The influence of a previous implant-based breast reconstruction on postoperative sensation of the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap.

BACKGROUND: Implants and DIEP flaps have different outcomes regarding postoperative breast sensation. When compared to the preoperative healthy breast, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) negatively influences postoperative breast sensation. However, it is currently unknown whether a prior IBBR also influences postoperative sensation of a replacing DIEP flap. The goal of this cohort study is to evaluate the influence of an IBBR on the postoperative sensation of a replacing DIEP flap. METHODS: Women were included if they received a DIEP flap reconstruction after mastectomy, with or without prior tissue expander (TE) and/or definitive breast implant. Sensation was measured at four intervals in 9 areas of the breast with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments: T0 (preoperative, implant/no reconstruction), T1 (2-7 months postoperative, DIEP), T2 (± 12 months postoperative, DIEP), Tmax (maximum follow-up, DIEP). Linear mixed-effects models were used to investigate the relationship between an implant/TE prior to the DIEP flap and recovery of breast sensation. RESULTS: 142 women comprising 206 breasts were included. 48 (23.3%) breasts did, and 158 (76.7%) breasts did not have a TE/IBBR prior to their DIEP. No statistically significant or clinically relevant relationships were found between a prior implant/TE and recovery of DIEP flap breast sensation for the flap skin, native skin, or total breast skin at T1, T2, or Tmax. There were also no relationships found after adjustment for the confounders radiation therapy, BMI, diabetes, age, flap weight, follow-up, and nerve coaptation. CONCLUSIONS: An implant/TE prior to a DIEP flap does not influence the recovery of postoperative breast sensation of the DIEP flap.

Current Global Trends in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most frequently performed procedure for breast reconstruction following mastectomy, which involves the surgical placement of breast implants. The approach to breast reconstruction can be divided into two main categories, namely prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR), based on the implant plan and placement technique. In recent years, there has been a significant surge in the popularity of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction, where the implants are positioned above the chest muscle, as opposed to beneath it in the subpectoral approach. However, despite this growing preference, there is a lack of comprehensive data regarding the national trends in the utilization of this technique, thus necessitating further investigation. This narrative review aims to ascertain the current global patterns linked to prepectoral breast reconstruction and elucidate the considerations surrounding patient and implant selection, reconstructive techniques, the utilization of meshes in prepectoral reconstruction, the ensuing outcomes and complications, the ramifications of radiotherapy, and the potential advantages of integrating fat infiltration into the implementation of this technique in breast reconstruction with a focus on published papers in last five years. Conclusion: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has emerged as an appropriate surgical option for individuals seeking breast reconstruction. This development can be attributed to the recent progress made in implant technology, which has significantly enhanced the outcomes of this procedure. Additionally, advancements in mastectomy techniques, autologous fat grafting, and the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have also played a vital role in improving the aesthetic results of prepectoral breast reconstruction. As a result, the significance and effectiveness of this technique in the field of breast reconstruction have been firmly established, making it an essential component of the overall armamentarium available to plastic surgeons for breast reconstruction purposes.

The Impact of Radiation on Nipple Symmetry After Bilateral Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Implant-Based Reconstruction: An Objective Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Radiation therapy can adversely affect outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction, potentially complicating procedures like nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), which is increasingly popular in breast cancer management. This study aims to evaluate the impact of radiation on nipple symmetry in patients undergoing bilateral NSM with implant-based reconstruction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using data from an Emory University review board-approved database. This encompassed bilateral NSMs coupled with immediate implant-based reconstructions. The BCCT.core software was employed to objectively measure nipple asymmetry preoperatively and postoperatively. Metrics, such as Breast Retraction Assessment values, upper nipple retraction, lower breast contour, and nipple to midline (NML) discrepancies were quantified. The study included 80 patients with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up; among them, 15 received radiation therapy (RT) while 65 did not. RESULTS: The reconstructions were divided into tissue expander, used in 39 cases (48.8%), and direct-to-implant (DTI), employed in 41 cases (51.2%). The DTIs were further categorized based on the location of the implant: 22 subpectoral and 19 prepectoral. Radiation was applied to 15 breasts, distributed among prepectoral DTI (4), subpectoral DTI (6), and tissue expander (5). Breast Retraction Assessment scores significantly differed between the nonirradiated and irradiated groups (1.49 vs 2.64, P < 0.0004). Nipple to midline differences and Upper Nipple Retraction also significantly varied postradiation, especially when comparing subpectoral and prepectoral implant placements. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation therapy has a detrimental effect on nipple symmetry after bilateral NSM and implant-based reconstruction, with variations seen regardless of the implant's placement or the reconstructive technique utilized. Specifically, subpectoral reconstructions irradiated were prone to lateral nipple displacement, likely related to radiation-induced pectoralis muscle changes, while prepectoral irradiated reconstructions tended to have increased vertical displacement. These insights are crucial for patient education and surgical planning in the context of radiation and breast reconstruction.

Effectiveness of SCAR-Q for assessment of incisional SCAR after implant-based reconstruction in breast cancer patients: Can it be a tool for incision selection?

Incisional scarring is a factor of cosmetic appearance evaluated after breast reconstruction, along with the shape, position, and size of the breast. This study aimed to examine the effect of the incision scar location on patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction. Using the Japanese version of the SCAR-Q, we assessed the scar appearance, symptoms and psychosocial effects. Plastic surgeons performed assessments using the Manchester Scar Scale. The patients were divided into two groups: those with scars on the margins of the breast (MB group) and those with scars in the breast area (IB group). The results revealed that patients in the MB group reported significantly higher satisfaction with the scar appearance and psychological impact than those in the IB group. However, assessments using the Manchester Scar Scale did not reveal any significant differences between the two groups. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of scar satisfaction after breast reconstruction. Patients tend to prefer and have higher satisfaction with scars along the breast margin, which offers valuable insights into surgical decisions. Further studies with larger and more diverse sample sizes are required for validation.

Impact of polyurethane versus acellular dermal matrix coating on prepectoral reconstruction outcomes: Interface does matter.

BACKGROUND: Interfaces continue to be used in prepectoral breast reconstruction to refine breast appearance, but more clinical data are required to assess their effectiveness. This study compares the rates of capsular contracture, breast esthetics, and patient satisfaction between two commonly used interface materials, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and polyurethane (PU) foam. METHODS: A cross-sectional assessment was conducted on all patients who underwent prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction with an interface material between June 2018 and June 2022. We compared capsular contracture rates (assessed in-person), esthetic outcomes (evaluated by a three-member panel using a specially designed scale), and patient satisfaction (measured using the Breast-Q questionnaire) among the members of the interface groups. RESULTS: Among the 79 reconstructed breasts (20 bilateral cases), 35 were reconstructed using ADM and 44 using PU implants. The ADM group had a significantly higher frequency of Baker III/IV capsular contracture compared with the PU group (14.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.014) and lower ratings from the panel in terms of capsular contracture (median 3.7 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001). PU reconstructions scored worse in implant visibility (median 2.3 vs. 3.3, p < 0.001) and rippling (median 3.0 vs. 3.7, p < 0.001). However, after appropriate adjustment for confounders, no significant differences in overall appearance and patient satisfaction were found. CONCLUSIONS: ADM reconstructions are prone to capsular contracture with all their related esthetic issues, but PU implants have certain cosmetic flaws, such as implant visibility and malposition. Since each technique has its own limitations, neither the experienced surgeons nor patients exhibited a clear preference for either approach.

Role of flow cytometric immunophenotyping in the diagnosis of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: A 6-year, single-institution experience.

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is an uncommon mature T-cell neoplasm occurring in patients with textured breast implants, typically after 7-10 years of exposure. Although cytopathologic or histopathologic assessment is considered the gold standard diagnostic method for BIA-ALCL, flow cytometry (FC)-based immunophenotyping is recommended as an adjunct test. However, the diagnostic efficacy of FC is not well reported. We reviewed 290 FC tests from breast implant pericapsular fluid and capsule tissue from 182 patients, including 16 patients with BIA-ALCL over a 6-year period, calculating diagnostic rates and test efficacy. FC showed an overall sensitivity of 75.9%, specificity of 100%, and negative and positive predictive values of 95.4% and 100%, respectively. Blinded expert review of false-negative cases identified diagnostic pitfalls, improving sensitivity to 96.6%. Fluid samples had better rates of adequate samples for FC testing compared with tissue samples. Paired with FC testing of operating room (OR)-acquired fluid samples, capsulectomy FC specimens added no diagnostic value in patients with concurrent fluid samples; no cases had positive capsule FC with negative fluid FC. Fluid samples are adequate for FC testing more often than tissue. Capsule tissue FC specimens do not improve FC efficacy when paired with OR-acquired fluid FC samples and are often inadequate samples. FC is 100% specific for BIA-ALCL and can serve as a confirmatory test but should not be the sole diagnostic method. Awareness of sample-specific diagnostic pitfalls greatly improves the sensitivity of BIA-ALCL testing by FC.

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.

Review: Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Studies Comparing Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) Versus Without ADM.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the world's most prevalent cancer, and many breast cancer patients undergo mastectomy as the choice of treatment, often with post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) use has become a method to improve outcomes of reconstruction for these patients. We aimed to compare postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes, which are still poorly characterized, between groups utilizing acellular dermal matrix during reconstruction and those without. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched electronic databases from inception to 16 June 2022 for randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies comparing the outcomes of patients who have and have not received acellular dermal matrix in implant-based breast reconstruction. The results were quantitatively combined and analyzed using random-effects models. RESULTS: A total of nine studies were included, representing 3161 breasts. There was no significant difference in postoperative outcomes, such as seroma formation (p = 0.51), hematomas (p = 0.20), infections (p = 0.21), wound dehiscence (p = 0.09), reoperations (p = 0.70), implant loss (p = 0.27), or skin necrosis (p = 0.21). Only two of the studies included evaluated patient-reported outcomes between the use and non-use of ADM in implant-based breast reconstruction using BREAST-Q questionnaire, as well as self-reported pain. There was no reported significant difference in BREAST-Q or pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows comparable short- and long-term outcomes between ADM and non-ADM breast reconstruction, suggesting that the use of ADM may not be necessary in all cases given their additional cost. However, there is a paucity of data for patient-reported outcomes, and further research is required to determine whether ADM use affects patient-reported outcomes.

Early Complications in Prepectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral implant placement for postmastectomy breast reconstruction has increased in recent years. Benefits of prepectoral reconstruction may include lack of animation deformities and reduced postoperative pain, but its complication profile is currently unclear. This study aimed to examine the complication profile of prepectoral tissue expanders (TEs) to determine factors associated with TE loss. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to identify all patients who underwent immediate prepectoral TE reconstruction from January 2018 to June 2021. The decision to use the prepectoral technique was based on mastectomy skin quality and patient comorbidities. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative details were evaluated. Outcomes of interest included TE loss, seroma, hematoma, infection/cellulitis, mastectomy skin flap necrosis requiring revision, and TE exposure. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with TE loss. RESULTS: The study identified 1225 TEs. The most frequent complications were seroma (8.7%, n = 106), infection/cellulitis (8.2%, n = 101), and TE loss (4.2%, n = 51). Factors associated with TE loss in the univariate analysis included ethnicity, history of smoking, body mass index, mastectomy weight, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In the multivariate regression analysis, only mastectomy weight had a positive association with TE loss (odds ratio, 1.001; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction can be performed safely with an acceptable early complication profile. The study data suggest that increasing mastectomy weight is the most significant factor associated with TE loss. Further research examining the quality of the soft tissue envelope and assessing patient-reported outcomes would prove beneficial.

Introduction of Breast Implants through the Abdominal Route: Analysis of a Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous breast reshaping and abdominoplasty offer patients the opportunity to undergo body reshaping in a single surgical session involving one anesthesia induction and one incision. In Latin America, abdominal implant placement is an infrequently used technique, likely because there is little evidence on its efficacy and safety. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of implant placement through the abdominal route. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was analyzed, including 350 records of patients who underwent abdominal breast implants from 2013 to 2021 with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. The procedure was performed under epidural anesthesia. RESULTS: No intraoperative complications were reported. After a minimum 12-month follow-up, complications were detected in 5% of cases; the most frequent was asymmetry (4.6%), followed by abdominal migration and one case of symmastia. During the follow-up period, no capsular contracture was detected in any case. A satisfaction percentage of 98.1% was obtained. The only independent factor associated with complications was distance from the sternal notch to the nipple-areola complex greater than 21 cm. CONCLUSION: In this case series, mammaplasty with abdominal implant placement was an effective and safe procedure, with reduced risk of infection or capsular contracture and no scarring in or near the breasts for patients with properly selected comorbidities. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using Intraoperative Fluorescence Imaging: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Limited comparability between study groups can generate significant selection and observer bias when evaluating the efficacy of the SPY system and fluorescence imaging for implant-based breast reconstruction. In this study, the authors compared the surgical outcomes and complications during the first stage of reconstruction between reconstructions evaluated intraoperatively with fluorescence imaging using the SPY system and clinical assessment using a matched analysis. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing total mastectomy and immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with TEs from January of 2011 to December of 2020. The rate of complication, time for TE-to-implant exchange, and time to start radiotherapy were compared between groups (intraoperative fluorescence imaging versus clinical assessment) using a propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 198 reconstructions were evaluated. There were 99 reconstructions in each group. The median time for TE-to-implant exchange (140 days versus 185 days; P = 0.476) and time to initiate adjuvant radiotherapy (144 days versus 98 days; P = 0.199) were comparable between groups. The 30-day rate of wound-related complications (21% versus 9%; P = 0.017) and 30-day rate of wound-related unplanned interventions were significantly higher in reconstructions evaluated with clinical assessment when compared with the SPY system (16% versus 5%; P = 0.011). A higher 30-day rate of seroma (19% versus 14%; P = 0.041) and hematoma (8% versus 0%; P = 0.004) were found in reconstructions assessed intraoperatively with the SPY system. CONCLUSIONS: After matching, reconstructions evaluated with fluorescence imaging exhibited a lower incidence of early wound-related complications when compared with clinical evaluation alone. Nonetheless, the Wise pattern for mastectomy was found to be the only independent predictor associated with early wound-related complications. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Toward a Consensus Aproach for Assessing Capsular Contracture Severity and Progression: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Breast implants are the most commonly used medical devices in plastic surgery, and capsular contracture (CC) is one of the most common complications. However, our assessment of CC is based largely on Baker grade, which is problematically subjective and affords only four possible values. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic review concluding in September of 2021 in compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. It identified 19 articles that propose approaches to measuring CC. RESULTS: In addition to Baker grade, the authors identified several modalities reported to measure CC. These included magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, sonoelastography, mammacompliance measuring devices, applanation tonometry, histologic evaluation, and serology. Capsule thickness and other measures of CC inconsistently correlated with Baker grade, whereas the presence of synovial metaplasia was consistently associated with Baker grade I and II, but not III and IV capsules. CONCLUSIONS: There remains no particular method to reliably and specifically measure the contracture of capsules that form around breast implants. As such, we would recommend that research investigators use more than one modality to measure CC. Other variables that can impact breast implant stiffness and associated discomfort beyond CC need to be considered when evaluating patient outcomes. Given the value placed on CC outcomes in assessing breast implant safety, and the prevalence of breast implants overall, the need for a more reliable approach to measuring this outcome persists.

Prevention of Postoperative Complications by Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved over time. However, the effects of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) compared with those of subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) have not been clearly defined. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the occurrence of surgical complications between PBR and SBR to determine the procedure that is effective and relatively safe. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published until April of 2021 comparing PBR and SBR following mastectomy. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. General information on the studies and surgical outcomes were extracted. Among 857 studies, 34 and 29 were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed to clearly compare the results of patients who underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy. RESULTS: Pooled results showed that prevention of capsular contracture (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79) and infection control (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92) were better with PBR than with SBR. Rates of hematoma, implant loss, seroma, skin-flap necrosis, and wound dehiscence were not significantly different between PBR and SBR. PBR considerably improved postoperative pain, BREAST-Q score, and upper arm function compared with SBR. Among postmastectomy radiation therapy patients, the incidence rates of capsular contracture were significantly lower in the PBR group than in the SBR group (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that PBR had fewer postoperative complications than SBR. The authors' meta-analysis suggests that PBR could be used as an alternative technique for breast reconstruction in appropriate patients.

National Trends in Acellular Dermal Matrix Utilization in Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based reconstruction is the most common method of immediate breast reconstruction in the United States, with acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) playing a significant role in implant support and coverage. This study evaluated recent national trends in ADM use in immediate breast reconstruction and assessed patient characteristics and 30-day complication rates. METHODS: The authors queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for all patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction from 2015 to 2020. Primary outcomes were major surgical and medical complications, as well as ADM use per year. Subset analysis was performed to compare patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction with ADM in 2015 versus 2020. RESULTS: In 39,800 immediate breast reconstructions, ADMs were used in 55.5% of cases ( n = 22,087). ADM usage increased annually from 2015 through 2020. Direct-to-implant reconstruction was significantly associated with ADM use ( P < 0.001). Compared with the no-ADM cohort, there was a significantly increased rate of return to the operating room for any reason ( P < 0.001). When comparing the 2015 and 2020 ADM cohorts, the 2020 ADM cohort had a significantly higher rate of superficial infections. Obesity, smoking history, and insulin-dependent diabetes were independent risk factors for superficial wounds in patients receiving ADM. CONCLUSIONS: ADM use in immediate breast reconstruction increased significantly from 2015 to 2020, likely reflecting national trends in increasing direct-to-implant and prepectoral breast reconstruction. Obesity, smoking history, and insulin-dependent diabetes were independent risk factors for superficial wound infections in the ADM cohort. Patients with ADM had a slight increased incidence of return to the operating room. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Outcome analysis and assessment of the lower pole expansion following breast augmentation with ergonomic implants: Optimizing results with patient selection based on 5-year data.

BACKGROUND: Silicone implants have gone through adaptations to improve esthetic outcomes. With the progress of technology, including gel rheology, different properties have been introduced. Ergonomic style implants (ESI) feature enhanced rheological properties and provide a shaped contour with a round base. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated outcomes for ESI in breast augmentation concerning lower pole stretching (LPS) and implant stability and describes an algorithm to assist in decision-making. METHODS: A total of 148 patients (296 breasts) underwent breast augmentation with ESI; this procedure was indicated in patients with good skin quality and <6 cm between the nipple-areola complex and the inframammary fold. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 29.6 years (range: 19-39), and 93 patients (62.8%) underwent primary breast augmentation with demi/full projection (average volume of 245 cc [175-375 cc]). Axillary incision and subfascial pocket were indicated in 115 (77.7%) and 72 (48%) cases, respectively. Average LPS values were 32.2% (24.91 mm) and 10.86% (9.42 mm) at up to 10 days and 10 days to 12 months postprocedure, respectively. Patients were followed for a mean of 29.9 ± 26.4 months (range: 6-66). Complication rates per breast and per patient were 5% and 10%, respectively, and included subcutaneous banding in the axilla (1.6%), implant displacement (1.2%), and wound dehiscence (0.8%). No cases of infection, seroma, or rippling complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The present decision-making algorithm summarizes the process involved in breast augmentation using ESI and is intended to help standardize decisions. With correct planning, long-lasting outcomes can be achieved due to favorable interactions between ESI and the patient's tissues.

Acquired Symmastia: Classification, Causes, and Repair Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Acquired symmastia is a rare complication after breast augmentation that is difficult to fix. METHODS: The medical records of 18 female patients with symmastia treated by our team were reviewed. Data collected included preoperative medical history, implant size, and breast base width. Surgical techniques were systematically reviewed and analyzed based on postoperative follow-up results. RESULTS: Of the 18 patients, 15 patients had undergone implanted breast augmentation and 3 had injected breast augmentation. All 18 patients underwent comprehensive repair with various surgical techniques. Three patients showed recurrence after operation. Four patients were dissatisfied with postoperative breast size and underwent 2-stage replacement surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Symmastia is an intractable surgical complication. Surgical classification can help assess the difficulty of surgery in advance, and the surgical strategy plan can help the surgeon to control the quality of the repair surgery.

[Breast implant removal and simultaneous aesthetic optimization : Possibilities, technical considerations and outcome analysis]. / Brustimplantatentfernung und simultane ästhetische Optimierung : Möglichkeiten, technische Überlegungen und Ergebnisanalyse.

BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation is currently the leading aesthetic surgical procedure worldwide. Thus, there is a high prevalence of women with breast implants demanding serious know-how and expertise concerning long-term complication management. Breast implant carriers can suffer from problems and pathologies making implant removal the best solution. The authors of this article have also been confronted more and more with the unspecified complex of symptoms named breast implant disease (BID), also called breast implant illness (BII). The treatment of choice for BID is implant removal. OBJECTIVE: Analysis of problems and solutions regarding implant removal. Specific patient analysis according to patients' breast and body configuration. Technical considerations for surgery and preoperative planning. Evaluation of the authors' techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Evaluation of all patients over a period of 3 years requesting implant removal after esthetic augmentation mammoplasty at the authors' department. All patients were treated according to their specific demands regarding breast shape after implant removal. They either received additional mastopexy, lipofilling or both or simple implant removal without further intervention. Demographic, implant-specific, perioperative and postoperative data have been evaluated for all patients. Additionally, all patients were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding satisfaction and outcome. RESULTS: We observed a trend for more satisfied patients with less invasive procedures (simple implant removal or simultaneous lipofilling vs. explantation and mastopexy ± lipofilling, 1.8 vs. 2.0 or 2.6, p = 0.198). Patients' average scoring was better if they suffered from an implant rupture (1.55 vs. 2.17, p = 0.053). Overall, a high patient satisfaction has been observed for all procedures. CONCLUSION: Breast implant carriers can suffer from problems and pathologies making implant removal the best solution. Exactly these patients, consulting their doctor for those problems and questions seem to profit from implant removal. Simultaneous lipofilling and mastopexy of the breast are good options to nevertheless generate an esthetically pleasing result.

Devil's Advocate: Evidence-Based Recommendation for "One Breast-One Insertion Funnel" Policy.

BACKGROUND: Rates of capsular contracture have reduced significantly since the use of insertion funnels to place breast implants became routine. However, due to financial constraints, the same funnel is usually used for implantation of both sides. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether the risk of capsular contracture is higher for the second breast when the same insertion funnel is used for both breasts. METHODS: The authors collected a sample of the insertion funnel tip immediately after removing the funnel from its sterile packaging and another tip sample after the funnel had been used to insert the first implant. These samples were sent for microbiological culture evaluations. Capsular contracture rates in the first implanted breast vs the second implanted breast were then retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: All samples taken from the funnel before the first implantation showed no bacterial growth. All 10 samples taken from the funnel after the first implantation showed organism growth (8 were positive for Staphylococcus epidermidis and 2 for Cutibacterium acnes). Retrospective analysis of the results revealed that the overall capsular contracture rate had reduced after the authors began to use insertion funnels. However, this complication was still more common on the second implanted breast. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should consider the use of separate insertion funnels for each breast. This might help to slightly reduce the incidence of capsular contracture.See the abstract translated into Hindi, Portuguese, Korean, German, Italian, Arabic, and Chinese (Simplified and Traditional) online here: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjad288.

Outcomes after tissue expander exchange to implant in two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix: A retrospective cohort study.

As prepectoral implant placement becomes widely adopted, recent studies investigating the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) during tissue expander placement have demonstrated no major benefit with regard to postoperative outcomes. We sought to evaluate second-stage outcomes 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant with and without ADM. Consecutive patients who underwent prepectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction with and without ADM were identified. Patients were followed up for 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest including implant rippling, capsular contracture, implant explantation, additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported outcomes were collected and compared. Sixty-eight breasts in the ADM cohort and sixty-one breasts in the no ADM cohort underwent tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest were similar between the ADM and no ADM cohorts with no statistically significant differences identified regarding incidences of implant rippling (24.6% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.08), capsular contracture (4.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 1.00), and explantation (6.6% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.67) between the two cohorts. BREAST-Q scores were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of physical wellbeing and satisfaction in terms of implant rippling, as can be seen, which improved in the no ADM cohort (p = 0.04). Our study reports no major benefit for the inclusion of ADM with respect to implant rippling, capsular contracture, explantation, need for additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported satisfaction in prepectoral second-stage implant-based breast reconstruction.