"Outcomes of the Use of Fresh Frozen Costal Cartilage in Rhinoplasty".

BACKGROUND: Rhinoplasty is made more challenging when there is insufficient septal cartilage for use as graft material. Several autologous and homologous graft options have been used in the past, though each comes with its own set of challenges. Fresh frozen costal cartilage (FFCC) is an increasingly popular alternative that yields the benefits of homologous tissue while having a lower theoretical risk profile. Given the relatively novel nature of this option, this study aims to analyze the complication rates of MTF (Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation) FFCC. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of the use of FFCC in rhinoplasty in the senior author's practice was conducted between March 2018 to December 2021. 282 cases were reviewed and analyzed for rates of infection, warping, and resorption. The inclusion criteria were cases with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: The mean age of our study group was 35.8 years old, with 27 males and 255 females. 40 cases were primary rhinoplasties while the remaining 242 were revisions. Mean follow-up period was 20.3 months. Six patients (2.1%) required empiric antibiotics postoperatively, zero patients had clinical signs of warping, resorption, or displacement, and six patients (2.1%) required operative revision unrelated to the FFCC. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides long-term follow up data on the complication profile of FFCC in rhinoplasty. Acute infection, warping, and resorption rates were found to be no greater than rhinoplasty complication rates when autologous or homologous tissue are used. FFCC is a safe, convenient, and patient-centered option for graft tissue in rhinoplasty.

Optimizing the Use of Autografts, Allografts, and Alloplastic Materials in Rhinoplasty.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Understand the autologous graft options available to the rhinoplasty surgeon, including septal cartilage, auricular cartilage, costal cartilage, and bone. 2. Understand the autograft and allograft options available to the rhinoplasty surgeon, including cadaveric costal cartilage, silicone, Medpor, and Gore-Tex. 3. Identify the ideal situations to use each of these implant materials. 4. Understand the advantages and disadvantages of the different autografts, allografts, and implants in rhinoplasty. SUMMARY: This review focuses on the graft options available to the modern rhinoplasty surgeon. Autologous options are varied in the quality of cartilage harvested and the morbidity of the donor site. In addition, surgeons should understand the allograft options should autologous grafting be unfeasible or undesirable. New technological advances in processing of allograft cartilage makes this an attractive secondary option.

Entrapment Neuropathy Causing Persistent Headache Symptoms after Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty.

The frequency of nonsurgical rhinoplasty has increased in recent years. The occurrence of headaches or migraine symptoms, and their treatment following nonsurgical rhinoplasty, have been scarcely described in the literature. Here, we present a patient who presented with subjective complaints of a new onset headache immediately after nonsurgical rhinoplasty, with subsequent reversal of her symptoms using hylauronidase. Furthermore, a literature review was conducted to establish a possible anatomical pathophysiologic mechanism of these symptoms seen in this patient. METHODS: A case report of a patient who developed persistent headache symptoms after nonsurgical rhinoplasty, with reversal of symptoms using hylaronidase, is described. A literature review of studies on patients developing headaches or migraine-like symptoms after nonsurgical rhinoplasty was conducted, along with a review of the anatomic causes of migraines. RESULTS: Of the 147 relevant citations identified in our search, only 1 individual case report describes a patient who developed a migraine headache after undergoing a nonsurgical rhinoplasty via an injection of hyaluronic acid filler. This was promptly resolved with the utilization of a hyaluronidase injection. The majority of the relevant articles in our search focused on the alarming and most feared complication of vascular compromise of the nasal tissue and intravascular embolization. Within the literature, there was no case series of nonsurgical-rhinoplasty-induced migraines taking into account our inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This article demonstrates the paucity of literature regarding nonsurgical-rhinoplasty-induced headaches. Although a causation effect cannot be linked, our study highlights a rare phenomenon associated with this ever-increasing aesthetic procedure.

Surgeons' Dilemma: Treatment of Implant-Associated Infection in the Cosmetic Breast Augmentation Patient.

BACKGROUND: Augmentation mammaplasty is the most common plastic surgical procedure performed in the USA. The management of severe implant-associated infection is a challenge, and the traditional two-stage treatment is associated with significant limitations. The aim of this literature review is to provide a comprehensive analysis of all studies dealing with the management of severe infection or implant exposure following cosmetic breast augmentation. METHODS: The PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched through February 2018 for studies on the management of severe infection and threatened or actual implant exposure following primary augmentation mammaplasty. Search terms used were "breast implant," "breast prosthesis," "breast augmentation," "breast augmentation complications," "infected implant," "implant salvage" and "implant exposure." RESULTS: Five articles met inclusion criteria. There was inconsistency in the reporting of several key factors, such as the antibiotic regimens employed, culture sensitivities, time from diagnosis to treatment, implant characteristics, as well as the precise treatment of the capsule and pocket. A total of 58 implants were treated, of which 37 (63.8%) were exposed in the setting of infection and 21 (36.2%) were infected without exposure. One-stage implant salvage was employed in 31 implants and was successful in all. The capsular contracture rate with this approach was 6.5%. Antibiotic-alone, non-operative treatment was employed in the salvage of 22 implants, with success and capsular contracture rates of 77.3 and 13.6%, respectively. In the setting of severe periprosthetic infection in the absence of implant exposure, antibiotic-alone treatment was successful in the salvage of 13 out of 14 implants (92.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The inconsistency and paucity of the data in the literature preclude definitive conclusions with regard to the optimal management of the threatened implant following augmentation mammaplasty. Given the excellent salvage rates in this setting, a more prominent role and liberal utilization of implant salvage are proposed. 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 .

Buccal Fat Pad Excision: Proceed with Caution.

BACKGROUND: Buccal fat pad excision is offered as a means of obtaining a more aesthetic midface. This procedure has been documented in the form of countless videos on Instagram and other social media platforms with no long-term patient follow-up. We performed a retrospective analysis of published data regarding buccal fat pad excision and sought to better elucidate pitfalls regarding this underreported procedure. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in October 2017 through the PUBMED database regarding the utility of buccal fat pad excision in the setting of aesthetic improvement of the midface. Reference articles were screened to obtain relevant studies. A total of 121 citations were identified in the search but after eliminating duplicate studies and abstracts and utilizing predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria only 11 articles were satisfactory. None of these articles demonstrated any long-term patient follow-up. RESULTS: Out of the 121 relevant citations identified, only 2 studies published describe a case series of > 5 patients regarding cheek or midface sculpturing with buccal fat pad excision for aesthetic purposes, the total sample size between these 2 studies was 53 patients. Neither of the studies had follow-up regarding patient satisfaction or related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Buccal fat pad resection as an aesthetic improvement of the midface has been described, but follow-up regarding loss of subcutaneous fat with aging and late secondary deformities have not been published in the literature. Further research in long-term patient follow-up including patient satisfaction and the encouragement of reporting postoperative complications is warranted.

Facial Implants: Controversies and Criticism. A Comprehensive Review of the Current Literature.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene (Medpor) and silicone are two of the most popular materials used today for facial skeleton implantation. Previous studies have identified common complications with the use of these implants, but patient follow-up has been short. This review of the literature examines complications and patient follow-up in cases using Medpor and silicone implants for reconstructive and aesthetic operations of the mid and lower face over the past 20 years. METHODS: A literature search was conducted through the PubMed database. Keywords used were as follows: ("mandible implants" or "malar implants" or "chin implants") AND ("reconstruction" or "augmentation") AND ("Medpor" or "silicone"). RESULTS: There were nine studies with 626 patients in the Medpor group and five studies with 365 patients in the silicone group. The silicone group had a higher incidence of infections and displacements. The Medpor group showed a higher incidence of prominence problems. Exposure/extrusion rates were low for both implant types. Chin and mandibular implants were the safest, whereas malar implants had a high incidence of prominence problems. The average follow-up for Medpor was 36.6 months and 24 months for silicone. There were wide ranges of follow-up times, from 2 weeks up to 15 years. A limited number of articles included an averaged time within their ranges. Reported follow-up times were not linked to specific complications. CONCLUSIONS: Medpor implantation is more common than silicone. Complication rates are low with the use of both materials. Patient follow-up is deficient and has not improved in the past 20 years, raising questions on the reliability of complication rates.

Severe Delayed Hemorrhage After Cosmetic Rhinoplasty in the Setting of Maxillary Vascular Malformation.

Late epistaxis after rhinoplasty is a rare but potentially life-threatening occurrence. This case report concerns a 20-year-old woman who had severe epistaxis 5 and 10 days after a closed rhinoplasty with internal osteotomies and who ultimately required transcatheter arterial embolization for definitive control of the hemorrhagic source. Arterial hypervascularity, with signs of arteriovenous malformation, of the midface at the level of the piriform aperture and maxilla was seen on angiography.

Occult Histopathology and Its Predictors in Contralateral and Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomies.

BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen an increasing prevalence of prophylactic mastectomies with decreasing age of patients treated for breast cancer. Data are limited on the prevalence of histopathologic abnormalities in this population. This study aimed to measure the prevalence of histopathologic findings in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) patients and identify predictors of findings. METHODS: Our institution's prophylactic mastectomies from 2004 to 2011 were reviewed. Breast specimens with prior malignancies were excluded. Patient factors and pathology reports were collected. Independent predictive factors were identified with univariate and multivariate logistic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 524 specimens in 454 patients were identified. Malignancy was found in 7.0% of CPM and 5.7% of BPM specimens. In CPM patients, ipsilateral lobular carcinoma-in situ [odds ratio (OR) 4.0] and mammogram risk group (OR 2.0) were predictive of malignancy. Age group (OR 1.5), ipsilateral lobular carcinoma-in situ (OR 2.3), and prior bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (OR 0.3) were predictive of moderate- to high-risk histopathology. Only increasing age group was predictive of increased moderate- to high-risk histopathology in BPM patients (OR 2.3). There were no independent predictors of malignancy in BPM. BRCA status was not predictive in either CPM or BPM. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lobular carcinoma-in situ in the index breast or high-risk mammograms have a higher prevalence of malignancies. Although BRCA patients may benefit from prophylactic mastectomy, the genetic diagnosis does not increase the prevalence of detecting occult pathology. BPM patients can be counseled about relative risk, where occult pathology increases with age.

Lifetime Costs of Prophylactic Mastectomies and Reconstruction versus Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: The past decade has seen an increasing prevalence of prophylactic mastectomy with decreasing ages of patients treated for breast cancer. Data are limited on the fiscal impacts of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy trends, and no study has compared bilateral prophylactic mastectomy with reconstruction to surveillance in high-risk patients. METHODS: Lifetime third-party payer costs over 30 years were estimated with 2013 Medicare reimbursement rates. Costs were estimated for patients choosing contralateral or bilateral prophylactic mastectomy versus surveillance, with immediate reconstructions using a single-stage implant, tissue expander, or perforator-based free flap approach. Published cancer incidence rates predicted the percentage of surveillance patients that would require mastectomies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted that varied cost growth, discount rate, cancer incidence rate, and other variables. Lifetime costs and present values (3 percent discount rate) were estimated. RESULTS: Lifetime prophylactic mastectomy costs were lower than surveillance costs, $1292 to $1993 lower for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and $15,668 to $21,342 lower for bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, depending on the reconstruction. Present value estimates were slightly higher for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy over contralateral surveillance but still cost saving for bilateral prophylactic mastectomy compared with bilateral surveillance. Present value estimates are also cost saving for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy when the modeled contralateral breast cancer incidence rate is increased to at least 0.6 percent per year. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with contralateral and bilateral prophylactic mastectomy being cost saving in many scenarios, regardless of the reconstructive option chosen. They suggest that physicians and patients should continue to receive flexibility in deciding how best to proceed clinically in each case.

GHOST Protocol: Greatest Healing Opportunity for Soft Tissue, a Treatment Paradigm for Complex Sarcoma Reconstruction.

Modern sarcoma treatment has created new challenges for plastic surgeons. This study was designed to review the recent experience and practice patterns following complex sarcoma resection at a large sarcoma center. All cases from October 2013 to October 2014 involving rare nonepithelial tumors, a multidisciplinary surgical team, radiation and/or chemotherapy treatments, and plastic surgical reconstruction were included in the analysis. In addition to evaluating clinical outcomes, cases were reviewed to identify factors associated with excellent or poor patient care. Review of these cases formed the basis of the greatest healing opportunity for soft tissue (GHOST) protocol. Our patient population included seven males (64%) and four females (36%). All except one patient was exposed to radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or some combination. Diverse procedures were used for reconstruction. Early complications occurred in two patients (18%), and late complications in four patients (36%). Sarcoma resection was found to be highly morbid in our series. Patients with poor preoperative nutritional status were more likely to experience complications postoperatively. The decision to stage a reconstruction was complex and influenced by several factors. Multimodal sarcoma treatments may involve highly morbid procedures and create complex wounds. The GHOST protocol is a useful reference for plastic surgeons.

Breast reconstruction outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy and radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Few studies in the literature examine outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy with nipple preservation and radiation therapy. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of multisurgeon consecutive implant-based reconstructions after nipple-sparing mastectomy from June of 2007 to December of 2012 was conducted at a single institution. RESULTS: Six hundred five immediate breast reconstructions were performed following nipple-sparing mastectomy, of which 88 were treated with radiation therapy. There was a trend toward more complications in patients with radiation (19.3 percent versus 12.8 percent; p = 0.099) associated with a higher rate of implant loss (6.8 percent versus 1.0 percent; p = 0.001). Preoperative radiotherapy had a higher risk of total complications (p = 0.04; OR, 2.225; 95 percent CI, 1.040 to 4.758) and postoperative radiotherapy had a higher risk of explantation (p = 0.015; OR, 5.634; 95 percent CI, 1.405 to 22.603). There were no significant differences in nipple removal secondary to malposition or positive oncologic margins in patients with radiation compared to those without radiation. Patients with radiation did have a higher incidence of secondary procedures for capsular contracture (12.5 percent versus 2.3 percent; p < 0.001) and fat grafting (13.6 percent versus 3.9 percent; p < 0.001). The total nipple retention rate in patients with radiation therapy was 90 percent (79 of 88), and the reconstruction failure rate was 8 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction in patients who had or will receive radiation therapy is associated with a higher incidence of complications and operative revisions compared with patients without radiation. However, most patients have successful reconstructions with nipple retention and no recurrences.

Beyond biologics: absorbable mesh as a low-cost, low-complication sling for implant-based breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: There is an intense push to decrease overall healthcare costs in the United States. Although the use of acellular dermal matrix in implant-based reconstruction has grown significantly over the past decade, potential drawbacks remain a source of debate. Matrices are costly and not universally available across institutions, whereas Vicryl mesh is widely available, relatively inexpensive, and resistant to bacteria biofilm formation. With the intent of maximizing the reconstructive and economic advantages of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, the authors report the first experience in the literature using an absorbable mesh as an inferolateral sling. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of the first 50 consecutive patients (76 reconstructions) who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction with Vicryl mesh from August of 2011 until June of 2012. RESULTS: Fifty patients underwent 76 direct-to-implant reconstructions with Vicryl mesh between August of 2011 and June of 2012 (mean follow-up, 1.2 years). Five breasts (6.6 percent) had complications, with only one complication resulting in implant loss (1.3 percent). Implant positioning and contour were excellent, with only two patients [three breasts (3.9 percent)] undergoing revision procedures, for size enlargement. Using costs available at the authors' institution, use of Vicryl mesh instead of acellular dermal matrix resulted in a direct material cost savings of $172,112 in 10 months. CONCLUSIONS: Results to date have been encouraging, with a low complication rate (6.6 percent) and excellent aesthetic results. The technique has resulted in $172,112 in direct material cost savings over 10 months. Continued follow-up is planned to evaluate long-term results. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Infection following implant-based reconstruction in 1952 consecutive breast reconstructions: salvage rates and predictors of success.

BACKGROUND: Few studies address salvage rates for infection in implant-based breast reconstruction. An understanding of success rates and clinical predictors of failure may help guide management. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of multisurgeon consecutive implant reconstructions from 2004 to 2010 was performed. RESULTS: Immediate implant-based reconstructions (n=1952) were performed in 1241 patients. Ninety-nine reconstruction patients (5.1 percent) were admitted for breast erythema and had a higher incidence of smoking (p=0.007), chemotherapy (p=0.007), radiation therapy (p=0.001), and mastectomy skin necrosis (p<0.0001). There was no difference in age, body mass index, or acellular dermal matrix usage. With intravenous antibiotics, 25 (25.3 percent) reconstruction patients cleared the infection, whereas 74 (74.7 percent) underwent attempted operative salvage (n=18) or explantation (n=56). Patients who failed to clear infection had a higher mean white blood cell count at admission (p<0.0001). Of the attempted operative salvage group, 12 cleared the infection with immediate implant exchange and six eventually lost the implant. Patients who failed implant salvage were more likely to have methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (p=0.004). The total explantation rate was 3.2 percent. Following explantation, 32 patients underwent attempted secondary tissue expander insertion. Twenty-six were successful and six had recurrent infection and implant loss. There were no differences in time interval to tissue expander insertion between successful and unsuccessful secondary operations. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage with intravenous antibiotics and implant exchange was successful in 37.3 percent of patients. Smoking, irradiation, chemotherapy, and mastectomy skin necrosis were predictors for developing infection. Patients with a higher white blood cell count at admission and methicillin-resistant S. aureus were more likely to fail implant salvage. There was no association with time interval to tissue expander insertion and secondary explantation. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in body contouring: 105 consecutive patients.

Body contouring has a higher rate of thromboembolism than traditional plastic surgery procedures. Although risk stratification protocols exist, few offer specific therapeutic guidelines for deep venous thrombosis prevention. This single surgeon series classifies 105 consecutive patients into low, moderate, high, and highest risk groups. The respective thromboembolism prevention treatment included pneumatic compression devices alone, postoperative low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH), preoperative and 2 doses of postoperative LDUH, and preoperative and postoperative LDUH/low-dose molecular weight heparin for 7 days. Complications included 1 reoperation for bleeding. There were no clinically detected deep venous thromboses. In conclusion, this treatment algorithm for thromboembolism prevention results in a low rate of bleeding and thrombosis. Further studies are warranted to determine optimal timing and duration of chemoprophylaxis in plastic surgery patients.

Abdominal contouring procedures increase activity of the coagulation cascade.

One of the most serious complications in plastic surgery is a thromboembolic event. However, little physiologic evidence exists to support the observed hypercoagulable state seen in contouring procedures. Twenty-one consecutive patients were enrolled prospectively to assess thrombin generation, which measures activity of the coagulation cascade, at baseline, intraoperative, and 24 hours after surgery. Compared with preoperative values, total thrombin generation increased by a mean of 997 nM intraoperatively (1.3-fold, P<0.004) and 1406 nM postoperatively (1.4-fold, P<0.001) in 9 patients undergoing abdominoplasty without deep venous thrombosis (DVT) chemoprophylaxis. The mean thrombin generation did not significantly change during or after surgery in 12 patients who received heparin for DVT prophylaxis (P=0.3). Thrombin generation was significantly less in patients receiving chemoprophylaxis compared with those who received no prophylaxis (P<0.01). This suggests abdominal contouring procedures induce a significant increase in the activity of the coagulation cascade that can be prevented by DVT chemoprophylaxis.

Dermaplaning, topical oxygen, and photodynamic therapy: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive procedures for facial rejuvenation are becoming an increasingly popular component of a comprehensive skin care regimen. Concurrently, many new treatment methods are now available to both the plastic surgeon and the aesthetician. Because these techniques have become an integral part of many cosmetic practices, this study aimed to assess the existing evidence-based literature as to their clinical efficacy; to provide an objective overview of some of the most popular noninvasive rejuvenation strategies such as dermaplaning, oxygen therapy, and light therapy; to discuss recent pertinent scientific evidence-based literature; and to provide treatment recommendations based on these findings. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in August 2009 using PubMed and the following keywords: "dermaplaning," "oxygen therapy," and "light therapy." All peer-reviewed articles then were screened independently by three plastic surgeons. RESULTS: The search identified 42 English-written, peer-reviewed manuscripts. The overall amount of scientific data supporting these methods was found to be scarce, anecdotal, and not well documented. Nevertheless, all three noninvasive therapies have become increasingly popular in the cosmetic market because many patients and physicians or surgeons report being pleased with their results. CONCLUSION: Although the evidence supporting these nonsurgical methods is suboptimal, their uses continue to expand. As with any plastic surgery procedure, providing patients with realistic expectations is essential to achieving optimal outcomes and patient satisfaction. Therefore, critical investigation is warranted. In addition, these methods are most effective when included within a comprehensive skin care regimen consisting of sunscreen, vitamin therapy, and lifestyle modification.

Postoperative complications in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix.

BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrix has become a common adjunct in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction. The authors' aim was to determine whether acellular dermal matrix use in immediate prosthesis-based breast reconstruction is associated with higher rate of complications. METHODS: Over a 5½-year period at the Brigham and Women's Hospital, 470 postmastectomy defects were reconstructed immediately using tissue expanders or implants. These were divided into two groups: reconstructions with or without acellular dermal matrix. Data were collected on patient comorbidities, radiation, intraoperative tumescent solution use, prosthesis size, initial fill volume, and complications. RESULTS: The risk for major infections that required prosthesis removal was elevated in the acellular dermal matrix group (4.9 versus 2.5 percent), but this increase did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.172). There was a statistically significant increase in overall wound infection rate in the acellular dermal matrix group (6.8 versus 2.5 percent, p = 0.031), but in a multivariate analysis, the use of acellular dermal matrix did not materialize as a significant risk factor for overall wound infection. Overall surgical complication rate was significantly higher in the acellular dermal matrix group at 19.5 percent, compared with the non-acellular dermal matrix group at 12.3 percent (p < 0.001). Other significant risk factors for overall surgical complication included smoking, higher body mass index, higher initial volume, and larger implant size. CONCLUSIONS: Patient selection for prosthesis reconstruction involving acellular dermal matrix should be judicious, especially among smokers and patients with elevated body mass index. Even though the use of acellular dermal matrix allows higher initial volumes and reduced number of expansions, one should be careful about putting in too high of an initial volume.