Hematoma and deep surgical site infection following primary breast augmentation: A retrospective review of 1128 patients.

BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation is one of the most frequently performed cosmetic surgery worldwide. Some of the most severe short-term complications after breast augmentation are hematoma and deep surgical site infection. However, these complications are relatively rare; therefore, large patient populations are required to perform statistical analyses. In this study, we provide a detailed analysis of the complications after primary breast augmentation with an emphasis on deep surgical site infection and hematoma. METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of women who underwent primary breast augmentation without the use of pocket irrigation between 2012 and 2019 in a single private clinic. A cumulative hazard function and a multivariate analysis on the risk of hematoma were performed. RESULTS: We included 1128 patients in the study. Thirty patients (2.7%) developed postoperative hematoma after a median time of 14 h (IQR 5 h-9 days). Six patients (0.5%) contracted a deep surgical site infection after a median time of 14 days (range 4-41 days). Age, BMI, implant volume, or implant placement was not significantly associated with hematoma. CONCLUSION: Our findings support that the risk of hematoma after primary breast augmentation is highest within the first 24 h after the surgery. This time period should be considered when planning postoperative care for these patients. We did not find an increased rate of deep surgical site infection compared with studies of breast augmentations with pocket irrigation. Further studies and meta-analyses are needed to explore the effect of pocket irrigation and other risk factors.

Breast Augmentation with Microtextured Anatomical Implants in 653 Women: Indications and Risk of Rotation.

BACKGROUND: Anatomical implants provide a wide range of options in terms of implant dimensions for breast augmentation. Nevertheless, many surgeons choose not to use anatomical implants due to the risk of rotation malposition and because their advantages over round implants are not clearly defined. METHODS: A retrospective review of medical records was performed on all women who underwent breast augmentation or implant exchange with microtextured anatomical implants from 2012 to 2019 in a single private clinic. The authors focused on the outcomes of a subgroup of women with glandular ptosis and nipple placement below the inframammary fold who underwent breast augmentation with anatomical implants. Furthermore, the incidence and risk factors for implant rotation were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 653 women underwent primary breast augmentation (n = 529) or implant exchange (n = 124) with anatomical implants. The median follow-up period was 2.7 years (interquartile range, 1.6 to 3.9 years). The incidence of implant rotation was 14 (2.6 percent) in the primary augmentation group and four (3.2 percent) in the implant exchange group. Implant rotation was not associated with type of surgery (p = 0.76), implant projection (p = 0.23), or implant height (p = 0.48). The authors successfully used anatomical implants to elevate the nipple in 92.9 percent of the women with glandular ptosis without using a mastopexy. CONCLUSIONS: The study results indicate that the rotation risk with microtextured implants is similar to that with macrotextured implants. Furthermore, the authors found that high-projection anatomical implants can be used as an alternative to augmentation-mastopexy in women with glandular ptosis. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Breast Reduction with Deskinning of a Superomedial Pedicle: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In most breast reduction techniques, the pedicle of the nipple-areola complex (NAC) is de-epithelialized to preserve the subdermal plexus, thereby decreasing the risk of NAC necrosis. However, deskinning the pedicle is faster and makes it more pliable, which potentially improves the aesthetic outcome. There is no scientific evidence regarding the beneficial effects of de-epithelialization. In this study, we present data from patients undergoing breast reduction with deskinning of a superomedial pedicle. METHODS: In the period June 2013 to March 2019, a single surgeon performed all breast reductions using a superomedial glandular pedicle. The patients were included retrospectively and data were collected by reviewing the medical records. The NAC necrosis rate was compared with data from the literature through a systematic review. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 142 consecutive patients. The median resection weight was 287 g (interquartile range (IQR), 197-399) per breast. No complete NAC necroses occurred during the follow-up period, but two patients (1.4%) developed partial NAC necrosis. In the literature, the rate of NAC necrosis (complete or partial) was 1.5% of patients undergoing breast reduction with de-epithelialization. CONCLUSION: The rate of NAC necrosis after breast reduction with deskinning of the pedicle was comparable with breast reductions with de-epithelialization that has been reported in the literature. Our findings support that the pedicle in breast reduction surgery can be deskinned safely in patients with low resection weights.