Subfascial Gluteal Implant Augmentation.

Gluteal augmentation has gained popularity. It might be the only option to increase volume for lean patients without donor tissue for grafting. Subfascial augmentation is a safe treatment with low morbidity when performed in an appropriate setting with the right equipment. It is an anatomically based procedure. It is very important that pocket dissection is limited to the anatomic landmarks. Implants should be placed vertically to allow for proper contouring. The wound should never be closed with tension. One of the most important steps is postoperative care, which should avoid any pressure on the buttocks and stress on the wound.

Gluteal lift with subfascial implants.

BACKGROUND: Gluteal enhancement surgery includes buttock implants, gluteal flaps, lipografting, and gluteal lifts. However, no information is available on the outcomes achievable using the gluteal lift combined with subfascial gluteal implants. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed to analyze the outcomes of gluteal lift combined with subfascial gluteal implants performed during a 7-year period by a single surgeon at a single institution. RESULTS: During the study period, 114 patients (228 implants) ages 27-68 years (mean 47 years) were found. The follow-up period was 1-7 years (mean 4.5 years). The findings showed seroma in 11.4 % of the patients, hematoma in 5.26 %, minor wound dehiscence in 19.29 %, major wound dehiscence in 1.75 %, minor infection in 1.75 %, implant exposure in 0 %, capsular contracture Becker 3 and 4 in 3.5 %, implant rupture in 0 %, implant malposition in 5.25 %, long-term numbness of the buttock in 0 %, palpability of the implant in 0 %, implant rippling in 0 %, implant rupture in 0 %, wide scars in 41.2 %, need for secondary surgery in 26.31 %, and dissatisfaction with the final volume in 10.52 %. A patient satisfaction rate of 9.6 in 10 was found. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that the gluteal lift combined with gluteal implants placed in the subfascial pocket provided good long-lasting results with an acceptable rate of complications, very high patient satisfaction, and easily concealed scars. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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 .

Intranasal surgical approach for malar alloplastic augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Alloplastic malar augmentation is becoming an increasingly common procedure for enhancement of the midface and an adjunct method of improving the effects of other rejuvenation procedures. OBJECTIVES: The authors present a new surgical approach for placement of malar implants by means of an intranasal incision, which they believe has several advantages over traditional techniques. They also propose a new classification for regions of the midface to assist in augmentation planning. METHODS: Between 1990 and 2010, the authors treated 20 patients with an intranasal approach for alloplastic malar augmentation. Patients were preoperatively divided into three groups: Type 1 included those with adequate nostril opening, including good elasticity of the internal nasal mucosa, allowing a good exposure of the piriform aperture through the nasal speculum; Type 2a included those with inadequate nostril opening; and Type 2b included those who required an alar base correction. Implants were selected according to these classifications and placed with the authors' technique. RESULTS: Of the 20 patients treated, 18 were female and two were male. Ages ranged from 15 to 65 years. Average follow-up was 10 years, and all patients experienced favorable results. There were no major complications, no nerve or vascular supply compromise, and no cases of implant malposition. One patient requested removal of the implant at one year postoperatively despite her good postoperative outcome; overall patient satisfaction was 95%. CONCLUSIONS: The intranasal approach for alloplastic malar augmentation has shown good results for midface enhancement in the authors' hands. In this patient series, results showed excellent overall patient satisfaction and a very low (nearly 0%) complication rate.

Calf implants: a 25-year experience and an anatomical review.

BACKGROUND: Body contouring in the calf region is becoming a more frequently requested procedure. There are several techniques for calf enhancement, including implants, liposuction, and free flaps. Alloplastic augmentation can be performed with several implant types and several layers of pocket dissection. We present our 25 years of experience using the subfascial technique for calf implantation along with an anatomical study to illustrate all the important steps and relevant anatomy of this augmentation technique. METHODS: The subfascial technique was performed in 25 cadavers, in which the important layers were dissected for high-resolution photos of the surgery to learn about the relevant anatomy of the region. Also, we did a retrospective study of our experience with calf implants, studying the aesthetic outcome, the presence of early complications, and the presence of late complications. RESULTS: We performed dissections in 25 cadavers and surgery in 63 patients (126 implants). In our series of patients the final aesthetic index was of 9.8. The early complications were severe postoperative pain (11.11%), infection (0.79%), seroma (21.42%), hematoma (0%), and wound dehiscence (7.14%). The late complications were capsular contracture (Baker grades III and IV) (3.17%), implant rupture (1.58%), implant leaking (0%), implant displacement (3.96%), numbness at the ankle (2.38%), and palpability of the implant (0%). CONCLUSION: The subfascial technique for calf augmentation has complication rates low enough and surgical outcomes good enough to recommend it as the gold standard for alloplastic calf augmentation.

Back to the future: a 15-year experience with polyurethane foam-covered breast implants using the partial-subfascial technique.

BACKGROUND: Implants with a polyurethane foam cover have been used by plastic surgeons since Ashley described them in 1970. Overwhelming evidence confirms the benefits of these implants, especially the extremely low incidence of capsular contracture (grades 3 and 4, Baker classification). On the other hand, except for a transient and self-limited rash, there is no evidence that polyurethane implants present more complications than texturized or smooth gel implants. Due to concerns of polyurethane-induced cancer, these implants were withdrawn in United States after approximately 110,000 American women had received them. This fact, together with the probability that these implants will be reintroduced in the United States, suggests that continued monitoring of their long-term safety and effectiveness is mandatory. METHODS: A retrospective study analyzed the outcomes of 996 implants inserted during a period of 15 years. The incidence of early and late complications was analyzed as well as the aesthetic outcome. RESULTS: The complications evaluated included hematoma (0.6%), infection (0.4%), seroma (0.8%), rash (4.3%), wound dehiscence (0%), capsular contracture (0.4%), implant malposition (0.8%), need for revisional surgery (1.2%), implant rupture (0.7%), rippling (1.8%), and polyurethane-related cancer (0%). Regarding the aesthetic outcome, 95% of the patients expressed satisfaction with their final result. CONCLUSION: The polyurethane foam-covered implants have been proven safe for use in breast surgery. They provide the lowest rate of capsular contracture (0.4% in the current study) and excellent aesthetic results.

Prophylactic mastectomy: is it worth it?

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the second mortality-related cancer and the leading cause of general mortality in women aged 40-55. Prophylactic mastectomy has proved to be effective in several clinical scenarios but is still a somewhat controversial procedure. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study by reviewing the records of all patients who underwent prophylactic mastectomy in a 25-year period. We evaluated the aesthetic and long-term oncologic outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: We had 52 patients, 40 of them unilateral cases (contralateral prophylactic mastectomy) and 12 bilateral (bilateral prophylactic mastectomy) for a total of 64 mastectomized breasts. We had 1 (1.56%) case of unexpected breast cancer in the mastectomy specimens. Forty-two (65.62%) cases had a subcutaneous prophylactic mastectomy and 22 (34.37%) cases had a simple total prophylactic mastectomy. Fifty-eight (90.62%) cases underwent reconstruction with alloplastics and 6 (9.37) cases with autologous tissue of which 5 (7.81%) cases received latissimus dorsi flaps with alloplastic implants and 1 (1.56%) case had a TRAM flap. The complications included 4 (6.25%) breasts that developed capsular contracture, 2 (3.12%) cases of hematoma, and 1 (1.56%) infection. Concerning patient satisfaction, 39 (75%) patients reported being highly satisfied, 10 (19.23%) partially satisfied, and 3 (5.76%) unsatisfied. When we performed the aesthetic evaluation according to our scale, we got an overall aesthetic index of 8.8. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mastectomy is becoming an increasingly frequent procedure. Plastic surgeons should consider the aesthetic outcome when planning mastectomy and reconstruction. Our ability to predict the high-risk population has improved and it is that population who can get the best benefit from this intervention. The recommendation against subcutaneous prophylactic mastectomy lacks scientific evidence. There is plenty of evidence that prophylactic mastectomy lowers the risk of breast cancer in the high-risk population in at least 95%. Our experience with prophylactic mastectomy is extremely satisfactory, with an overall patient satisfaction rate of 94%, no mortality, and an oncologic long-term outcome of 0% of ulterior development of breast cancer. Our series, although relatively small, should provide some insight into the power of this technique and we think all plastic surgeons should have it in their surgical armamentarium and should share their experiences so that this procedure may become more widely accepted. We also think that plastic surgeons should strive for perfecting the technique to reduce the complication rate and therefore help the procedure gain acceptance by the medical community.

Treatment protocol for "Mestizo nose" with open rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop an operative sequence to guide plastic surgeons on how to handle the challenges of "Mestizo nose" during rhinoplasty. This type of nose has characteristics quite different from the Caucasian nose. Rhinoplasties on Mestizo nose represent a surgical challenge because of the anatomical characteristics of a weak frame and thick skin. The Hispanic population has grown, and nowadays a large number of patients requesting rhinoplasty within the US belong to this ethnic group. METHODS: We have developed an operative sequence for the treatment of Mestizo nose. This operative sequence has been tested in 879 rhinoplasties (92.37% females and 7.62% males, aged 15-63 years, mean age = 39 years). All were primary cases. An algorithm on how to approach the different types of Mestizo nose is presented. RESULTS: We had overall good results using our algorithm, with an improvement in the nasal aesthetics of about 54.75%. Complications were postoperative bleeding (1.37%), pain (0.57%), septal hematoma (0.23%), unaesthetic scars (0.34%), and cartilage extrusion (0.11%). Our revision rate was 5%. We present ten complete cases to show our surgical results. CONCLUSION: This operative sequence has allowed us to get predictable and reliable surgical outcomes when used in Mestizo rhinoplasty operations. We think it can be very useful for every plastic surgeon who performs Mestizo nose rhinoplasty, although not all steps need to be performed in every case.