Faculty Bibliography

Breast implants are a fundamental adjunct in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery, with more than 3.5 million recipients in the United States. Implant rupture risk increases with device age, although modern cohesive silicone implants demonstrate markedly improved durability. The Food and Drug Administration does not mandate routine replacement, but recommends surveillance screening for silicone implant rupture beginning 5-6 years postplacement and every 2-3 years thereafter. However, no guidelines exist for managing asymptomatic ruptures in older adult patients. A scoping review was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through January 2025 for guidelines on the management of asymptomatic implant rupture in older adult patients; none was identified. Evidence indicates that although surveillance can detect silent ruptures and minimize silicone migration, the clinical impact in older adult patients is limited given the low incidence of symptomatic complications with modern devices and reduced life expectancy. Risks of surveillance include false positives, overdiagnosis, patient anxiety, and unnecessary surgery-particularly relevant in older patients with higher perioperative complication rates. The authors propose discontinuing surveillance for asymptomatic silicone implants after age 75 years and foregoing routine implant exchange. In asymptomatic patients older than 75 with known or suspected rupture, observation is reasonable unless symptoms develop. Symptomatic cases should undergo diagnostic imaging and individualized risk-benefit discussion using a comprehensive geriatric assessment framework. A shared decision-making approach is emphasized, balancing surgical risks, patient comfort with uncertainty, and aesthetic concerns. These recommendations aim to optimize quality of life and avoid overtreatment in older adult patients with breast implants.

BACKGROUND:Delayed abdominal wound healing remains a common complication following abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction. We hypothesized that the type of umbilical inset incision impacts the incidence of delayed wound healing due to differential disruption of abdominal wall vascularity, particularly in the infraumbilical region. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted of all patients undergoing abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction at a single center between 2014 and 2021. The primary outcome was delayed abdominal wound healing, classified as major (requiring readmission or reoperation), minor (managed with outpatient care, antibiotics, or debridement), or both. Umbilical inset incision type was evaluated as a predictor using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS:. The most used umbilical incision was an elliptical incision (193, 40%) followed by vertical (141, 29%), inverted-U (30, 6%), other (39, 8%), and unknown (81, 17%). Abdominal wound healing complications occurred in 63 (13%) patients. The incidence of abdominal wound healing complications was lowest with elliptical incisions (p < 0.001). In a multivariate regression model controlling for age, BMI, diabetes, smoking history, and flap weight, umbilical incision predicted abdominal wound healing complications, with inverted-U and vertical incisions conferring higher odds of abdominal wound healing complications (OR 5.9, 95% CI [1.6, 20.8] and OR 4.6, 95% CI [2.0, 11.4], p < 0.05) as compared to elliptical incisions. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Abdominal wall vascularity likely plays a critical role in donor site healing following autologous reconstruction. In this large cohort, inverted-U and vertical umbilical inset incisions were associated with the highest rates of wound healing complications.

Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, are rapidly transforming how patients identify and evaluate surgeons, marking the most significant shift in digital patient acquisition since the emergence of search engines. For decades, surgeon visibility online has depended on search engine optimization (SEO), a marketing strategy built around technical website performance, backlinks, and strategic content marketing designed to match keyword-based search behavior. This is in direct contrast to LLMs, which operate as "recommendation engines" and synthesize information across vast sources to generate personalized, conversational guidance in response to user queries. Rather than scanning ranked lists of links, patients increasingly can ask nuanced questions and receive narrative, context-sensitive answers. This shift fundamentally alters how expertise is recognized online. LLMs deemphasize traditional SEO signals and instead can emphasize more nuanced information ("language"), such as academic affiliation, peer-reviewed scholarship, institutional reputation, high-quality educational writing, and consistency across credible sources. This article outlines how LLMs form surgeon recommendations, why conventional SEO approaches are increasingly insufficient, and what practical steps surgeons can take to strengthen visibility in an artificial intelligence-mediated digital landscape. As generative artificial intelligence becomes embedded into everyday patient information-seeking, surgeons who adapt to this new recommendation paradigm can be best positioned for the next era of online discoverability.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Revision breast reconstruction is often necessary to address complications, reduce asymmetry, or improve the aesthetic result. Our previously described use of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) has shown promise in primary reconstruction; limited data exist on its use in revision surgery. This study presented a single-institution case series evaluating indications and outcomes of revision breast reconstruction using a P4HB-wrapped implant. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent breast reconstruction revision with a P4HB-wrapped implant at our institution from September 2022 to May 2025. Data were collected through chart review. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Thirty-four patients (51 breasts) underwent revision surgery using a P4HB-wrapped implant. Most patients (85%) had 2-stage reconstructions. Most primary reconstructions (76%) occurred at our institution, with 96% continuity among reconstructive surgeons. Median (interquartile range) time from initial reconstruction to revision was 344 (609) days. The most common indication was radiation-associated breast asymmetry (35%). At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 501 (410) days, 91% (31 of 34) of patients maintained stable breast symmetry. Complications occurred in 5.9% (3 of 51) of breasts: 1 implant exposure requiring explantation (1.96%) and 2 cases of persistent malposition (3.92%) despite P4HB use. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:The P4HB-wrapped implants achieved consistent soft-tissue support and maintained symmetry during the observed follow-up period, and for the limited number of patients studied, radiation-associated capsular contracture or shape changes were not observed during the study period. These findings support P4HB as a valuable adjunct in complex revisions, particularly in patients with prior radiation or significant asymmetry. Ongoing follow-up is needed to assess the long-term durability and aesthetic outcomes of this approach.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Complex posterior defects often present significant reconstructive challenges, particularly due to the scarcity of suitable recipient vessels. In these cases, an arterialized saphenous vein transfer can facilitate flap perfusion when direct anastomosis is not feasible. This study presents our institutional experience using an arterialized saphenous vein transfer for microvascular free flap (MVFF) reconstruction of posterior defects. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent posterior MVFF reconstruction using an arterialized saphenous vein transfer. Patient demographics, comorbidities, defect etiologies (including trauma, silicone injection, malignancy, and congenital abnormalities), flap types, and perioperative outcomes were collected through manual chart review. RESULTS:(±73). Arterialized saphenous vein transfer arterial inflow sources included the descending branch of the lateral femoral circumflex artery (n = 6), deep inferior epigastric artery (n = 1), and transverse branch of the superficial femoral artery (n = 1). Average operative time was 11:00 h (±2:50); median hospital stay was 12 days (range: 6-76). There were no flap losses. One patient required two flap explorations; two patients required postoperative blood transfusions. At a mean follow-up of 1247 days (±393), all flaps had healed, including persistent minor wounds in the two silicone injection cases. CONCLUSIONS:Arterialized saphenous vein transfers enabled durable, successful MVFF reconstruction in complex posterior defects and represent a reliable option in anatomically challenging scenarios.

BACKGROUND:Patients with macromastia or ptosis undergoing mastectomy often require a Wise-pattern incision, yet this design carries increased risk of ischemic complications. The use of an inferior dermal flap ("autoderm") in the prepectoral plane has emerged as a strategy to provide vascularized implant coverage without acellular dermal matrix (ADM). METHODS:A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was performed through August 2025 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies reported outcomes of Wise-pattern skin-sparing or skin-reducing mastectomy with dermal flap reconstruction in the prepectoral plane. Data on demographics, technique, and complications were extracted. Pooled proportions for major outcomes were estimated using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS:Ten studies comprising 287 patients and 464 breasts met inclusion. Most were single-institution case series; three were comparative cohorts. The pooled breast-level rate of implant loss was 4.8% (95% CI 3.8-6.0%; I² = 0%). Infection occurred in 7.5% (95% CI 4.8-11.4%; I² = 12%), and major mastectomy skin flap necrosis in 8.6% (95% CI 5.1-14.2; I 2 = 47.6%). Comparative studies found outcomes comparable to ADM-assisted reconstruction, though necrosis was higher with Wise-pattern mastectomies compared to mastectomies with elliptical incisions. CONCLUSIONS:Wise-pattern prepectoral reconstruction with a dermal flap demonstrates low rates of implant loss and infection. Ischemic complications were the most frequent adverse events reported. This approach may safely expand reconstructive options for obese or ptotic patients, though higher-quality prospective data are needed.

BACKGROUND:Use of soft tissue support in postmastectomy, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) has become increasingly common. Although soft tissue support (STS) offers benefits in terms of stability and contour, in some instances, its use has been associated with increased postoperative complications. This study assesses rates of postoperative complications following IBBR with and without soft tissue support in a large, nationwide database. METHODS:Using Epic Cosmos, a nationwide database of over 300 million patients, patients undergoing postmastectomy IBBR with implantation of a breast implant or tissue expander (CPT 19340) between 2015 and 2025 were identified. Patients were stratified by use of STS (CPT 15777). Primary outcomes included complications within 90 days of surgery: surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, and implant loss. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each complication, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS:Among 66,862 patients undergoing IBBR, 32,680 (48.9%) received STS and 34,182 (51.1%) did not. Average BMI was higher in patients with STS (26.9 ± 5.80 vs 26.5 ± 5.74 kg/m 2 , P < 0.05). STS was used less frequently among current smokers (3.7% vs 6.0%, P < 0.05). Adjusting for age, BMI, smoking status, and type 2 diabetes status, STS use was associated with increased odds of surgical site infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.13-4.90; P < 0.05), seroma (aOR, 2.38; 95% CI, 2.07-2.73; P < 0.05), hematoma (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.46-1.95; P < 0.05), wound dehiscence (aOR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.31-2.89; P < 0.05), and implant loss (aOR, 3.40; 95% CI, 3.00-3.88; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:In this nationwide cohort, use of soft tissue support in postmastectomy breast reconstruction was associated with a higher risk of select postoperative complications. These findings underscore the importance of patient selection and shared decision making when considering mesh in breast reconstruction, particularly in patients with modifiable comorbidities such as obesity or smoking.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:This study aimed to develop a machine learning model to predict seroma risk following prepectoral breast reconstruction. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:-nearest neighbors, decision tree, and random forest. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Chart review identified 318 breasts that underwent prepectoral reconstruction, with a seroma rate of 25.58%. Univariate analysis found that body mass index, mastectomy specimen weight, hypertension, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and skin-sparing mastectomy were positively associated with seroma. Method 1 identified the decision tree to have the highest accuracy (0.81) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.81). Method 2 improved model performance. The random forest achieved the best results, with an accuracy of 0.81 and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83. A web application was then created using the random forest model to provide real-time seroma risk predictions. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Machine learning models offer a valuable tool for improving clinical decision-making by accurately predicting patient-specific seroma risk in breast reconstruction. Our models outperformed traditional methods in identifying high-risk patients, allowing for tailored surgical techniques and intensified follow-up care.

BACKGROUND:Umbilicoplasty is a critical step in donor-site closure following abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction (ABR). While various incision designs and transposition techniques have been described, their impact on patient- and surgeon-assessed aesthetic outcomes remains poorly defined. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched through August 1, 2025, for studies evaluating umbilicoplasty after ABR. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series reporting surgical technique, aesthetic, and/or patient satisfaction outcomes. Data extraction included study characteristics, surgical techniques, patient- and surgeon-assessed aesthetic outcomes, and complications. Risk of bias was assessed using standardized tools. RESULTS:Eight studies comprising 362 patients met inclusion criteria. Umbilicoplasty techniques varied, including oval, U/inverted-U, and Mercedes/inverted Mercedes as well as a neo-umbilicoplasty approaches. Complication rates were low with hypertrophic scarring and umbilical stenosis being most common. Aesthetic outcomes were variably reported, with limited use of validated scales, but generally favored designs that avoid an uninterrupted oval. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While reported complication rates are low, methodological limitations and underreporting preclude definitive conclusions about technique safety or superiority. Umbilicoplasty should be individualized, with careful attention to perfusion. Future studies should prioritize standardized reporting, validated outcome measures, and multicenter collaboration to strengthen the evidence base and guide best practices in abdominally based breast reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III/METHODS: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 .

BACKGROUND:Whole eye transplantation (WET) has long been looked to as a potential solution for the aesthetic and functional deficits caused by severe ocular pathology and trauma. Here, we describe the first successful combined face and whole eye transplantation (FT/WET), highlighting the logistical, ethical, and technical considerations that enabled this milestone. METHODS:A 46-year-old male with severe facial and ocular deficits underwent multidisciplinary evaluation and was deemed a candidate for FT/WET. Subsequently, a surgical algorithm was developed through rigorous preoperative planning and team based surgical simulations. This process focused on techniques that would allow for efficient graft procurement and inset, while simultaneously limiting trauma to the globe and its adnexa. RESULTS:Longitudinal monitoring demonstrated maintained graft viability throughout the postoperative period. Fluorescein angiography and ICG angiography confirmed robust retinal and choroidal perfusion. Diffusion-weighted MRI revealed structural preservation of the optic tracts, despite inner retinal atrophy. The patient has also experienced significant improvement in facial aesthetics and functionality with no episodes of graft rejection to date. CONCLUSIONS:This case demonstrates the feasibility of addressing deficits once deemed irreparable through advanced surgical techniques, preoperative planning, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Although functional vision recovery has not been observed, this innovation expands the reconstructive options available for patients with severe facial and ocular deficits, paving the way for future advancements in vascularized composite allotransplantation.