Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Reconstruction After Breast-Conserving Therapy and Radiation: Complications and Oncologic Safety.

INTRODUCTION: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers improved, patient-centered outcomes with demonstrated oncologic safety ( Ann Surg Oncol 2020;27:344-351). Indications for NSM continue to expand to patients outside of the traditional eligibility criteria, including those with prior breast-conserving therapy (BCT) with radiotherapy. Currently, limited data exist evaluating both short- and long-term outcomes in patients proceeding to NSM after prior BCT. METHODS: All patients undergoing bilateral NSM in a single institution from 2002 through 2017 with history of prior BCT were included in the final cohort, without exclusions. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patient demographics, operative details, and complications. Outcomes assessed included early complications (<30 days from NSM), late complications (>30 days), rates of prosthetic failure, unplanned reoperations, and reconstructive failures, as well as oncologic safety. Student t , χ 2 , and Fisher exact tests were used to analyze outcomes of paired (BCT vs non-BCT) breasts within each patient. RESULTS: A total of 17 patients undergoing 34 NSMs were included. Each had a history of BCT and either ipsilateral breast recurrence (64.7%), risk-reducing NSM (23.5%), or a new contralateral primary cancer (11.8%). The cohort had a mean age of 51.1 years. With regard to acute complications (ischemia, infection, nipple-areolar complex or flap ischemia or necrosis, and wound dehiscence), there was no significant difference noted between breasts with prior BCT versus no prior BCT overall (41.2% vs 35.3%, respectively; P = 0.724). Complications occurring after 30 days postoperatively (capsular contracture, contour abnormality, animation deformity, bottoming out, rotation, and rippling) in prior BCT breasts versus no prior BCT had no significant differences overall (58.8% vs 41.2% respectively; P = 0.303). The mean follow-up was 5.5 years, during which no patients had a reported locoregional or distant recurrence in either breast. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in early or late complications were identified between breasts in patients undergoing bilateral NSM with a history of unilateral BCT and XRT. In the 5.5 years of follow-up, there were no recurrences, lending support to NSM for management of recurrent disease in addition to National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended total mastectomy. We propose that NSM should not be contraindicated in patients exposed to radiation with BCT.

Direct-to-Implant versus Immediate Free Flap Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Both direct-to-implant (DTI) and immediate free flap (FF) breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have been described in the literature. However, there is a paucity of comparative studies between these two techniques. Furthermore, existing studies do not control for factors influencing ischemic complications. METHODS: A retrospective review of all NSMs performed at a single institution between January of 2014 and January of 2020 was performed. Immediate FF reconstructions were propensity score matched using probit regression to identify a comparable DTI cohort based on mastectomy weight, smoking, age, and history of radiotherapy. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day ischemic complications. RESULTS: One hundred eight NSMs performed in 79 patients were included. Average age was 45.7 ± 10.5 years and mean body mass index was 27.1 ± 4.8 kg/m 2 . There were 54 breasts in both the DTI group and the immediate FF group. Median mastectomy weight in the DTI group was 508 g (interquartile range, 264 g) as compared with 473 g (interquartile range, 303 g) in the FF group ( P = 0.792). There was no significant difference in the rate of partial nipple-areola complex necrosis in the DTI and FF groups (5.6% versus 3.7%, respectively; P = 0.500) or mastectomy flap necrosis (5.6% versus 11.1%; P = 0.297). Both the DTI and FF groups had a total nipple-areola complex necrosis rate of 1.9% ( P = 0.752). CONCLUSION: Both DTI and immediate FF reconstruction can be safely offered to patients undergoing NSM while providing the benefit of a single reconstructive procedure. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Selecting a chest masculinization plastic surgeon: a survey of transgender patients.

Background: Chest masculinization is a commonly performed gender-affirming procedure in transmasculine and non-binary patients and has increased in prevalence in recent years despite continued barriers to surgical care. With the expansion of insurance coverage and trained surgeons, patients at times have the opportunity to be selective in choosing their gender-affirming surgeon. This study aimed to investigate factors that transmasculine individuals consider important when selecting their chest masculinization plastic surgeon. Methods: All patients who underwent chest masculinization with a single surgeon between January 2018 and December 2021 were surveyed via an online questionnaire to rate 21 factors associated with surgeon selection. Multiple-choice questions and free text space were included to further clarify patient preferences. Results were analyzed to rate factors in order of importance. Results: One hundred three individuals completed the survey, generating a response rate of 49.5%. Average patient age at time of surgery was 27.0 years, and 2.0% of patients had prior gender affirmation surgery (GAS). The top five most important factors were surgeon specialization in GAS, insurance coverage, board certification, number of times surgeon has performed procedure, and availability of Before and After photographs. The five least important factors were age of surgeon, medical publications, availability of YouTube videos, location of training, and surgeon presence on social media. Conclusions: Transmasculine patients employ distinct criteria when selecting a chest masculinization gender-affirming plastic surgeon. An improved understanding of these factors informs providers of ways to enhance patient access to information and gender-affirming care.Level of evidence: Not gradable.

Review of Autologous Fat Grafting in Postmastectomy Reconstruction Patients: Nonroutine Diagnostics and Oncologic Safety.

Autologous fat grafting (FG) is increasingly used as an adjunctive reconstruction technique to augment volume, achieve symmetry, and improve contour deformities. This study aims to characterize the oncologic and surgical safety of FG in women undergoing autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) or implant-based reconstruction (IBR). Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients undergoing FG at a multi-site single health system between 2015 to 2018. A total of 228 eligible breasts from 155 patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Patients were divided by reconstructive technique. Bivariate analyses compared baseline characteristics and post-FG outcomes. Results: Mean age for patients undergoing ABR (129 breasts) was 52.8 years compared to 48.6 years for those undergoing IBR (99 breasts; P = 0.002). A heavier volume of fat was grafted per ABR breast (143.8mL) than per IBR breast (102.2mL; P = 0.002). Forty-seven (20.6%) breasts required FG revision, more frequently in ABR breasts (31.0%) than IBR breasts (7.1%; P < 0.001). Following FG, 17.5% of patients experienced a palpable mass, and 18.9% of breasts underwent nonroutine diagnostics or procedures, with no difference between ABR and IBR groups. Most biopsies noted benign findings such as fat necrosis (2.2%) or a benign mass (0.9%), with recurrence only noted in two patients (0.9%). Mean follow-up was 20.4 months. Conclusion: FG is a safe, surgically simple procedure more commonly performed in ABR breasts. FG use in ABR and IBR breasts is oncologically safe, with no impairment in breast surveillance and low rates of locoregional recurrence, but possibly increased incidence of nonroutine imaging and biopsies.

Patients prescribed antithrombotic medication in elective implant-based breast reconstruction are high risk for major thrombotic complications.

INTRODUCTION: Implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is the most frequently performed breast reconstruction procedure in the USA. As the US population ages, an increasing number of these patients suffer from comorbidities requiring the use of chronic antithrombotic therapy. Outcomes following IBR in patients prescribed these medications are not well understood. MATERIALS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: An all-payor administrative claims database (52 million patients) was queried for patients undergoing IBR from 2010 through 2018. Patients who were prescribed therapeutic antithrombotic therapy, and those who were not, were matched in a one-to-one fashion for comorbidities independently associated with bleeding and thrombo-ischemic events following first-stage IBR. Cox proportional hazards models investigated the 90-day risk of bleeding and major thrombo-ischemic events following IBR. RESULTS: Of the 36,379 patients found to have undergone IBR, 2,024 patients were perfectly matched for age and high-risk comorbidities. Patients prescribed antithrombotic drugs had increased 90-day risk for all thrombo-ischemic complications (HR: 5.62, 95% CI: 3.53-8.95, p < 0.0001), as well as a significantly increased risk for 90-day DVT, 90-day PE, 90-day myocardial infarction, and 90-day stroke. Patients specifically prescribed antiplatelet drugs, direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), and warfarin had a significantly increased risk for transfusion. CONCLUSION: Patients prescribed antithrombotic therapy had a significantly increased risk for life-threatening thrombotic events and transfusion following elective IBR. This suggests a role for further monitoring and a potential role for multi- and interdisciplinary interventions to help mitigate this risk. These interventions can be the subject of future prospective studies.

A Critical Appraisal of Late Complications of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers improved aesthetics without compromising oncologic safety. Subpectoral breast reconstruction has long been standard practice, although prepectoral reconstruction has recently resurged in popularity. Due to this recent paradigm shift, studies comparing long-term outcomes by reconstructive plane are lacking. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive NSMs with implant-based reconstruction in either the prepectoral or subpectoral plane from 2014 to 2018. Patient demographics, implant specifications, and operative details were collected to evaluate primary outcomes of prosthetic failure and unplanned reoperations by reconstructive plane. Secondary outcomes included animation deformity, capsular contracture, rippling, plane change, and minor revisions, including fat grafting. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 405 NSMs were performed on 228 women (subpectoral = 202, prepectoral = 203), with a mean follow-up of 2.1 years (standard deviation 1.1). During the study period (2014-2018), a shift from subpectoral to predominantly prepectoral mastectomies occurred in 2017. Prepectoral reconstructions were more often direct-to-implant (DTI) compared with subpectoral (73.9% vs. 33.2%, p < 0.001). Prepectoral reconstruction demonstrated significantly reduced prosthetic failure (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.65) and unplanned reoperations (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.77) compared with subpectoral reconstruction after controlling for implant characteristics and other possible confounders. Prepectoral patients experienced decreased animation deformity overall (19.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), with plane changes seen in 10.6% of subpectoral reconstructions for animation deformity correction. Prepectoral patients experienced an increase in rippling (15.3% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.003) without a significant increase in fat grafting (subpectoral = 11.6% vs. prepectoral = 12.3%, p = 0.829). CONCLUSIONS: This single-institution experience compares late complications of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based reconstruction following NSM. Prepectoral reconstruction can be safely performed with improved understanding of mastectomy planes, readily affords DTI reconstruction, and reduces animation deformity at the expense of rippling.

Incidence of Complications in Chest Wall Masculinization for the Obese Female-to-Male Transgender Population: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Chest masculinization is aimed at aligning physical appearance of female-to-male (FtM) transgender patients to their identifying gender. Despite limited evidence, obese FtM patients have historically been denied this procedure due to concerns of complications. We reviewed chest masculinization in the high body mass index (BMI) population to analyze the outcomes. METHODS: A Medstar system single surgeon retrospective case review was performed of all FtM patients who underwent chest masculinization from Jan 2018 to Dec 2019 with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m2. Primary outcomes were mastectomy-site complications. RESULTS: Twenty-seven obese FtM patients who underwent bilateral chest masculinization were identified. Mean BMI was 39.2 kg/m2 (SD 5.2). Preoperatively, the majority of patients had a cup size of D or larger (77.3%) and grade 3 ptosis (80.0%). Overall rate of complications was 31.5% at median follow-up of 2.1 months. Individual complications included: partial nipple graft loss 18.5%, total nipple graft loss 5.6%, seroma 3.7%, hematoma 3.7%, infection 2.9%. No complications necessitated return to the operating room. However, the majority of patients (77.8%) were completely satisfied with their aesthetic outcome. CONCLUSION: Mastectomy can be safely performed for chest masculinization in obese FtM patients. The rate of acute complications is comparable to that of non-obese patients despite a mean BMI near 40 kg/m2 in this case series. A safe procedure with high satisfaction, obese FtM patients should not be excluded from the increased quality of life and dysphoria reduction chest wall masculinization offers.

Decreased postoperative pain and opioid use following prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective cohort study: Pain after pre- versus subpectoral reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral (PP) breast reconstruction is now commonly performed and minimizes dissection of the pectoralis major muscle. Data are lacking comparing the immediate postoperative recovery of these patients as compared with traditional subpectoral (SP) breast reconstruction. METHODS: From December 2015 to February 2017, 73 patients underwent PP prosthetic-based reconstruction at a single academic institution. PP cases were matched 1:1, by age and stage, to patients undergoing traditional SP reconstruction. Analysis of postoperative pain (visual analog scale) and opioid use (oral morphine equivalents, OME), was performed with both bi- and multivariate analyses. Additional outcomes explored included length of stay (LOS) and reconstructive intervention by plane of prosthetic reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients were included in the final cohort. PP reconstruction was associated with higher rates of direct-to-implant reconstruction (84.9% vs. 34.3%, p <0.001) and higher rates of initial prosthetic fill (401.53 mL vs. 280.88 mL, p<0.001). Patients undergoing PP reconstruction had significantly reduced postoperative pain (4.29 vs. 5.44, p<0.001) and in-hospital opioid use (62.63 mg OME vs. 98.84 mg OME, p = 0.03) compared with SP patients. This result remained in multivariate analysis for both pain (3.94 vs. 5.25, p<0.001) and opioid use (17.14 mg OME vs. 63.03 mg OME, p = 0.03). Additionally, patients undergoing PP reconstruction had significantly reduced overall LOS on multivariate analysis (21.36 vs. 26.28 h, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Following mastectomy, PP breast reconstruction results in significantly reduced pain, opioid use, and hospital LOS compared with SP reconstruction.

Factors contributing to persistent rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in breast cancer patients: Examination of 1051 mastectomies across a single health system.

The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) outlined definitive guidelines for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in 2016. Despite this, rates of CPM have remained steady. The objective of this study was to identify factors contributing to persistent over-delivery of CPM. Breast cancer patients across 8 hospitals in a single healthcare system from 2014 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided according to whether they received nonindicated CPMs versus other mastectomy types. Nonindicated CPM were those procedures not meeting ASBrS consensus guidelines for recommended patients. CPM rate was calculated for each year in the study period. Patient, disease, provider, and system level factors were obtained. Bivariate analysis was used to identify variables for inclusion in a backward multivariable model. A total of 1,051 patients were analyzed. Nonindicated CPM rates by year remained steady throughout the time period (P = .391). In multivariable regression, patient, disease, and provider level factors were associated with odds of undergoing CPM. Every unit increase in age was associated with a 4% reduction in odds of undergoing CPM (CI 0.941-0.986). Stage 3 breast cancer compared to stage 1 had 53% lower odds of CPM (CI 0.288-0.757). Implant-based breast reconstruction had 2.9-fold higher odds of CPM compared to no reconstruction (CI 1.476-5.551). No system level factors were statistically significant. CPM rates have not notably decreased since the ASBrS consensus statement with certain patient and provider factors impacting persistent overuse of CPM. These results inform oncologic and reconstructive providers of factors contributing to continued use of a nonindicated procedure.

Opioid-free anesthesia for patients undergoing mastectomy: A matched comparison.

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is being implemented in breast surgery due to increased awareness of adverse effects and the national opioid crisis. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of OFA on postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in mastectomy patients. A single-institution matched-cohort study was conducted from 2014 to 2017 on 48 women undergoing mastectomy, with the majority also undergoing immediate prosthetic-based reconstruction. Patients received either conventional anesthesia (CA) or a novel OFA regimen. Primary outcomes included postoperative pain scores, opioid use, and need for antiemetics that were evaluated both in the PACU and on the hospital floors. No significant differences were found in PACU opioid or antiemetic use between OFA and CA. Pain scores in PACU and on POD0 were not significantly different. There was a significant but modest decrease on POD1 in OFA patients (3.9 vs. 5.1, P = .046). Additionally, patients with higher intraoperative opioid regimens experienced significantly increased PONV (P = .023). This study demonstrated the efficacy of OFA in controlling postoperative pain and nausea compared to a traditional opioid-based regimen. Regardless of intraoperative opioids, patients experienced similar postoperative opioid requirements and PONV with decreased pain scores. Thus, OFA is feasible in mastectomy patients and should be further evaluated in select patients.