Fat Grafting for Improved Ileostomy Ostomy Device Fit: A Case Report.

For patients with an ostomy, a poor fitting appliance may cause leakage, peristomal dermatitis, and frequent appliance changes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this case study was to report the outcome of fat grafting to augment peristomal soft tissue and improve appliance fit. CASE STUDY: A 57-year-old woman with a history of Crohn's disease presented with soft-tissue deficiency and uneven contour around her ileostomy site. She was unable to properly fit an ostomy appliance, which resulted in leakage, chronic skin irritation, and frequent appliance changes. The patient underwent 2 rounds of fat grafting using fat harvested from her medial thighs and knees infused with dilute lidocaine with epinephrine. The patient noted immediate improvement after 34 cc of processed fat was injected in the first round. Appliance change frequency decreased from daily to every 3 to 4 days. A second graft of 32 cc provided 3 months later further improved appliance fit, reducing appliance change frequency to every 5 to 7 days and obviating the need to use adjustment rings and glue. Pre- and postoperative computed tomography showed increased thickness of abdominal wall subcutaneous tissues. CONCLUSION: Fat grafting around an ostomy site presents a viable option to improve contour and appliance fit with reduced skin irritation and leakage.

Heterogeneity in Body Contouring Outcomes Based Research: The Pittsburgh Body Contouring Complication Reporting System.

BACKGROUND: Body contouring complications after massive weight loss (MWL) vary significantly in frequency and type. Currently, no standardized recommendations exist regarding which complications are most important to report. OBJECTIVES: We aim to provide a guideline for complication reporting in the body contouring literature. The Pittsburgh Body Contouring Complication Reporting System (PBCCRS) will aid in risk stratification of body contouring procedures and will decrease under-, over-, and nonreporting of complications. METHODS: The authors reviewed the literature for the terms "body contouring," "MWL," and "complications." Elimination criteria included: non-English language, case report, meta-analysis, outpatient, non-MWL, unclear demographics, N <30 and lack of numeric results. Data were analyzed in 2 groups: truncal contouring and extremity contouring. RESULTS: Eighty-nine papers were reviewed and 21 met inclusion criteria. The weighted mean rates as percentages for complications in the extremity group were: dehiscence (29.0), seroma (18.6), scarring (14.9), infection (8.8), lymphedema (7.8), hematoma (3.5), necrosis (1.9), deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) (0), and death (0). In the truncal group, weighted mean complication rates as percentages were: dehiscence (15.4), seroma (13.1), scarring (2.9), infection (9.4), lymphedema (1.3), hematoma (6.4), necrosis (7.2), DVT/PE (1.5), and death (0.6). Lymphedema was seldom reported, and suture extrusion was not reported in any selected papers. Weighted mean rates of DVT/PE in the extremity vs truncal contouring groups were significantly different. Differences in rates of scarring, lymphedema, and hematoma rates neared significance. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity amongst selected studies is explained by variability in how complications are defined. The Pittsburgh Body Contouring Complication Reporting System provides suggested recommendations on complication reporting in massive weight loss body contouring surgery.

The Challenges of Augmentation Mastopexy in the Massive Weight Loss Patient: Technical Considerations.

BACKGROUND: Augmentation mastopexy in the massive weight loss population is challenging because of poor skin elasticity and lack of inframammary support. Despite several large studies of augmentation mastopexy in the literature, few data exist regarding this unique patient population. The authors examine early postoperative ptosis, implant malposition, and strategies to optimize outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of massive weight loss patients who underwent augmentation mastopexy from 2003 to 2011 was performed to record age, body mass index, implant characteristics, postoperative ptosis, and implant malposition. RESULTS: Thirty patients were identified with a mean age of 44.8 ± 8.5 years, mean current body mass index of 26.1 ± 3.9 kg/m, and mean follow-up time of 283.5 days (range, 7 to 1095 days). Preoperatively, patients mostly presented with grade 3 ptosis (63.3 percent). Five patients (16.7 percent) developed postoperative ptosis within the first 3 months after surgery, with no increase after this time. Implant malposition increased significantly with time: 61.9 percent by 12 months (p = 0.006), with a median time for implant malposition of 160 days. Postoperative ptosis was significantly related to age (p = 0.039) and a larger left-side implant (p = 0.022). Implant malposition was significantly related to higher current body mass index (p = 0.047), but not to implant size. Two patients (6.6 percent) underwent revision procedures. CONCLUSION: Massive weight loss patients have an increased risk of early postoperative ptosis or implant malposition, reinforcing the need for appropriate preoperative counseling to manage patient expectations. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.