Pedicled ALT-flap for soft tissue reconstruction in the trochanteric area.

BACKGROUND: Coverage of soft tissue defects following surgery at the trochanteric area is challenging. Revision surgery in case of compromised wound healing may lead to soft tissue defects requiring reconstruction with pedicled or free flaps. Previous access to the hip joint may jeopardize neurovascular structures relevant to the flap. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated if the use of a pedicled anterior lateral thigh (ALT) flap is a valuable option for soft tissue reconstruction. METHODS: In this retrospective study, seven patients were included. Defect etiology was tumor resection in one case, screw osteosynthesis in another case and total hip arthroplasty in three cases. All patients underwent reconstruction by proximal pedicled anterior lateral thigh (ALT) flap. RESULTS: Pedicled ALT flap was a safe procedure in all cases. One patient showed delayed wound healing with need for additional surgery. No further complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Pedicled ALT flap transfer represents a reliable option for soft tissue coverage in the trochanteric area after primary surgery such as hip arthroplasty, osteosynthesis or tumor resection.

[Breast implant removal and simultaneous aesthetic optimization : Possibilities, technical considerations and outcome analysis]. / Brustimplantatentfernung und simultane ästhetische Optimierung : Möglichkeiten, technische Überlegungen und Ergebnisanalyse.

BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation is currently the leading aesthetic surgical procedure worldwide. Thus, there is a high prevalence of women with breast implants demanding serious know-how and expertise concerning long-term complication management. Breast implant carriers can suffer from problems and pathologies making implant removal the best solution. The authors of this article have also been confronted more and more with the unspecified complex of symptoms named breast implant disease (BID), also called breast implant illness (BII). The treatment of choice for BID is implant removal. OBJECTIVE: Analysis of problems and solutions regarding implant removal. Specific patient analysis according to patients' breast and body configuration. Technical considerations for surgery and preoperative planning. Evaluation of the authors' techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Evaluation of all patients over a period of 3 years requesting implant removal after esthetic augmentation mammoplasty at the authors' department. All patients were treated according to their specific demands regarding breast shape after implant removal. They either received additional mastopexy, lipofilling or both or simple implant removal without further intervention. Demographic, implant-specific, perioperative and postoperative data have been evaluated for all patients. Additionally, all patients were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding satisfaction and outcome. RESULTS: We observed a trend for more satisfied patients with less invasive procedures (simple implant removal or simultaneous lipofilling vs. explantation and mastopexy ± lipofilling, 1.8 vs. 2.0 or 2.6, p = 0.198). Patients' average scoring was better if they suffered from an implant rupture (1.55 vs. 2.17, p = 0.053). Overall, a high patient satisfaction has been observed for all procedures. CONCLUSION: Breast implant carriers can suffer from problems and pathologies making implant removal the best solution. Exactly these patients, consulting their doctor for those problems and questions seem to profit from implant removal. Simultaneous lipofilling and mastopexy of the breast are good options to nevertheless generate an esthetically pleasing result.