Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Breast implant illness (BII) has become a contentious subject in recent years. Although some studies have reported associations between breast implants and autoimmune diseases, others have failed to establish a definitive link. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date evaluation of the literature surrounding BII, with an emphasis on identifying patient-related factors that may be associated with BII. METHODS:A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines by searching the PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies published in the last 20 years. RESULTS:Thirty-one studies were included, which covered 39,505 implant patients with a mean [standard deviation] age of 44.2 [9.30] years. Fifteen studies reported implant explantation status, with 72.4% patients choosing to remove their implants. Among these, 9 studies reported symptom improvement in 83.5% patients. Fifty-three percent of patients undergoing explantation had total capsulectomy. Twenty-eight studies documented total numbers of patients experiencing symptoms related to BII, with 31.3% patients reporting such symptoms. Among these, 16 studies of 4109 BII patients distinguished whether the reason for implantation was cosmetic augmentation or reconstruction. When specified, more patients experiencing BII-related symptoms received implants for "cosmetic" vs "reconstructive" reasons (cosmetic, 3864/4109 [94.0%] vs reconstruction, 245/4109 [5.96%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:This review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding BII. The study highlights a potential relationship between BII and indication for implants (cosmetic vs reconstructive) among other variables, offering valuable insight on factors associated with BII and directions for future research.

Therapeutic, IV.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) viability remains a significant concern following prepectoral tissue expander (TE) reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). This study assesses the impact of intraoperative TE fill on NAC necrosis and identifies strategies for mitigating this risk. METHODS:A chart review of all consecutive, prepectoral TEs placed immediately after NSM was performed between March 2017 and December 2022 at a single center. Demographics, mastectomy weight, intraoperative TE fill, and complications were extracted for all patients. Partial NAC necrosis was defined as any thickness of skin loss including part of the NAC, whereas total NAC necrosis was defined as full-thickness skin loss involving the entirety of the NAC. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS:Forty-six patients (83 breasts) with an average follow-up of 22 months were included. Women were on average 46 years old, nonsmoker (98%), and nondiabetic (100%) and had a body mass index of 23 kg/m2. All reconstructions were performed immediately following prophylactic mastectomies in 49% and therapeutic mastectomies in 51% of cases. Three breasts (4%) were radiated, and 15 patients (33%) received chemotherapy. Mean mastectomy weight was 346 ± 274 g, median intraoperative TE fill was 150 ± 225 mL, and median final TE fill was 350 ± 170 mL. Partial NAC necrosis occurred in 7 breasts (8%), and there were zero instances of complete NAC necrosis. On univariate analysis, partial NAC necrosis was not associated with any patient demographic or operative characteristics, including intraoperative TE fill. In multivariable models controlling for age, body mass index, mastectomy weight, prior breast surgery, and intraoperative TE fill, partial NAC necrosis was associated with lower body mass index (odds ratio, 0.53; confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.98; P < 0.05) and higher mastectomy weight (odds ratio, 1.1; CI, 1.01-1.20; P < 0.05). Prior breast surgery approached significance, as those breasts had a 19.4 times higher odds of partial NAC necrosis (95% CI, 0.88-427.6; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS:Nipple-areolar complex necrosis following prepectoral TE reconstruction is a rare but serious complication. In this study of 83 breasts, 7 (8%) developed partial NAC necrosis, and all but one were able to be salvaged.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Given the dialogistic properties of ChatGPT, we hypothesized that this artificial intelligence (AI) function can be used as a self-service tool where clinical questions can be directly answered by AI. Our objective was to assess the content, accuracy, and accessibility of AI-generated content regarding common perioperative questions for reduction mammaplasty. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:less than 0.05. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< 0.0001). AI outputs specifically recommended following surgeon provided postoperative instructions in 82.5% of instances. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Currently available AI tools, in their nascent form, can provide recommendations for common perioperative questions and concerns for reduction mammaplasty. With further calibration, AI interfaces may serve as a tool for fielding patient queries in the future; however, patients must always retain the ability to bypass technology and be able to contact their surgeon.

BACKGROUND:Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has become widely available for breast cancer prophylaxis. There are limited data on its long-term oncologic safety. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of breast cancer in patients who underwent prophylactic NSM. METHODS:All patients undergoing prophylactic NSM at a single institution from 2006 through 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographic factors, genetic predispositions, mastectomy specimen pathology, and oncologic occurrences at follow-up were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed where necessary to classify demographic factors and oncologic characteristics. RESULTS:A total of 871 prophylactic NSMs were performed on 641 patients, with median follow-up of 82.0 months (standard error 1.24). A total of 94.4% of patients ( n = 605) underwent bilateral NSMs, although only the prophylactic mastectomy was considered. The majority of mastectomy specimens (69.6%) had no identifiable pathology. A total of 38 specimens (4.4%) had cancer identified in mastectomy specimens, with ductal carcinoma in situ being the most common (92.1%; n = 35). Multifocal or multicentric disease was observed in seven cases (18.4%) and lymphovascular invasion was identified in two (5.3%). One patient (0.16%), who was a BRCA2 variant carrier, was found to have breast cancer 6.5 years after prophylactic mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS:Overall primary oncologic occurrence rates are very low in high-risk patients undergoing prophylactic NSM. In addition to reducing the risk of oncologic occurrence, prophylactic surgery itself may be therapeutic in a small proportion of patients. Continued surveillance for these patients remains important to assess at longer follow-up intervals. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Risk, IV.

BACKGROUND:The superomedial pedicle for reduction mammaplasty remains less commonly performed than the inferior pedicle. This study seeks to delineate the complication profiles and outcomes for reduction mammaplasty using a superomedial pedicle technique in a large series. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted of all consecutively performed reduction mammaplasty cases at a single institution by two plastic surgeons over a 2-year period. All consecutive superomedial pedicle reduction mammaplasty cases for benign symptomatic macromastia were included. RESULTS:A total of 462 breasts were analyzed. Mean age was 38.3 ± 13.38 years, mean body mass index was 28.5 ± 4.95, and mean reduction weight was 644.4 ± 299.16 g. Regarding surgical technique, a superomedial pedicle was used in all cases; Wise-pattern incision was used in 81.4%, and short-scar incision was used in 18.6%. The mean sternal notch-to-nipple measurement was 31.2 ± 4.54 cm. There was a 19.7% rate of any complication, the majority of which were minor in nature, including any wound healing complications treated with local wound care (7.5%) and scarring with intervention in the office (8.6%). There was no statistically significant difference in breast reduction complications and outcomes using the superomedial pedicle, regardless of sternal notch-to-nipple distance. Body mass index ( P = 0.029) and breast reduction specimen operative weight ( P = 0.004) were the only significant risk factors for a surgical complication, and with each additional gram of reduction weight, the odds of a surgical complication increased by 1.001. Mean follow-up time was 40.5 ± 7.1 months. CONCLUSION:The superomedial pedicle is an excellent option for reduction mammaplasty, portending a favorable complication profile and long-term outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic, IV.

BACKGROUND:Reduction mammaplasty pathologic specimens can reveal incidentally found proliferative lesions. However, there is a lack of data investigating the comparative incidences and risk factors for such lesions. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted of all consecutively performed reduction mammaplasty cases at a single large academic medical institution in a metropolitan city by two plastic surgeons over a 2-year period. All reduction mammaplasties, symmetrizing reductions, and oncoplastic reductions performed were included. There were no exclusion criteria. RESULTS:A total of 632 breasts were analyzed-502 reduction mammaplasties, 85 symmetrizing reductions, and 45 oncoplastic reductions-in 342 patients. Mean age was 43.9 ± 15.9 years, mean body mass index was 29.2 ± 5.7 kg/m 2 , and mean reduction weight was 610.0 ± 313.1 g. Patients who underwent reduction mammaplasty for benign macromastia had a significantly lower incidence (3.6%) of incidentally found breast cancers and proliferative lesions compared with patients with oncoplastic reductions (13.3%) and symmetrizing reductions (17.6%) ( P < 0.001). On univariate analysis, personal history of breast cancer ( P < 0.001), first-degree family history of breast cancer ( P = 0.008), age ( P < 0.001), and tobacco use ( P = 0.033) were all statistically significant risk factors. Using a backward elimination stepwise reduced multivariable logistic regression model for risk factors associated with breast cancer or proliferative lesions, age ( P < 0.001) was the only retained significant risk factor. CONCLUSIONS:Proliferative lesions and carcinomas of the breast found in reduction mammaplasty pathologic specimens may be more common than previously reported. The incidence of newly found proliferative lesions was significantly lower in cases of benign macromastia compared with oncoplastic and symmetrizing reductions. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Risk, II.

Background: Prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSM) have become increasingly common, although there is little long-Term data on its efficacy in prevention of breast cancer. The objective of this study was to assess the incidence of breast cancer in a cohort of patients undergoing prophylactic NSM with a median follow-up of 10 years. Methods: Patients receiving prophylactic NSM at a single institution from 2006 to 2019 were included in a retrospective nature. Patient demographics, genetic mutations, operative details, and specimen pathology were recorded, and all postoperative patient visits and documentation were screened for cancer occurrence. Descriptive statics were performed where appropriate. Results: Two hundred eighty-four prophylactic NSMs were performed on 228 patients with a median follow-up of 120.5 ± 15.7 months. Roughly, a third of patients had a known genetic mutation, with 21% BRCA1 and 12% BRCA2. The majority (73%) of prophylactic specimens had no abnormal pathology. The most commonly observed pathologies were atypical lobular hyperplasia (10%) and ductal carcinoma in situ (7%). Cancer was identified in 10% of specimens, with only one case of lymphovascular invasion. Thus far, there have been no incidences of locoregional breast cancer occurrence in this cohort. Conclusions: The long-Term breast cancer occurrence rate in this cohort of prophylactic NSM patients at the time of this study is negligible. Despite this, continued surveillance of these patients is necessary until lifetime risk of occurrence following NSM has been established.

BACKGROUND:Reduction mammaplasty is a safe, effective procedure to alleviate symptoms of adolescent macromastia. However, there remains limited data on surgical complications associated with reduction mammaplasty in adolescents, which may not be concordant with those cited for adults seeking reduction mammaplasty. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted of all consecutively performed reduction mammaplasty cases for symptomatic macromastia in patients aged 20 years old and younger over a seven-year period from 2014 to 2021. RESULTS:One hundred sixty total breasts were analyzed in 80 patients. Mean age was 18.3±1.4 years with an age range from 15 to 20 years old. Mean BMI was 27.17±5.49. Mean reduction weight was 584.79±261.19 grams. A medial pedicle was used in 91%, and inferior pedicle in 9%. For skin incision, Wise pattern was used in 60%, and short-scar in 40%. There was a 16.3% rate of any surgical complication, which included wound healing by secondary intention treated with local wound care. There were no significant risk factors for a surgical complication in reduction mammaplasty, and no differences in surgical complications related to skin incision type, pedicle use, or breast reduction weight. Performance of a ROC curve for age at surgery and complication demonstrated that there was no age cut-off where the risk of surgical complication was appreciably increased or decreased. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Age was not identified as a risk factor for surgical complications in adolescent reduction mammaplasty. Overall, complication rates are very low and minor in nature for adolescent reduction mammaplasty with no significant risk factors identified.