Direct Sub-Scarpal Lipectomy Combined With Liposuction in Abdominoplasty: An Analysis of Safety & Efficacy in 200 Consecutive Patients.

BACKGROUND: Abdominoplasty procedures continue to evolve as combining techniques such as suction-assisted lipectomy or direct sub-scarpal lipectomy have proven to be powerful adjuncts to achieve optimal aesthetic results. However, there is apprehension in combining techniques simultaneously given the potential to affect the vascularity of the abdominoplasty flap. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of simultaneous direct sub-scarpal lipectomy combined with liposuction in abdominoplasty patients. METHODS: A 4-year retrospective review of consecutive abdominoplasties (n = 200) performed by a single surgeon was conducted. Liposuction of the abdominal flap and flanks was performed in all patients. After raising the abdominoplasty flap, undermining was performed to just beyond the xyphoid, lower rib margins superiorly, and to the anterior axillary line laterally. Fat deep to Scarpa's fascia was then removed by direct tangential excision in all zones of the abdominal flap. RESULTS: Average values included: Age, 42.19; BMI, 28.10 kg/m2; follow up, 7 months. Seroma occurred in 13 patients (6.5%), superficial wound dehiscence treated with local wound care in 16 patients (8%), hypertrophic scarring in 16 patients (8%), partial umbilical necrosis in one patient (0.5%), and partial umbilical epidermolysis in six patients (3%). No patients experienced major or minor full-thickness tissue loss. No patients needed reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous direct excision of sub-scarpal fat with liposuction of the abdomen and flanks does not appear to subject any zone of the abdominoplasty flap to increased risks of vascular compromise. No flap necroses were observed. The use of our technique is safe and may provide superior abdominoplasty results.

Symptom Improvement After Explantation With No Capsulectomy for Systemic Symptoms Associated With Breast Implants.

BACKGROUND: The previously published Aesthetic Foundation (ASERF) biospecimen study documented systemic symptom improvement after implant removal regardless of the type of capsulectomy performed. A limitation of that study was that all subjects had at least some capsule removed for biospecimen analysis of heavy metals, microbes, and capsule histology. OBJECTIVES: Systemic symptoms associated with breast implants (SSBI) describes a group of patients who attribute a variety of symptoms to their implants. Previous studies have shown symptom improvement after implant removal in these patients which is independent of whether part or all the implant capsule has been removed. This study evaluates implant removal with no capsule removed in symptomatic and control subjects. METHODS: Eligible study subjects were sequentially enrolled at five investigator sites. The SSBI Cohort included patients with systemic symptoms they attributed to their implants requesting explantation. The non-SSBI Cohort included subjects without systemic symptoms attributed to their implants, requesting explantation with or without replacement. All subjects agreed to undergo explantation without removal of any capsule. RESULTS: Systemic symptom improvement was noted in SSBI subjects without removal of the implant capsule, comparable to the results of our previously published study. SSBI patients showed a 74% reduction in self-reported symptoms at six months with no capsulectomy which was not statistically different from partial or total capsulectomies (p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Explantation with or without capsulectomy provides symptom improvement in patients with systemic symptoms they associate with their implants.

Longevity of Post-Explantation Systemic Symptom Improvement and Potential Etiologies: Findings From the ASERF Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 4.

BACKGROUND: Breast Implant Illness (BII) describes a variety of symptoms reported by patients with breast implants. Biospecimens data revealed minimal statistical differences between BII and non-BII cohorts. Baseline analysis of PROMIS data demonstrated significant differences between the BII cohort and the 2 control cohorts. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine if patients in the BII cohort obtained any symptom improvement after explantation, whether symptom improvement was related to the type of capsulectomy, and which symptoms improved. METHODS: A prospective blinded study enrolled 150 consecutive patients divided equally into 3 cohorts. Baseline demographic data and a systemic symptoms survey, including PROMIS validated questionnaires, were obtained at baseline, 3 to 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were enrolled between 2019 and 2021. Follow-up at 1 year included 94% of the BII cohort and 77% of non-BII and mastopexy cohorts. At 1 year, 88% of patients showed at least partial symptom improvement, with a reduction of 2 to 20 symptoms. The PROMIS score in the BII cohort decreased at 1 year for anxiety, sleep disturbances, and fatigue. Systemic symptom improvement was noted out to 1 year in the BII cohort regardless of the type of capsulectomy performed. CONCLUSIONS: Parts 1-3 in this series concluded that there were no consistent differences in biospecimen results between the cohorts. Unlike the data observed in the biospecimen analysis, BII patients had heightened symptoms and poorer PROMIS scores at baseline compared to the control cohorts. The reduction of negative expectations and a potential nocebo effect could contribute to this improvement.

The Efficacy and Associated Learning Curve of Office-Based High-Resolution Ultrasound to Detect Shell Failure in Breast Implants.

BACKGROUND: High-resolution ultrasound (HRUS) is widely employed in plastic surgery practices to detect implant rupture prior to revisional surgery. Published research has found a good overall accuracy of shell failure detection. The literature often references a learning curve associated with incorporating this imaging technique into a medical practice, but it has yet to be visualized or defined. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to calculate current testing statistics for use of HRUS to detect shell failure and to define the learning curve associated with the predicted improvement reflected by statistics of test and surgeon proficiency. METHODS: A retrospective review of sequential in-office HRUSs on patients with breast implants was conducted across 2 plastic surgery practices. Preoperative ultrasound reports and intraoperative findings were compared. Test statistics were calculated for each group of 10 subsequent patients, and a regression analysis was performed to define the learning curve. RESULTS: A total of 480 implants were examined and averages for all test statistics were calculated. All were higher than most of the previously reported literature standards. The regression analysis showed a linear improvement for both sensitivity and specificity over time, with significant improvement in sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Results show that HRUS is highly effective in detecting shell failure in breast implants. There is also a calculable linear improvement for all test values of the HRUS over time. Surgeons were able to remain above the literature standard for sensitivity after their 60th HRUS reading. This improvement shows that continued use and practice of the imaging technique allow for more accurate findings.

Microbes, Histology, Blood Analysis, Enterotoxins, and Cytokines: Findings From the ASERF Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 3.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increasing need to acquire rigorous scientific data to answer the concerns of physicians, patients, and the FDA regarding the self-reported illness identified as breast implant illness (BII). There are no diagnostic tests or specific laboratory values to explain the reported systemic symptoms described by these patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if there are quantifiable laboratory findings that can be identified in blood, capsule tissue pathology, or microbes that differentiate women with systemic symptoms they attribute to their implants from 2 control groups. METHODS: A prospective blinded study enrolled 150 subjects into 3 cohorts: (A) women with systemic symptoms they attribute to implants who requested implant removal; (B) women with breast implants requesting removal or exchange who did not have symptoms attributed to implants; and (C) women undergoing cosmetic mastopexy who have never had any implanted medical device. Capsule tissue underwent detailed analysis and blood was sent from all 3 cohorts to evaluate for markers of inflammation. RESULTS: No significant histologic differences were identified between the cohorts, except there were more capsules with synovial metaplasia in the non-BII cohort. There was no statistical difference in thyroid-stimulating hormone, vitamin D levels, or complete blood count with differential between the cohorts. Next-generation sequencing revealed no statistically significant difference in positivity between Cohort A and B. Of the 12 cytokines measured, 3 cytokines, interleukin (IL)-17A, IL-13, and IL-22, were found to be significantly more often elevated in sera of subjects in Cohort A than in Cohorts B or C. The enterotoxin data demonstrated an elevation in immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin A in Cohort A. There was no correlation between the presence of IgE or IgG anti-Staphylococcal antibody and a positive next-generation sequencing result. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the current literature by demonstrating few identifiable biomedical markers to explain the systemic symptoms self-reported by patients with BII.

Heavy Metals in Breast Implant Capsules and Breast Tissue: Findings from the Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 2.

BACKGROUND: Breast Implant Illness (BII), as described in recent medical literature and by social media, describes a range of symptoms in patients with breast implants for which there are no physical findings or laboratory results that explain their symptoms. OBJECTIVES: Part 2 of this study aims to determine whether heavy metals are present in the capsules around saline and silicone implants and if there are statistical differences in the type or level of these metals between women with or without symptoms. Demographic data was collected to investigate potential alternate sources of metals: inhaled, absorbed, or ingested. METHODS: A prospective, blinded study enrolled 150 consecutive subjects divided equally into in three cohorts: (A) women with systemic symptoms they attribute to their implants who requested implant removal, (B) women with breast implants requesting removal or exchange who do not have symptoms they attribute to their implants, and (C) women undergoing cosmetic mastopexy who have never had any implanted medical device. Capsule tissue was removed from Cohort A and B for analysis of 22 heavy metals. Additionally, breast tissue was obtained from a control group with no previous exposure to any implanted medical device. RESULTS: The study was performed between 2019-2021. Heavy metal content was compared between the capsule tissue from Cohort A and B. The only statistically significant differences identified in Cohort A were higher levels of arsenic and zinc, and lower levels of cobalt, manganese, silver, and tin. There were no elevated levels or statistically significant differences in the other metals tested between Cohorts A and B. CONCLUSIONS: This study analyzes the metal content in capsules surrounding both saline and silicone breast implants. Heavy metals were also detected in the non-implant control group breast tissue, with some metals at numerically higher levels than either breast implant cohort. Smoking, gluten free diets, dietary supplements, and the presence of tattoos were all identified as statistically significant sources of arsenic and zinc in Cohort A. The risk of heavy metal toxicity should not be used as an indication for total capsulectomy if patients elect to remove their breast implants.

Impact of Capsulectomy Type on Post-Explantation Systemic Symptom Improvement: Findings From the ASERF Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 1.

BACKGROUND: Breast Implant Illness (BII) is a term used to describe a variety of symptoms by patients with breast implants for which there are no abnormal physical or laboratory findings to explain their symptoms. There currently exists a difference of opinion among clinicians and patients concerning the diagnosis and treatment of patients self-reporting BII. OBJECTIVES: The first aim of this study was to determine if there is a valid indication for "en bloc" capsulectomy in patients self-reporting BII and if the type of capsulectomy performed alters long-term symptom improvement. The second goal was to identify any clinical laboratory differences between the cohorts. This study was funded by the Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF). METHODS: A prospective blinded study enrolled 150 consecutive subjects divided equally into 3 cohorts: (A) women with systemic symptoms they attribute to their implants who requested implant removal; (B) women with breast implants requesting removal or exchange who do not have symptoms they attribute to their implants; and (C) women undergoing cosmetic mastopexy who have never had any implanted medical device. The subject's baseline demographic data and a systemic symptoms survey, including PROMIS validated questionnaires, was obtained before surgery and at 3-6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. Blood was collected from all 3 cohorts and implant capsules were collected from Cohorts A and B. RESULTS: 150 patients were enrolled between 2019-2021. Follow-up at 3-6 weeks for all 3 cohorts was between 98%-100%, 78%-98% at 6-months, and 1 year data is currently at 80%. The type of capsulectomy; intact total, total, or partial all showed similar symptom improvement with no statistical difference in the reduction of symptoms based on the type of capsulectomy. CONCLUSIONS: This study addresses one of the most discussed questions by plastic surgeons, patients, their advocates, and social media. The findings show that patients who self-report BII demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in their symptoms after explantation and that this improvement persists for at least 6 months. This improvement in self-reported systemic symptoms was seen regardless of the type of capsulectomy performed.

The Etiologies of Chest Wall and Breast Asymmetry and Improvement in Breast Augmentation.

Patients presenting for correction of breast and chest wall asymmetries may have undergone numerous thoracic procedures in early childhood and may have suffered profound psychosocial effects. Complex congenital syndromes as well as mild breast asymmetries should be carefully documented using objective measurements, photography, and 3-dimensional simulations when available. Shaped highly cohesive breast implants offer plastic surgeons more possibilities and precision by fine-tuning the gel distribution and specific volumes required to correct the hypoplastic elements. Long-lasting correction of asymmetry can be obtained when patients are not oversized, and care is taken to avoid visibility, palpability, and malposition problems.