2): S262-S266, 2024 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38556686

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Many factors influence a patient's decision to undergo autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction, including medical, social, and financial considerations. This study aims to investigate differences in out-of-pocket and total spending for patients undergoing autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan Commercial Databases were queried to extract all patients who underwent inpatient autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction from 2017 to 2021. Financial variables included gross payments to the provider (facility and/or physician) and out-of-pocket costs (total of coinsurance, deductible, and copayments). Univariate regressions assessed differences between autologous and implant-based reconstruction procedures. Mixed-effects linear regression was used to analyze parametric contributions to total gross and out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: The sample identified 2079 autologous breast reconstruction and 1475 implant-based breast reconstruction episodes. Median out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for autologous reconstruction than implant-based reconstruction ($597 vs $250, P < 0.001) as were total payments ($63,667 vs $31,472, P < 0.001). Type of insurance plan and region contributed to variable out-of-pocket costs (P < 0.001). Regression analysis revealed that autologous reconstruction contributes significantly to increasing out-of-pocket costs (B = $597, P = 0.025) and increasing total costs (B = $74,507, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The US national data demonstrate that autologous breast reconstruction has higher out-of-pocket costs and higher gross payments than implant-based reconstruction. More study is needed to determine the extent to which these financial differences affect patient decision-making.


Subject(s)
Breast Implants , Breast Neoplasms , Mammaplasty , Humans , Female , Health Expenditures , Mammaplasty/methods , Costs and Cost Analysis , Regression Analysis , Breast Neoplasms/surgery
7.
Ann Plast Surg ; 92(4S Suppl 2): S305-S308, 2024 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38556694

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This study aims to pioneer in evaluating women's representation in plastic surgery innovations, focusing on mammary prosthesis devices' inventorship. Despite growing gender parity in the field, women's involvement in innovation remains underexplored. This is especially crucial, as the predominant recipients of these innovative technologies are women, urging a necessity for broader female engagement in pioneering surgical advancements. METHOD: Patents under the "A61F2/12: Mammary prostheses and implants" classification between the dates January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020, were identified using Google Patents Advanced. Inclusion criteria included patents (not designs) in English and applications (not grants), with no litigation limitations. Data collected included ID, title, assignee (categorized as industry, academic, private, individual), inventors, and dates (priority, filing, and publication). Sex of inventors was identified with the literature validated gender API, with manual resolution of unresolved genders or with ga_accuracy scores of less than 75%. Data were analyzed using 2-tailed Student t tests, χ2 analysis, and Pearson correlation coefficient (significance set at P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Of the more than 130,000 plastic surgery patents in English identified between the 10-year period, 1355 were classified as A61F2/12. A total of 374 unique patents were included for analysis (841 duplicates were removed, and 140 patents were excluded because of non-English character author names). There was a significant increase in patents over the decade (from 15 in 2011 to 88 in 2020, R2 = 0.74, P < 0.05), with a decrease in number of inventors per patent (R2 = 0.12, P < 0.05). Of the 1102 total inventors, 138 were female (11.2%), with a 4-fold increase in representation over the decade (R2 = 0.58, P < 0.05), including increase in patents filed with a woman first inventor (0%-14.8%). Women were equally likely to be first 3 inventors versus middle to last inventors (12.8% vs 11.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Over a decade, mammary device innovations rose significantly. Although women inventors' representation improved, it remains disproportionate compared with women in residency/practice. Hence, interventions should aim to align inventor representation with training ratios, through institutional optimization, reducing gender segmentation, and enhancing funding opportunities.


Subject(s)
Breast Implants , Plastic Surgery Procedures , Surgery, Plastic , Female , Humans , Male
8.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev ; 25(4): 1205-1212, 2024 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38679979

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is a common disease that affects women globally and causes physical and emotional challenges. Breast reconstructive surgery aims to restore the shape of the breast after a mastectomy. Two common approaches used today are tissue-based or autologous and implant-based reconstruction. Autologous breast reconstruction has the advantage of being more affordable, but the resulting shape is less attractive. At the same time, the implant technique produces a more pleasing shape at a more expensive cost. OBJECTIVE: To compare the level of patients' satisfaction after breast reconstruction using the implant technique with the autologous technique using the Breast-Q questionnaire. METHODS: This research was a meta-analytic study to compare patients' satisfaction levels with breast reconstruction using the autologous technique compared with the implant technique. We searched several research articles from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 2014 to 2023. Then, we conducted an analysis using Revman 5.4. The results of the study were presented in a forest plot diagram. RESULTS: From the search results, there were 3980 studies. Then, exclusion and inclusion were carried out, and the results obtained were 16 research articles. Of the 16 studies, analysis was then carried out, and the results obtained were satisfaction in breast patients with a sample size of 7284. The standard result of the mean difference was 0.55 (95% CI 0.41-0.68) p < 0.00001. Satisfaction with the reconstruction results with a sample size of 2935. The standard result of the mean difference was 0.48 (95% CI 0.28-0.69) p < 0.00001. Patients' sexual satisfaction with a sample size of 7149. The standard result of the mean difference was 0.27 (95% CI 0.17-0.37) p < 0.00001. Patients' satisfaction with nipple shapes with a sample of 426. The standard result of the mean difference was 0.22 (95% CI -0.00-0.44) p = 0.06. Patients' satisfaction with plastic surgeons with a sample size of 272. The standard result of the mean difference was 0.52 (95% CI 0.25-0.80) p= 0.0002. CONCLUSION: The autologous breast reconstruction technique is better than the implant-based reconstruction technique in terms of patient satisfaction with the breast, reconstruction outcome, sexual satisfaction, nipple shapes, and plastic surgeons based on the Breast-Q questionnaire. The findings of this comprehensive study indicate that breast cancer survivors who choose autologous reconstruction have higher levels of satisfaction across multiple domains than those who decide implant-based reconstruction.


Subject(s)
Breast Implants , Breast Neoplasms , Mammaplasty , Mastectomy , Patient Satisfaction , Humans , Female , Mammaplasty/methods , Mammaplasty/psychology , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Breast Neoplasms/psychology , Mastectomy/psychology , Mastectomy/methods , Transplantation, Autologous , Breast Implantation/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires
9.
Ann Plast Surg ; 92(5): 514-521, 2024 May 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38685491

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by total mastectomy and immediate reconstruction has become an important strategy in the treatment of breast cancer. Although the safety of subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with NACT has been extensively evaluated, the safety in prepectoral reconstruction has not been clearly elucidated. We aimed to evaluate the association of NACT with immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent total mastectomy and immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction between May and December 2021 was conducted. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: those receiving NACT and those not receiving it. Postoperative complication rates were compared between the 2 groups. The independent association between NACT and the complication profiles was evaluated. Propensity score matching was also conducted. RESULTS: We analyzed 343 cases, including 85 who received NACT treatment and 258 who did not. Compared with the non-NACT group, the NACT group was younger, had a higher body mass index, and a higher rate of adjuvant radiotherapy. There were no differences in the rates of overall complications or type of complication between the 2 groups. In the multivariable logistic analyses, NACT did not show a significant association with the development of adverse outcomes. Similar results were observed in propensity score matching analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that receiving NACT may not have a significant detrimental effect on the postoperative outcomes of immediate prepectoral prosthetic reconstructions. Conducting prepectoral implant-based reconstruction in the setting of NACT might be safe and provide acceptable outcomes.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Postoperative Complications , Humans , Female , Retrospective Studies , Middle Aged , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Adult , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Breast Implantation/methods , Propensity Score , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Mammaplasty/methods , Treatment Outcome , Mastectomy, Simple , Breast Implants
10.
Radiographics ; 44(5): e230070, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38573814

ABSTRACT

For women undergoing mastectomy, breast reconstruction can be performed by using implants or autologous tissue flaps. Mastectomy options include skin- and nipple-sparing techniques. Implant-based reconstruction can be performed with saline or silicone implants. Various autologous pedicled or free tissue flap reconstruction methods based on different tissue donor sites are available. The aesthetic outcomes of implant- and flap-based reconstructions can be improved with oncoplastic surgery, including autologous fat graft placement and nipple-areolar complex reconstruction. The authors provide an update on recent advances in implant reconstruction techniques and contemporary expanded options for autologous tissue flap reconstruction as it relates to imaging modalities. As breast cancer screening is not routinely performed in this clinical setting, tumor recurrence after mastectomy and reconstruction is often detected by palpation at physical examination. Most local recurrences occur within the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Diagnostic breast imaging continues to have a critical role in confirmation of disease recurrence. Knowledge of the spectrum of benign and abnormal imaging appearances in the reconstructed breast is important for postoperative evaluation of patients, including recognition of early and late postsurgical complications and breast cancer recurrence. The authors provide an overview of multimodality imaging of the postmastectomy reconstructed breast, as well as an update on screening guidelines and recommendations for this unique patient population. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.


Subject(s)
Breast Implants , Breast Neoplasms , Mammaplasty , Humans , Female , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Mastectomy/adverse effects , Mastectomy/methods , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/diagnostic imaging , Retrospective Studies , Mammaplasty/adverse effects , Mammaplasty/methods , Nipples , Breast Implants/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/diagnostic imaging , Postoperative Complications/etiology
11.
In Vivo ; 38(3): 1412-1420, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38688603

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIM: To compare implant sparing irradiation with conventional radiotherapy (RT) using helical (H) and TomoDirect (TD) techniques in breast cancer patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The dosimetric parameters of 40 patients with retropectoral implants receiving 50.4 Gy delivered in 28 fractions were analyzed. Three plans were created: H plan using conventional planning target volume (PTV) that included the chest wall, skin, and implant; TD plan using conventional PTV; and Hs plan using implant-sparing PTV. The H, TD, and Hs plans were compared for PTV doses, organ-at-risk (OAR) doses, and treatment times. RESULTS: Dose distribution in the Hs plan was less homogeneous and uniform than that in the H and TD plans. The TD plan had lower lung, heart, contralateral breast, spinal cord, liver, and esophagus doses than the Hs plan. Compared to the Hs plan, the H plan had lower lung volume receiving 5Gy (V5) (39.1±3.9 vs. 41.2±3.9 Gy; p<0.001), higher V20 (12.3±1.3 vs. 11.5±2.6 Gy; p=0.02), and higher V30 (7.5±1.6 vs. 4.4±1.7 Gy; p<0.001). H plan outperformed Hs plan in heart dosimetric parameters except V20. The Hs plan had significantly lower mean implant doses (43.4±2.1 Gy) than the H plan (51.4±0.5 Gy; p<0.001) and the TD plan (51.9±0.6 Gy; p<0.001). Implementing an implant sparing technique for silicone dose reduction decreases lung doses. CONCLUSION: Conventional H and TD plans outperform the implant sparing helical plan dosimetrically. Because capsular contracture during RT is unpredictable, long-term clinical outcomes are required to determine whether silicon should be spared.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Mammaplasty , Organs at Risk , Radiotherapy Dosage , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated , Humans , Female , Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods , Middle Aged , Mammaplasty/methods , Adult , Breast Implants , Radiometry , Aged
12.
World J Surg ; 48(5): 1167-1176, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38497975

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common comorbid condition that can be associated with postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, the outcome profile of patients with COPD after breast reconstruction has yet to be established. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the postoperative outcomes in patients with COPD who underwent autologous (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). METHODS: National Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients who underwent ABR or IBR from Q4 2015 to 2020. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to compare inhospital outcomes between COPD and non-COPD patients while adjusting for demographics, primary payer status, hospital characteristics, and comorbidities. RESULTS: There were 1288 (9.92%) COPD and 11,696 non-COPD patients who underwent ABR. Meanwhile, 1742 (9.70%) COPD and 16,221 non-COPD patients underwent IBR. In both ABR and IBR, patients with COPD had higher rates of seroma (ABR, aOR = 1.863, 95% CI = 1.022-3.397, and p = 0.04; IBR, aOR = 1.524, 95% CI = 1.014-2.291, and p = 0.04), infection (ABR, aOR = 1.863, 95% CI = 1.022-3.397, and p = 0.04; IBR, aOR = 1.956, 95% CI = 1.205-3.176, and p = 0.01), and prolonged LOS (p < 0.01). Specifically, patients with COPD in ABR had higher risks of respiratory complications (aOR = 1.991, 95% CI = 1.291-3.071, and p < 0.01) and incurred higher total hospital charges (p < 0.01). Meanwhile, patients with COPD undergoing IBR had elevated risks of renal complications (aOR = 3.421, 95% CI = 2.108-5.55, and p < 0.01), deep wound complications (aOR = 3.191, 95% CI = 1.423-7.153, and p < 0.01), and a higher rate of transfers out (aOR = 1.815, 95% CI = 1.081-3.05, and p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: COPD is an independent risk factor associated with distinct adverse outcomes in ABR and IBR. These findings can be valuable for preoperative risk stratification, determining surgical candidacy, and planning postoperative management in patients with COPD.


Subject(s)
Mammaplasty , Postoperative Complications , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive , Humans , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/surgery , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/complications , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/epidemiology , Female , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Mammaplasty/methods , Mammaplasty/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Breast Implantation/methods , Breast Implantation/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Breast Implants/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
13.
Am J Surg Pathol ; 48(6): e43-e64, 2024 Jun 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38451836

ABSTRACT

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma has been recognized as a distinct entity in the World Health Organization classification of hematolymphoid neoplasms. These neoplasms are causally related to textured implants that were used worldwide until recently. Consequently, there is an increased demand for processing periprosthetic capsules, adding new challenges for surgeons, clinicians, and pathologists. In the literature, the focus has been on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma; however, benign complications related to the placement of breast implants occur in up to 20% to 30% of patients. Imaging studies are helpful in assessing patients with breast implants for evidence of implant rupture, changes in tissues surrounding the implants, or regional lymphadenopathy related to breast implants, but pathologic examination is often required. In this review, we couple our experience with a review of the literature to describe a range of benign lesions associated with breast implants that can be associated with different clinical presentations or pathogenesis and that may require different diagnostic approaches. We illustrate the spectrum of the most common of these benign disorders, highlighting their clinical, imaging, gross, and microscopic features. Finally, we propose a systematic approach for the diagnosis and handling of breast implant specimens in general.


Subject(s)
Breast Implantation , Breast Implants , Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic , Humans , Breast Implants/adverse effects , Female , Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic/pathology , Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic/etiology , Breast Implantation/adverse effects , Breast Implantation/instrumentation , Predictive Value of Tests , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Clinical Relevance
15.
Ann Plast Surg ; 92(4): 379-382, 2024 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38527341

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Radiation therapy can adversely affect outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction, potentially complicating procedures like nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), which is increasingly popular in breast cancer management. This study aims to evaluate the impact of radiation on nipple symmetry in patients undergoing bilateral NSM with implant-based reconstruction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using data from an Emory University review board-approved database. This encompassed bilateral NSMs coupled with immediate implant-based reconstructions. The BCCT.core software was employed to objectively measure nipple asymmetry preoperatively and postoperatively. Metrics, such as Breast Retraction Assessment values, upper nipple retraction, lower breast contour, and nipple to midline (NML) discrepancies were quantified. The study included 80 patients with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up; among them, 15 received radiation therapy (RT) while 65 did not. RESULTS: The reconstructions were divided into tissue expander, used in 39 cases (48.8%), and direct-to-implant (DTI), employed in 41 cases (51.2%). The DTIs were further categorized based on the location of the implant: 22 subpectoral and 19 prepectoral. Radiation was applied to 15 breasts, distributed among prepectoral DTI (4), subpectoral DTI (6), and tissue expander (5). Breast Retraction Assessment scores significantly differed between the nonirradiated and irradiated groups (1.49 vs 2.64, P < 0.0004). Nipple to midline differences and Upper Nipple Retraction also significantly varied postradiation, especially when comparing subpectoral and prepectoral implant placements. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation therapy has a detrimental effect on nipple symmetry after bilateral NSM and implant-based reconstruction, with variations seen regardless of the implant's placement or the reconstructive technique utilized. Specifically, subpectoral reconstructions irradiated were prone to lateral nipple displacement, likely related to radiation-induced pectoralis muscle changes, while prepectoral irradiated reconstructions tended to have increased vertical displacement. These insights are crucial for patient education and surgical planning in the context of radiation and breast reconstruction.


Subject(s)
Breast Diseases , Breast Implantation , Breast Implants , Breast Neoplasms , Mammaplasty , Humans , Female , Nipples/surgery , Breast Implantation/methods , Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Mastectomy/methods , Retrospective Studies , Follow-Up Studies , Mammaplasty/methods , Breast Diseases/surgery
16.
Int J Mol Sci ; 25(6)2024 Mar 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38542137

ABSTRACT

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women globally, often necessitating mastectomy and subsequent breast reconstruction. Silicone mammary implants (SMIs) play a pivotal role in breast reconstruction, yet their interaction with the host immune system and microbiome remains poorly understood. This study investigates the impact of SMI surface topography on host antimicrobial responses, wound proteome dynamics, and microbial colonization. Biological samples were collected from ten human patients undergoing breast reconstruction with SMIs. Mass spectrometry profiles were analyzed for acute and chronic wound proteomes, revealing a nuanced interplay between topography and antimicrobial response proteins. 16S rRNA sequencing assessed microbiome dynamics, unveiling topography-specific variations in microbial composition. Surface topography alterations influenced wound proteome composition. Microbiome analysis revealed heightened diversity around rougher SMIs, emphasizing topography-dependent microbial invasion. In vitro experiments confirmed staphylococcal adhesion, growth, and biofilm formation on SMI surfaces, with increased texture correlating positively with bacterial colonization. This comprehensive investigation highlights the intricate interplay between SMI topography, wound proteome dynamics, and microbial transmission. The findings contribute to understanding host-microbe interactions on SMI surfaces, essential for optimizing clinical applications and minimizing complications in breast reconstruction.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents , Breast Implants , Breast Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Silicones , Breast Implants/adverse effects , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Proteome , RNA, Ribosomal, 16S/genetics , Mastectomy , Fibrosis
17.
Int J Mol Sci ; 25(6)2024 Mar 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38542490

ABSTRACT

Breast Implant-Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a rare T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma associated with breast prosthetic implants and represents a diagnostic challenge. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, updated in 2024, recommend for diagnosis an integrated work-up that should include cell morphology, CD30 immunohistochemistry (IHC), and flow cytometry (FCM). CD30 IHC, although the test of choice for BIA-ALCL diagnosis, is not pathognomonic, and this supports the recommendation to apply a multidisciplinary approach. A close collaboration between pathologists and laboratory professionals allowed the diagnosis of three BIA-ALCLs, presented as case reports, within a series of 35 patients subjected to periprosthetic effusions aspiration from 2018 to 2023. In one case, rare neoplastic cells were identified by FCM, and this result was essential in leading the anatomopathological picture as indicative of this neoplasm. In fact, the distinction between a lymphomatous infiltrate from reactive cells may be very complex in the cytopathology and IHC setting when neoplastic cells are rare. On the other hand, one limitation of FCM analysis is the need for fresh samples. In this study, we provide evidence that a dedicated fixative allows the maintenance of an unaltered CD30 expression on the cell surface for up to 72 h.


Subject(s)
Breast Implantation , Breast Implants , Breast Neoplasms , Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic , Humans , Female , Breast Implants/adverse effects , Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic/diagnosis , Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic/etiology , Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic/pathology , Flow Cytometry , Breast Implantation/adverse effects , Exudates and Transudates/metabolism , Breast Neoplasms/complications
18.
Radiother Oncol ; 194: 110193, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38432310

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Multicatheter breast brachytherapy is a standard technique for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) in early breast cancer patients. Intraoperative multicatheter breast implant (IOMBI) followed by perioperative high-dose-rate brachytherapy (PHDRBT) offers a novel and advantageous approach. We present long-term oncological, toxicity, and cosmesis outcomes for a well-experienced single institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible women aged ≥ 40 years with clinically and radiologically confirmed unifocal invasive or in situ ≤ 3 cm breast tumors underwent IOMBI during breast-conserving surgery. Patients meeting APBI criteria by definitive pathologic results received 3.4 Gy × 10fx with PHDRBT. Patients not suitable for APBI received PHDRBT-boost followed by WBRT. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients underwent IOMBI during BCS, 120 patients (70.1 %) were suitable for APBI and 51 (29.8 %) for anticipated PHDRBT-boost. The median age was 61 years (range: 40-78), the median tumor size was 1.1 cm (range: 0.2-3.5), with a histological diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma in 78.9 % and ductal in situ in 21.1 %. A median of 9 catheters (range: 4-14) were used. For APBI, the median CTV and V100 were 40.8 cc (range: 8.6-99) and 35.4 cc (range: 7.2-94). The median of healthy breast tissue irradiated represents 7.2 % (range: 2.3-28 %) and the median local treatment duration was 10 days (range: 7-16). With a median follow-up of 8.8 years (range: 0.3-16.25), the 8-year local, locoregional, and distant control rates were 99 %, 98.1 %, and 100 %. G1-G2 late-toxicity rate was 53.4 %. Long-term cosmetic evaluation was excellent-good in 90.8 %. CONCLUSION: IOMBI&PHDRBT program reports excellent long-term oncological outcomes, with a reduction from unnecessary irradiation exposure which translates into low long-term toxicity and good cosmesis outcomes, especially on well-selected APBI patients.


Subject(s)
Brachytherapy , Breast Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Middle Aged , Brachytherapy/methods , Brachytherapy/instrumentation , Brachytherapy/adverse effects , Aged , Adult , Breast Implants , Mastectomy, Segmental , Radiotherapy Dosage , Treatment Outcome
19.
Eur Radiol Exp ; 8(1): 36, 2024 Mar 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38480588

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of breast implants is important for appropriate clinical management. We evaluated silicone properties and diagnostic accuracy for characterizing silicone implants and detecting degenerative changes including rupture in photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT). METHODS: Over 16 months, we prospectively included patients with silicone implants and available breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) who received thoracic PCCT performed in prone position. Consensus reading of all available imaging studies including MRI served as reference standard. Two readers evaluated all implants in PCCT reconstructions for degenerative changes. In a subgroup of implants, mean density of silicone, adjacent muscle, and fat were measured on PCCT reconstructions. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were calculated for implant-to-muscle and implant-to-fat. RESULTS: Among 21 subjects, aged 60 ± 13.1 years (mean ± standard deviation) with 29 implants PCCT showed the following: high accuracy for linguine sign, intraimplant fluid (all > 0.99), peri-implant silicone (0.95), keyhole sign (0.90), and folds of the membrane (0.81); high specificity for linguine sign, intraimplant fluid, keyhole sign, folds of the membrane (all > 0.99), and peri-implant silicone (0.98); and high sensitivity for linguine sign and intraimplant fluid (all > 0.99). In a subgroup of 12 implants, the highest CNR for implant-to-muscle was observed on virtual unenhanced reconstructions (20.9) and iodine maps (22.9), for implant-to-fat on iodine maps (27.7) and monoenergetic reconstructions (31.8). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that silicone breast implants exhibit distinct contrast properties at PCCT, which may provide incremental information for detection of degenerative changes and rupture of implants. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Thoracic photon-counting computed tomography is a promising modality for the diagnostic assessment of silicone breast implants. KEY POINTS: • Thoracic photon-counting computed tomography demonstrates unique contrast properties of silicone breast implants. • Iodine map reconstructions reveal strong contrast-to-noise ratios for implant-to-muscle and implant-to-fat. • Thoracic photon-counting computed tomography shows high diagnostic accuracy in detecting implant degeneration and rupture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register number DRKS00028997, date of registration 2022-08-08, retrospectively registered.


Subject(s)
Breast Implants , Iodine , Humans , Breast Implants/adverse effects , Pilot Projects , Silicones , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Middle Aged , Aged , Female
20.
World J Surg ; 48(4): 903-913, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38498001

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction encompasses autologous (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) each with its own sets of potential complications. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with breast reconstruction complications, although most of the studies did not differentiate between the reconstruction procedures. This study conducted a population-based study examining impact of DM on inhospital outcomes in ABR and IBR. METHODS: Patients underwent ABR or IBR were identified in National Inpatient Sample from Q4 2015 to 2020. A 1:2 propensity score matching was used to address differences in demographics, hospital characteristics, primary payer status, comorbidities, and reconstruction staging between DM and non-DM patients. In hospital outcomes were assessed separately in ABR and IBR. RESULTS: There were 997 (7.68%) DM and 11,987 (92.32%) non-DM patients in ABR. Meanwhile, 1325 (7.38%) DM and 16,638 (92.62%) non-DM patients underwent IBR. DM cohorts in ABR and IBR were matched to 1930 and 2558 non-DM patients, respectively. After matching, DM patients in both ABR and IBR had higher risks of renal complications (ABR, 3.73% vs. 1.76%, p < 0.01; IBR, 1.83% vs. 0.78%, p = 0.01) and longer length of stay (ABR, p = 0.01; IBR, p = 0.04). In ABR, DM patients had higher respiratory complications (2.82% vs. 1.19%, p < 0.01), excessive scarring (2.72% vs. 1.55%, p = 0.03), and infection (2.42% vs. 1.14%, p = 0.01), while in IBR, DM patients had higher hemorrhage/hematoma (5.40% vs. 3.40%, p < 0.01) and transfer out (1.52% vs. 0.78%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: DM was associated with distinct sets of inhospital complications in ABR and IBR, which can be valuable for preoperative risk stratification and informing clinical decision-making for DM patients.


Subject(s)
Breast Implants , Breast Neoplasms , Diabetes Mellitus , Mammaplasty , Humans , Female , Mastectomy/methods , Inpatients , Mammaplasty/methods , Hospitals , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/etiology , Breast Neoplasms/complications , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...