Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Complications associated with implant-based reconstruction have a spectrum of severity with sequelae ranging from mild aesthetic deformities to additional surgery, reconstructive failure and systemic illness. The purpose of this narrative review of the literature is to provide updated evidence-based information on the management of complications in implant-based reconstruction. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A systematic search of PubMed, OVID MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify common complications associated with implant-based breast reconstruction, incidences of occurrence as well as preventative and management strategies. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS/UNASSIGNED:Pertinent short and long-term complications of implant-based breast reconstruction include hematoma, implant infection, seroma, skin envelope necrosis, capsular contracture, rupture, malposition, animation and contour deformities, implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and breast implant illness. Important preventative measures for short term complications include meticulous sterile technique and antibiotic irrigation, adequate drainage and critical evaluation of mastectomy flaps. Management of short-term complications requires early recognition and aggressive treatment to prevent reconstructive failure as well as long-term complications such as capsular contracture. Important technological advances include dual-port expanders for seroma drainage, indocyanine green angiography for mastectomy flap perfusion evaluation, cohesive form-stable implants for treatment of rippling, and various biologic and synthetic mesh products for pocket control and correction. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Important principles in management of short-term complications in implant-based reconstruction include aggressive and early intervention to maximize the chance of reconstructive salvage. Contemporary technological advances have played an important role in both prevention and treatment of complications. Over-arching principles in management of implant-based reconstruction complications focus on preventative techniques and preoperative patient counseling on potential risks, their likelihood, and necessary treatments to allow for informed and shared decision-making.

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/UNASSIGNED:Despite evidence documenting the physical and psychological benefits of breast reduction, third-party payer approval remains a cumbersome process. The objective of this study was to assess differences in medical necessity criteria for reduction mammaplasty among US insurance carriers while analyzing trends in claim denials and appeals. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The medical necessity criteria for reduction mammaplasty were retrieved from seven large health insurance carriers. Data were extracted from each policy, including claim requirements for approval. Additionally, prospective data on claims and denials submitted from January through August 2022 were collected from The Auctus Group, a medical consulting firm. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:All the policies have been updated since January 2020. Five of the seven policies specifically listed what documentation was required for preauthorization approval, with five third-party payers requiring photograph documentation. Policies required documentation of one to three symptoms lasting from 6 weeks to 1 year. All companies reported a tissue resection estimate threshold, but cutoffs varied. Of 380 reduction mammaplasties performed, 158 (41.6%) received a denial on initial insurance submission. Considering appeals, a total of 216 denials were reviewed with an average of 1.37 denials per patient. Of the 158 initial denials, 104 (65.8%) of these were from claims that received preauthorization. In 12 cases, third-party payers stated that no prior authorization was necessary yet still denied the claim. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Wide variability exists in medical necessity criteria for reduction mammaplasty policies among major insurance carriers. These nuances introduce inefficiencies for practices contributing to high denial and appeal rates while delaying surgical care for patients.

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.

The modern approach to implant-based breast reconstruction encompasses an evolution in surgical techniques, patient selection, implant technology, and use of support materials. Successful outcomes are defined by teamwork throughout the ablative and reconstructive processes as well as appropriate and evidence-based utilization of modern material technologies. Patient education, focus on patient-reported outcomes, and informed and shared decision-making are the key to all steps of these procedures.

BACKGROUND:In July of 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recalled the Allergan Natrelle® 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants (Allergan, Santa Barbara, CA) because of a heightened risk of developing breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). The objective of this study was to describe patient decision-making in management of preexisting 410 textured implants. METHODS:A single-institution retrospective chart review was conducted to determine all patients who received 410 anatomic implants from two surgeons. Patients who received these implants were contacted in July-September of 2019 regarding the FDA recall and requested to schedule a consultation to discuss explant/exchange versus surveillance. Outcomes analyzed included decision of surveillance versus explanation and subsequent reconstructive operations. RESULTS:89 patients had received 410 implants from 2013-2017. Of the 147 breasts that were reconstructed, 58.5% were oncologic mastectomies and 41.5% were prophylactic. The majority of patients (71.9%) cited BIA-ALCL as the predominant influencing factor in their decision for management. Others factors included cosmesis, implant concerns unrelated to BIA-ALCL, and other medical conditions. 20 (22.5%) patients underwent explantation of the Style 410 implants. The remaining 77.5% of patients have elected for monitored surveillance. There was a significant association between a history of breast cancer and explantation of the Style 410 implants (p=0.0335). CONCLUSIONS:The majority of patients with Style 410 textured implants elected to undergo surveillance for BIA-ALCL. When deciding to explant or exchange the Style 410 implants, plastic surgeons should work in conjunction with their patients to carefully outline management options.

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.