Outcomes after elevation of serratus anterior fascia flap versus serratus muscle flap in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction following mastectomy: a prospective study.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain between SF flap and serratus anterior muscle (SM) in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study that included 53 women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction from January 2020 to March 2021. Twenty-nine patients (54.7%) had SF elevation, and 24 patients (45.3%) underwent SM elevation. We evaluated patient-reported early postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Also, it was reported that all surgical complications in the first month and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were measured with the BRECON 23 questionnaire. Results: The serratus fascia group used implants with larger volumes, 407.6 ± 98.9 cc (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the fascial and muscular groups regarding the postoperative pain score reported by the patients (2 versus 3; p = 0.30). Also, there was no difference between the groups regarding early surgical complications and PROs after breast reconstruction. Conclusion: The use of SF seems to cause less morbidity, which makes the technique an alternative to be considered in breast reconstruction. Although there was no statistical difference in postoperative pain scores between the fascia and serratus muscle groups.

Long-Term Satisfaction with Breast Augmentation and Augmentation Mastopexy in the Latin American Population.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to determine the long-term satisfaction levels of women who have undergone breast augmentation and augmentation mastopexy procedures, while identifying the factors influencing patient satisfaction. METHODS: A self-reported retrospective case study design was used to collect data from women with breast implants. The study employed a survey that included demographic information, preoperative diagnosis, implant details, and patient-reported outcomes measured using the Breast-Q Instrument, which evaluates satisfaction with breasts, self-esteem, sexual well-being, and physical symptoms. Statistical analyses were conducted to identify correlations and differences in outcomes between the different variables. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 1022 women from 19 countries, with Chile, Mexico, and Colombia being the most represented. Augmentation was performed on 72.2% of the patients, while 27.7% underwent augmentation mastopexy. Patient satisfaction with breast size and shape varied significantly between the two procedures, with patients undergoing augmentation mastopexy showing less satisfaction. In addition, patients who were unaware of their implant shape or placement reported lower satisfaction scores. The study also found that patient satisfaction decreased over time in the augmentation mastopexy cases and that patients with high body mass index had lower satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Augmentation mastopexy in patients with breast ptosis yields lower satisfaction than augmentation alone. Dissatisfaction escalates with overweight/obesity (BMI), post-surgery time, and misinformation. Implant pocket (pre-vs. subpectoral), shape (round vs. anatomical), and size did not impact satisfaction. 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 .

Prevalence, clinical characteristics, and management of silicone lymphadenopathy: A systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Implant-based breast augmentations and reconstructions are one of the most common surgical procedures performed by plastic surgeons in the United States, which has rapidly increased in popularity since the 2000s. Silicone lymphadenopathy (SL) is a complication of breast implants that involves migration of silicone to nearby soft tissue/lymph nodes. Data on its clinical features and management is scarce. METHODS: SL-related search terms were used to find articles in 3 databases. Of 598 articles, 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Demographics, clinical presentation, workup, and management data were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 279 cases of SL and 107 with information on initial diagnosis, 35 (33%) were incidental. The most common symptom was painless lymphadenopathy, followed by painful lymphadenopathy. 251 (95%) and 13 (5%) patients had silicone and saline implants, respectively. 149 (68%) patients had implant rupture. Axillary lymphadenopathy was the most affected region (136 cases, 72%), followed by internal mammary (40 cases, 21%), cervical/supraclavicular (36 cases, 19%), and mediastinal (24 cases, 13%) regions. 25% of patients underwent fine-needle aspiration, 12% core needle biopsy, and 59% excisional biopsy. 32% of cases underwent explantation and/or implant exchange. The most common indication for surgery was implant rupture. Histology showed multinucleated giant cells, large histiocytes, and silicone accumulation. CONCLUSIONS: SL is a complication associated with breast implants. The majority of patients are asymptomatic, and most cases are managed conservatively. Minority need a biopsy and surgical interventions due to abnormal imaging, persistent symptoms, and/or implant rupture. Workup and management should be tailored to the patient.

Evaluation of Perioperative Versus Extended Courses of Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IIBR) is the most commonly used method in breast reconstruction in the United States. However, postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs) can cause devastating reconstructive failure. This study evaluates the use of perioperative versus extended courses of antibiotic prophylaxis after IIBR for the prevention of SSI. METHODS: This is a single-institution retrospective study of patients who underwent IIBR between June 2018 and April 2020. Detailed demographic and clinical information was collected. Patients were divided into subgroups based on antibiotic prophylaxis regimen: group 1 consisted of patients who received 24 hours of perioperative antibiotics and group 2 consisted of patients who received ≥7 days of antibiotics. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSSv26.0 with P ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 169 patients (285 breasts) who underwent IIBR were included. The mean age was 52.4 ± 10.2 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.8 ± 5.7 kg/m2. Twenty-five percent of patients (25.6%) underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy, 69.1% skin-sparing mastectomy, and 5.3% total mastectomy. The implant was placed in the prepectoral, subpectoral, and dual planes in 16.7%, 19.2%, and 64.1% cases, respectively. Acellular dermal matrix was used in 78.7% of cases. A total of 42.0% of patients received 24-hour prophylaxis (group 1), and 58.0% of patients received extended prophylaxis (group 2). Twenty-five infections (14.8%) were identified, of which 9 (5.3%) resulted in reconstructive failure. In bivariate analyses, no significant difference was found between groups in rates of infection (P = 0.273), reconstructive failure (P = 0.653), and seroma (P = 0.125). There was a difference in hematoma rates between groups (P = 0.046). Interestingly, in patients who received only perioperative antibiotics, infection rates were significantly higher in those with BMI ≥ 25 (25.6% vs 7.1%, P = 0.050). There was no difference in overweight patients who received extended antibiotics (16.4% vs 7.0%, P = 0.160). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate no statistical difference in infection rates between perioperative and extended antibiotics. This suggests that the efficacies of current prophylaxis regimens are largely similar, with choice of regimen based on surgeon preference and patient-specific considerations. Infection rates in patients who received perioperative prophylaxis and were overweight were significantly higher, suggesting that BMI should be taken into consideration when choosing a prophylaxis regimen.

Subfascial Axillary Hybrid Breast Augmentation: Technical Highlights and Step-by-Step Video Guide.

SUMMARY: Advances in breast augmentation techniques have led to safety improvements and better aesthetic results. The concurrent combination of the axillary approach with a subfascial pocket has been suggested for augmentation procedures, because it avoids breast scarring and the limitations of submuscular positioning represented by breast animation when the pectoral muscle is contracted. With the improvement of autogenous fat grafting techniques, new implant coverage options and more natural results have been proposed with more superficial implant pockets; simultaneous autogenous fat grafting with silicone implants (defined as hybrid breast augmentation) has recently been evaluated as a promising technique. Combining these two procedures allows core volume projection and natural cleavage while camouflaging implant edges. Fat grafting is also useful in reducing intermammary distance and achieving a smaller and smoother transition between the breasts. This article and the accompanying videos provide a detailed, step-by-step guide to hybrid breast augmentation using a subfascial axillary approach, with a predictable and optimized surgical outcome.

Reoperative Augmentation Mammoplasty: An Algorithm to Optimize Soft-Tissue Support, Pocket Control, and Smooth Implant Stability with Composite Reverse Inferior Muscle Sling (CRIMS) and its Technical Variations.

BACKGROUND: Reoperative augmentation mammoplasty (RAM) is a challenging procedure, with the highest rates of complications and revision. Complications include implant malposition, lateral displacement, bottoming out, and rotation. These deformities can be addressed with various procedures, but the pocket control and stability of the new smooth implant surface may present limitations. OBJECTIVES: This study revisits a previously described predictable approach in primary breast augmentation and defines a surgical treatment algorithm for RAM technique selection. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2021, 72 patients (144 breasts) underwent RAM with composite reverse inferior muscle sling (CRIMS) technique and its technical variations (types I-IV). CRIMS technique involves placing a silicone gel implant into the submuscular (SM) pocket with an inferior sling of the pectoralis major muscle based on the dimensions of the implant, in combination with support points/dermal bridge sutures to stabilize the implant and glandular tissue at the lower breast pole (LBP). Reasons for surgery were ptosis (92%), implant and malposition (59.6%). Patients were followed for at least 6 months in 5 cases (6.9%), at least 12 months in 50 cases (69.4%), for at least 36 months in 10 cases (13.8%), and more than 36 months in 7 cases (9.7%) (mean 34 months; range 6-48 months). Patients were evaluated in terms of resolution of symptoms, satisfaction, and complications. Three-dimensional imaging (3DI) obtained from the Divina scanner system was used and followed up for 1 year to evaluate breast position, lower pole stretch (LPS), and intermammary distance (IMD). RESULTS: Eleven cases of minor complications were observed in 9 patients (12.5%): hypertrophic scarring in 4 (5.5%), wound dehiscence in 4 (5.5%), Baker II/III capsular contracture in 1 (1.3%). SmoothSilk surface silicone implants were used in all cases, with an average volume decrease of 120 cc. Sixty-eight patients (94.4%) were either very satisfied/satisfied with their aesthetic result. Breast images were performed in a group of 65 patients (90.2%), and in 7 breasts (10.7%), localized oil cysts were observed. The value for LPS was 7.87% (p <0.0001) between 10 days and 1 year, with the majority occurring early in the first 3 months, indicating that the LBP/implant remains steady during the last months of follow-up. No cases of fat necrosis/seroma were observed. There were no signs of intra/extracapsular ruptures, capsular contracture. There were 2 cases (3%) of minimal implant displacement and no cases of rotation. CONCLUSIONS: CRIMS and its variations can be performed successfully in RAM. An algorithmic approach can facilitate the pre- and intraoperative decision-making process and provide the new pocket control and implant stability with acceptable complication rates. Further accurate evaluation is recommended to understand the benefits or disadvantages of CRIMS compared to other RAM techniques. 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 .

Optimizing Surgical Outcomes with Small-Volume Silicone Implants Associated with Autogenous Fat Grafting in Primary and Revision Breast Augmentation Surgery: Soft Weight Hybrid (SWEH) Concept.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous association of autologous fat grafting (AFG) with silicone implants, defined as a hybrid procedure, has been proposed for breast augmentation (BA). In some patients, larger-volume implants may result in larger incisions, with long-term effects including implant palpability, soft tissue atrophy, and secondary ptosis. Some patients do not want large volume implants, or have insufficient soft tissue coverage. Recent improvements in AFG have led to new surgical options in BA for addressing these cases. OBJECTIVES: This study combines AFG in BA using small-volume implants, known as the SWEH (soft weight hybrid) approach, and evaluates aesthetic advantages and outcomes following primary/secondary BA. METHODS: 25 patients (50 breasts) underwent SWEH procedures; this approach was indicated when the overlying tissue was insufficient to adequately cover the implant and patients refused large-volume implants. Three-dimensional images were obtained using a Divina 3D scanner system (AX3 Technologies, Miami, USA) to assess breast volume (BV) and intermammary distance (IMD) during follow-up. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 29.3 years (range: 21-42) and mean body mass index was 19.3 kg/m2 (15.3-27.2). The most common implant (SmoothSilk surface Round/Ergonomix style) volume was 180 cc (175-215), and patients received a mean volume of 125 cc of fat (89-168)/breast in the subcutaneous tissue. Preoperative average BV measurements were 236.85 cc (170-335). At 3 and 12 months post-procedure, the average BV values were 488.82 and 478.73cc, respectively (p=0.475). The average preoperative IMD was 31.76 mm (range, 22-43); at 3 and 12 months post-procedure, the average IMD was 20.47 and 20.94 mm, respectively (p=0.61). Postoperative complications included subcutaneous banding in the axilla (n = 1; 4%) and hypertrophic scarring (n = 1; 4%). Breast imaging exams were performed; in 2 breasts (8%) localized oil cysts were observed; no cases of suspicious calcifications, fat necrosis, or lumps were seen. Fat retention rate (1 year) was calculated by the difference between the BV expected with 100% fat intake and the real BV observed. In our sample we observed an average of 72.7 (range: 69.2-77.3, SD: 2.63) and 76.7 (range: 72.3-79.9, SD: 2.18) percent of fat intake on the right and the left breast respectively. No rippling, implant malposition, or infection was observed during a mean follow-up of 22 months (6-40). CONCLUSIONS: SWEH is a useful surgical alternative that combines the benefits of AFG and implant-based augmentation, particularly with regard to soft tissue coverage, and avoids the limitations of larger-volume implants. The association of small-volume gel implants and smaller scars can yield satisfactory aesthetic outcomes. 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 http://www.springer.com/00266 .

[PECS I block for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing breast augmentation surgery: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study]. / Bloqueio PECS I para analgesia pós­operatória em pacientes submetidos a mamoplastia de aumento: estudo randomizado, duplo­cego, controlado por placebo.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: PECS I block was first described for surgery involving the pectoralis muscles. No randomized clinical trial has been conducted on surgeries that directly involve these muscles, such as subpectoral breast augmentation. We hypothesized that PECS I block would decrease pain in the postoperative period in this population. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in women undergoing subpectoral breast augmentation surgery. PECS I block was performed using 0.4 mL.kg-1 of 0.9% saline on one side and bupivacaine (0.25%) on the other side, each patient being her own control. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores (0-10) were measured at rest and during movement. The primary outcome was pain score at rest 30 minutes after arrival in the PACU. To detect a clinically significant difference of 50% in pain reduction, 14 volunteers were enrolled (power of 90% and alpha<0.05). RESULTS: In the PACU, three patients had no difference in pain between sides, five had reduced pain on the placebo side, and six had reduced pain on the bupivacaine side. In the bupivacaine group, pain scores at rest at 5, 30 and 60 minutes and 24 hours were 4.89 (4.23-5.56; mean 95% CI), 3.75 (3.13-4.37), 3.79 (2.93-4.64), and 2.29 (1.56-3.01), respectively, whereas in the placebo group, they were 4.96 (4.32-5.60), 4.00 (3.50-4.49), 3.93 (3.12-4.73), and 2.29 (1.56-3.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PECS I block in patients undergoing breast augmentation surgery does not provide better pain relief than placebo. Therefore, the indications for PECS I block in breast augmentation surgery should be reconsidered.

PECS I block for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing breast augmentation surgery: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study / Bloqueio PECS I para analgesia pós-operatória em pacientes submetidos a mamoplastia de aumento: estudo randomizado, duplo-cego, controlado por placebo

Abstract Background and objectives: PECS I block was first described for surgery involving the pectoralis muscles. No randomized clinical trial has been conducted on surgeries that directly involve these muscles, such as subpectoral breast augmentation. We hypothesized that PECS I block would decrease pain in the postoperative period in this population. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in women undergoing subpectoral breast augmentation surgery. PECS I block was performed using 0.4 mL.kg-1 of 0.9% saline on one side and bupivacaine (0.25%) on the other side, each patient being her own control. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores (0 - 10) were measured at rest and during movement. The primary outcome was pain score at rest 30 minutes after arrival in the PACU. To detect a clinically significant difference of 50% in pain reduction, 14 volunteers were enrolled (power of 90% and alpha < 0.05). Results: In the PACU, three patients had no difference in pain between sides, five had reduced pain on the placebo side, and six had reduced pain on the bupivacaine side. In the bupivacaine group, pain scores at rest at 5, 30 and 60 minutes and 24 hours were 4.89 (4.23 - 5.56; mean 95% CI), 3.75 (3.13 - 4.37), 3.79 (2.93 - 4.64), and 2.29 (1.56 - 3.01), respectively, whereas in the placebo group, they were 4.96 (4.32 - 5.60), 4.00 (3.50 - 4.49), 3.93 (3.12 - 4.73), and 2.29 (1.56 - 3.01), respectively. Conclusions: PECS I block in patients undergoing breast augmentation surgery does not provide better pain relief than placebo. Therefore, the indications for PECS I block in breast augmentation surgery should be reconsidered.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos: O bloqueio PECS I foi descrito pela primeira vez para cirurgia envolvendo os músculos peitorais. Nenhum estudo clínico randomizado foi realizado em procedimentos envolvendo diretamente os músculos peitorais, como a mamoplastia de aumento submuscular. Nossa hipótese foi de que o bloqueio PECS I diminuiria a dor pós-operatória nessa população. Método: Realizamos estudo randomizado, duplo-cego, controlado por placebo em mulheres submetidas à mamoplastia de aumento submuscular. Realizamos o bloqueio PECS I com 0,4 mL.kg-1 de solução salina a 0,9% de um lado e bupivacaína (0,25%) do outro lado, sendo cada paciente seu próprio controle. Os escores da Escala de Avaliação Numérica (EAN) de dor (0 - 10) foram obtidos em repouso e durante movimento. O desfecho primário foi o escore de dor em repouso 30 minutos após a chegada à SRPA. Para detectar uma diferença clinicamente significante de 50% na redução da dor, 14 voluntárias foram incluídas (poder de 90% e alfa < 0,05). Resultados: Na SRPA, três pacientes não apresentaram diferença na dor entre os lados, cinco relataram menos dor no lado do placebo e seis, menos dor no lado da bupivacaína. No grupo bupivacaína, os escores de dor em repouso aos 5, 30 e 60 minutos e 24 horas foram 4,89 (4,23 - 5,56; IC médio 95%), 3,75 (3,13 - 4,37), 3,79 (2,93 - 4,64) e 2,29 (1,56 - 3,01), respectivamente, enquanto no grupo placebo foram 4,96 (4,32 - 5,60), 4,00 (3,50 - 4,49), 3,93 (3,12 - 4,73) e 2,29 (1,56 - 3,01), respectivamente. Conclusões: O bloqueio PECS I em pacientes submetidas a mamoplastia de aumento não oferece melhor alívio da dor do que o placebo. Portanto, as indicações para bloqueio de PECS I na cirurgia de aumento de mama devem ser reconsideradas.

Comparative clinical evaluation of breast augmentation using silicone foam coated implants and textured implants.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether silicone foam implants have a different evolution pattern compared to conventional texture implants. METHODS: Fifty-eight female patients underwent surgery. They were divided into two groups (silicone foam - Lifesil® - and microtexturized silicone - Lifesil®). The evolution was analyzed in postoperative consultations, with physical examination, photographic documentation and filling in a satisfaction questionnaire, in the postoperative period of one month, four months, one year and then annually, up to a maximum of 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in presence of rippling, stretch marks, breast ptosis, capsular contracture and quality of scars. There was a higher rate of patients who were very satisfied with the outcome 360 days after surgery in the group receiving silicone foam implants (p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: In short time, silicone foam envelope implants proved to be as reliable as textured silicone envelope implants, making them an option for augmentation mammoplasty.

Comparative clinical evaluation of breast augmentation using silicone foam coated implants and textured implants

Purpose To evaluate whether silicone foam implants have a different evolution pattern compared to conventional texture implants. Methods Fifty-eight female patients underwent surgery. They were divided into two groups (silicone foam Lifesil® and microtexturized silicone Lifesil®). The evolution was analyzed in postoperative consultations, with physical examination, photographic documentation and filling in a satisfaction questionnaire, in the postoperative period of one month, four months, one year and then annually, up to a maximum of 3 years of follow-up. Results There were no statistically significant differences in presence of rippling, stretch marks, breast ptosis, capsular contracture and quality of scars. There was a higher rate of patients who were very satisfied with the outcome 360 days after surgery in the group receiving silicone foam implants (p = 0.036). Conclusion In short time, silicone foam envelope implants proved to be as reliable as textured silicone envelope implants, making them an option for augmentation mammoplasty.(AU)

Comparative clinical evaluation of breast augmentation using silicone foam coated implants and textured implants

Abstract Purpose To evaluate whether silicone foam implants have a different evolution pattern compared to conventional texture implants. Methods Fifty-eight female patients underwent surgery. They were divided into two groups (silicone foam - Lifesil® - and microtexturized silicone - Lifesil®). The evolution was analyzed in postoperative consultations, with physical examination, photographic documentation and filling in a satisfaction questionnaire, in the postoperative period of one month, four months, one year and then annually, up to a maximum of 3 years of follow-up. Results There were no statistically significant differences in presence of rippling, stretch marks, breast ptosis, capsular contracture and quality of scars. There was a higher rate of patients who were very satisfied with the outcome 360 days after surgery in the group receiving silicone foam implants (p = 0.036). Conclusion In short time, silicone foam envelope implants proved to be as reliable as textured silicone envelope implants, making them an option for augmentation mammoplasty.

Autologous versus prosthetic reconstruction for women with breast cancer who will undergo post-reconstruction radiotherapy. / Reconstrucción autóloga versus reconstrucción protésica para mujeres con cáncer de mama que serán sometidas a radioterapia post reconstrucción.

INTRODUCTION: Radiotherapy is frequently used after breast reconstruction in patients with locally advanced breast cancer or metastases in axillary lymph nodes. However, there might be differences between autologous and prosthetic reconstruction in terms of effectiveness and safety of post-reconstruction radiotherapy. METHODS: To answer this question we searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified five systematic reviews including nine primary studies overall, of which all were observational studies. We concluded that in patients who will undergo post reconstructive radiotherapy, autologous breast reconstruction could reduce reoperations due to general complications compared to prosthetic breast reconstruction. However, it probably increases the risk of skin or flap necrosis. It is not clear whether there are differences in other outcomes as the certainty of evidence has been assessed as very low.

INTRODUCCIÓN: La radioterapia se utiliza cada vez con más frecuencia después de la reconstrucción mamaria en pacientes con cáncer de mama localmente avanzado o con metástasis en linfonodos axilares. Sin embargo, se ha propuesto que podrían existir diferencias en la efectividad y seguridad de la radioterapia post reconstrucción dependiendo de qué tipo de reconstrucción mamaria se utilice, ya sea esta reconstrucción autóloga o protésica. MÉTODOS: Para responder esta pregunta utilizamos Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, re analizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un metanálisis y preparamos una tabla de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Identificamos cinco revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyeron nueve estudios primarios, todos los cuales corresponden a estudios observacionales. Concluimos que la reconstrucción mamaria autóloga podría disminuir las reoperaciones atribuidas a complicaciones generales en comparación a la reconstrucción mamaria protésica en pacientes sometidas a radioterapia post reconstrucción, pero probablemente aumenta el riesgo de necrosis de piel o colgajo. No está claro si existen diferencias en otros desenlaces, debido a que la certeza de la evidencia ha sido evaluada como muy baja.

Mamoplastia secundária com ressecção em monobloco e neoposicionamento do implante no espaço retropeitoral parcial / Secondary mammaplasty with monobloc resection and implant repositioning in the partial retropectoral pocket

Introdução: As cirurgias de aumento de mamas com implantes de silicone estão entre os procedimentos de cirurgia plástica mais realizados. O objetivo desse estudo é avaliar os casos de pacientes com prótese de silicone, submetidas à mamoplastia secundária, apresentando uma alternativa de abordagem com ressecção em monobloco do tecido mamário, cápsula fibrosa e prótese de silicone; e o neoposicionamento do implante em loja retromuscular peitoral parcial. Métodos: Foram analisados 24 casos de mamoplastia secundária com neoposicionamento da prótese, apresentando os motivos da indicação da cirurgia e o detalhamento da abordagem cirúrgica para maior facilidade na execução do procedimento e a obtenção de resultados mais satisfatórios. Resultados: Todos os casos operados apresentavam alterações no exame físico das mamas, como: ptose mamária contratura capsular, posicionamento inadequado dos implantes e assimetrias mamárias. Nos casos estudados, as próteses com revestimento de poliuretano e sua completa adesão à cápsula fibrosa permitiram a ressecção mais prática, mesmo com variáveis graus de contratura capsular. As cápsulas fibrosas que envolviam implantes texturizados tinham características mais finas e a instabilidade das próteses, pela presença de seroma residual ou pelo excessivo tamanho da loja da prótese, desencadearam maior dificuldade na ressecção. Conclusão: A realização de mamoplastia secundária com troca de prótese, empregando a ressecção em monobloco e neoposicionamento do implante no espaço retromuscular peitoral parcial com suturas do músculo ao tecido mamário, oferece uma alternativa para otimizar o procedimento, maior estabilidade do músculo até completa cicatrização e a formação de nova cápsula fibrosa.

Introduction: Breast augmentation with silicone implants is one of the most common plastic surgery procedures. The objective of this study was to evaluate patients with previous silicone implantations undergoing secondary mammaplasty, presenting an alternative approach with en block resection of breast tissue, fibrous capsule, and silicone implant, followed by implant repositioning in the partial retropectoral pocket. Methods: This study included 24 cases of secondary mammaplasty with implant repositioning. It presents the indications for surgery and details the surgical approach for easier procedures and more satisfactory results. Results: All the included cases presented breast changes on physical examination, such as breast ptosis, capsular contracture, improper implant position, and breast asymmetry. In the studied cases, the use of polyurethane-coated implants and their complete adherence to the fibrous capsule resulted in a more practical resection even with varying degrees of capsular contracture. Fibrous capsules of textured implants were thinner, and implant instability due to the presence of residual seroma or pockets bigger than necessary resulted in more difficult resection. Conclusion: Secondary mammaplasty with en bloc resection, along with implant replacement and repositioning in the partial retropectoral pocket with sutures involving muscle and breast tissue is an alternative to optimize the procedure, providing greater muscle stability until complete healing and new fibrous capsule formation.

Is There a Breast Augmentation Outcome Difference Between Subfascial and Subglandular Implant Placement? A Prospective Randomized Double-Blinded Study.

INTRODUCTION: Subfascial breast augmentation is gaining popularity because of no distortion when the pectoral muscle is contracted and minimizing visualization of the edges of the implant. Although some studies have reported a satisfactory outcome with subfascial technique, it still is controversial the influence of the pectoral fascia and outcome compared to the subglandular technique. Therefore, this prospective randomized study aimed to investigate whether there are clinical/radiological differences between subfascial and subglandular pockets following primary breast augmentation. METHODS: Twenty patient candidates for primary breast augmentation were recruited. Each patient was selected for subfascial or subglandular pockets in a randomized fashion. Both patient and surgeon were blinded. Clinical and radiological differences were evaluated through five independent surgeons and MRI (capsule, folds, fluids, base and projection). Median follow-up was 12 months. RESULTS: Breast consistency (p = 0.24), implant pocket (p = 0.52), symmetry (p = 1), contour, and shape (p = 0.09) demonstrated no statistically significant difference after the surgeons' assessments at 3 and 12 months after surgery. MRIs demonstrated a larger implant base in the subfascial group (p = 0.024). No differences were observed in capsule thickness (p = 0.42), folds (p = 0.51), fluids (p = 0.28), or projection (0.20). CONCLUSION: The choice between subfascial and subglandular planes shows no clinical differences and can be selected according to individual professional experience, not evidencing any advantages of one over the other. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: 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.

Perfil da cirurgia de aumento de mama no Brasil / Profile of breast augmentation surgery in Brazil

Introdução: A última pesquisa da Sociedade Internacional de Cirurgia Estética (ISAPS) mostrou que 2.524.115 cirurgias plásticas foram realizadas no Brasil em 2017. O aumento de mama tem sido um dos procedimentos plásticos mais comumente realizados no Brasil, totalizando mais de 200.000 cirurgias no ano de 2016. O objetivo é avaliar as práticas e tendências atuais em aumento de mama no Brasil. Métodos: Um questionário de 31 itens foi construído e enviado para 6.200 membros ativos da Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica (SBCP). A pesquisa abordou algumas tendências atuais e práticas controversas considerando cinco áreas: controvérsias atuais, novas tecnologias, implantes mamários, considerações técnicas em procedimentos secundários e aspectos demográficos. O questionário foi desenhado para delinear o perfil das práticas, procedimentos e crenças entre os cirurgiões plásticos sobre o uso dos implantes mamários no Brasil. Resultados: Foram coletadas 505 respostas, representando uma taxa de resposta em torno de 10%, bem acima da taxa média de resposta de um questionário da SBCP. Os resultados foram distribuídos em 5 tabelas de acordo com as áreas de interesse. Conclusão: Nesta pesquisa, as práticas mais comuns incluíram o uso de implantes redondos de microtextura e silicone revestido com poliuretano no procedimento primário, poket subglandular, incisões inframamárias, dimensionamento pré-operatório com amostras de implante redondas, antibióticos intravenosos e orais, irrigação com duplo antibiótico, implante faixa de tamanho geralmente menos 325cc e sem drenagem. Não há consenso sobre a lipotransferência mamária e o manejo da contratura capsular e da deformidade da bolha dupla.

Introduction: The latest research by the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS) showed that 2,524,115 plastic surgeries were performed in Brazil in 2017. Breast augmentation has been one of the most commonly-performed plastic procedures in Brazil, totaling more than 200,000 surgeries in 2016. The objective is to evaluate the current practices and trends in breast augmentation in Brazil. Methods: A 31- item questionnaire was constructed and sent to 6,200 active members of the Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery (SBCP). The research addressed some current trends and controversial practices in five areas: current controversies, new technologies, breast implants, technical considerations in secondary procedures, and demographic aspects. The questionnaire was designed to profile practices, procedures, and beliefs among plastic surgeons regarding the use of breast implants in Brazil. Results: A total of 505 responses were collected, representing a response rate around 10%, which is well above the average response rate for Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery (SBCP) questionnaires. The results were distributed in five tables by area of interest. Conclusion: In this study, the most common practices included the use of microtexture round implants and polyurethane-coated silicone as the primary procedure, a subglandular pocket, inframammary incisions, preoperative sizing with round implant samples, intravenous and oral antibiotics, double irrigation antibiotics, an implant size that was generally less than 325 cc, and without drainage. There is no consensus on breast lip balancing and the management of capsular contracture and double bubble deformity.

Implante submuscular em duplo bolso para mastopexias de aumento / Submuscular implant in double pocket for augmentation mastopexy

Introdução: A utilização de implantes mamários vem aumentando. O posicionamento do implante na literatura é relatado como subglandular, subfascial, submuscular total e parcial, cada qual com suas indicações, limitações e complicações. Métodos: Este trabalho mostra uma manobra para cobertura do implante e sua sustentação utilizando dois retalhos musculares. Entre novembro de 2009 e abril de 2012, foram analisados 80 casos de pacientes submetidas à inclusão de implantes em posição submuscular em duplo bolso, independentemente da via de acesso, do grau de flacidez e ptose. Resultados: A versatilidade desta manobra permite que seja utilizada em uma ampla variedade de mamas, desde aumento sem flacidez a mamopexia com implante, podendo ser realizada por via periareolar, inframamária ou aberta. Foi utilizada em cirurgias primárias e secundárias, com ou sem uso de retalho de tecido mamário e retirada de pele. Conclusões: A cobertura do implante com o músculo peitoral pela técnica de duplo bolso demonstrou ótimos resultados, com baixo índice de complicações e reintervenções. Esta técnica está sendo utilizada em uma maior casuística e um seguimento mais longo tem sido feito para confirmar os resultados obtidos até o momento.

Introduction: The use of implants is steadily increasing. Reports have been published of implants in the subglandular, subfascial, total, and partial submuscular positions each with its indications, limitations, and complications. Methods: This study presents a technique to cover the implant and support it using two muscle flaps. Between November 2009 and April 2012, 80 patients who submitted to inclusion of implants in the submuscular position in double pocket were analyzed, regardless of the access route, the degree of flaccidity, and ptosis. Results: The versatility of this maneuver allows it to be used in a wide variety of breasts, from breast augmentation without flaccidity to mastopexy with implant, and may be carried out via the periareolar, inframammary, or open access routes. It was used in primary and secondary surgeries, with or without the use of breast tissue flap and removal of skin. Conclusions: The coverage of the implant with the pectoral muscle by the double pocket technique displayed excellent results, with a low rate of complications and reinterventions. This technique is being studied in a larger sample with a longer follow-up to confirm the results obtained so far.

Ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia after augmentation mammoplasty: case series / Bloqueio do plano eretor da espinha guiado por ultrassom para analgesia pós-operatória em mamoplastia de aumento: série de casos

Abstract Augmentation mammoplasty is the third most frequently performed esthetic surgical procedure worldwide. Breast augmentation with prosthetic implants requires the insertion of an implant under breast tissue, which causes severe pain due to tissue extension and surgical trauma to separated tissues. In this case series, we present the successful pain management of six patients with ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Plane block after augmentation mammoplasty. In the operating room, all patients received standard monitoring. While the patients were sitting, the anesthesiologist performed bilateral ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block at the level of T5. Bupivacaine (0.25%, 20 mL) was injected deep to the erector spinae muscle. Then, induction of anesthesia was performed with propofol, fentanyl, and rocuronium bromide. All patients received intravenous dexketoprofen trometamol for analgesia. The mean operation time was 72.5±6 min and none of the patients received additional fentanyl. The mean pain scores of the patients were 1, 2, 2, and 2 at the postoperative 5th, 30th, 60th and 120th minutes, respectively. At the postoperative 24th hour, the mean Numerical Rating Scale score was 1. The mean intravenous tramadol consumption was 70.8±15.3 mg in the first 24 h. None of the patients had any complications related to erector spinae plane block.

Resumo A mamoplastia de aumento é o terceiro procedimento cirúrgico estético mais feito em todo o mundo. A cirurgia com implantes protéticos requer a inserção de um implante sob o tecido mamário, o que causa dor intensa devido à extensão do tecido e trauma cirúrgico aos tecidos separados. Nesta série de casos, apresentamos o manejo bem-sucedido da dor em seis pacientes com bloqueio do plano eretor da espinha guiado por ultrassom (US-ESP) após mamoplastia de aumento. Na sala de cirurgia, todas as pacientes receberam monitoramento padrão. Enquanto as pacientes estavam sentadas, o anestesiologista fez o bloqueio US-ESP bilateral no nível de T5. Bupivacaína (0,25%, 20 mL) foi injetada entre os músculos romboide maior e eretor da espinha. Em seguida, a indução anestésica foi feita com propofol, fentanil e rocurônio. Todas as pacientes receberam dexcetoprofeno trometamol por via venosa para analgesia. O tempo médio de operação foi de 72,5 ± 6 minutos e nenhuma das pacientes recebeu fentanil adicional. Os escores médios de dor das pacientes foram 1, 2, 2 e 2 no 5°, 30°, 60° e 120° minutos de pós-operatório, respectivamente. No 24° dia de pós-operatório, o escore médio da Escala de Avaliação Numérica (NRS) foi 1. O consumo médio de tramadol foi de 40 ± 33,4 mg nas primeiras 24 horas. Nenhuma das pacientes apresentou complicações relacionadas ao bloqueio US-ESP.