Faculty Bibliography

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Evaluate appropriate patients best suited for one- or two-stage alloplastic breast reconstruction. 2. Discuss and apply the unique advantages and disadvantages of scaffold use and different implant types in breast reconstruction to maximize outcomes. 3. Develop a plan for patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy. 4. Analyze the evidence with regard to antibiotic prophylaxis in implant-based breast reconstruction. 5. Recognize and critique novel technical and device developments in the field of alloplastic breast reconstruction, enabling appropriate patient selection. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:Implant-based, or alloplastic, breast reconstruction is the most common method of breast reconstruction in the United States. Within implant-based reconstruction, many techniques and reconstructive strategies exist that must be tailored for each individual patient to yield a successful reconstruction. Not unexpectedly, many hot topics and controversies in this field have emerged, including stages of reconstruction, use of scaffolds, permanent implant type, strategies for postmastectomy radiation therapy, and antibiotic prophylaxis. In addition, there has been an evolution in technical and device development in recent years. Therefore, plastic surgeons must be on the forefront of knowledge to approach implant-based breast reconstruction in an evidence-based fashion to best treat their patients.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) places greater stress on the breast-skin envelope compared with traditional mastectomy techniques. Precise mastectomy flap dissection is critical to optimize breast skin flap thickness and minimize complication risk. This study evaluated patient-specific factors associated with mastectomy flap quality to improve technical success in NSM. Ideal NSM flap thickness was determined for all NSMs from 2006 to 2016 with available preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs). Demographic, operative variables, and flap thickness were compared for NSMs as stratified by body mass index (BMI) and mastectomy weight. Of the 1,037 NSMs, 420 cases (40.5%; 243 patients) had MRI data available, which included 379 (36.5%) preoperative breast MRIs. Average BMI was 24.08 kg/m², whereas average mastectomy weight was 442.28 g. NSMs were classified according to BMI <25 kg/m², 25-30 kg/m², and >30 kg/m². Average ideal overall NSM flap thicknesses in these groups were 10.43, 12.54, and 14.91 mm, respectively. Each incremental increase in average overall NSM flap thickness per BMI category was statistically significant (P < 0.0001; P < 0.0001; P = 0.0002). NSMs were also classified into mastectomy weight categories: <400 g, 400-799 g, and ≥800 g. Average overall NSM flap thicknesses in these groups were 9.97, 12.21, and 14.50 mm, respectively. Each incremental increase in average overall NSM flap thickness per mastectomy weight category was similarly statistically significant (P < 0.0001; P < 0.0001; P < 0.0001). NSM flap thickness and quality is related to BMI and breast size. Characterizing these anatomic variations preoperatively will help surgeons optimize mastectomy flap dissections and minimize ischemic complications in breast reconstruction after NSM.

BACKGROUND:Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) allows for preservation of the entire nipple-areola complex utilizing various incision patterns. Reconstructive trends and overall risk associated with these diverse NSM incisions have yet to be fully elucidated. METHODS:All NSMs from 2006 to 2017 were identified; outcomes were stratified by type of mastectomy incision: lateral or vertical radial, inframammary fold, Wise pattern, previous, and periareolar. RESULTS:A total of 1212 NSMs were performed with 1207 NSMs included for final analysis. Of these, 638 (52.9%) utilized an inframammary fold incision, 294 (24.4%) utilized a lateral radial incision, 161 (13.3%) used a vertical radial incision, 60 (5.0) utilized a Wise pattern incision, 35 (2.9%) used a previous incision, and 19 (1.6%) utilized a periareolar incision.The groups were heterogeneous and differed significantly with regards to various factors including age (p<0.001), body-mass index (p<0.001), mastectomy indication (p<0.001), mastectomy laterality (p<0.001), pathologic cancer stage (p<0.001), reconstruction modality (p<0.001), and adjuvant chemoradiation (p=0.031; p=0.002), among others.In crude multivariate logistic regression analysis, vertical radial (16.1%) and inframammary fold incisions (21.0%) were associated with lower overall complication rates. In a reduced multivariate logistic regression model, inframammary fold incisions (p=0.001) emerged as significantly protective of overall complications after controlling all variables. Wise pattern incisions increased the odds of complications, although not quite significantly (p=0.051). CONCLUSIONS:NSM may be safely performed using various mastectomy incisions, each with unique advantages and limitations. Overall, inframammary fold incisions appear to be associated with lowest complications while Wise pattern incisions may increase risk.

BACKGROUND:Transversus abdominis plane blocks are increasingly being used in microvascular breast reconstruction. The implications of these blocks on specific reconstructive, patient, and institutional outcomes remain to be fully elucidated. METHODS:Patients undergoing abdominally based microvascular breast reconstruction from 2015 to 2017 were reviewed. Length of stay, complications, narcotic consumption, donor-site pain, and hospital expenses were compared between patients who did and did not receive transversus abdominis plane blocks with liposomal bupivacaine. Outcomes were subsequently compared in patients with elevated body mass index. RESULTS:Fifty patients (43.9 percent) received blocks [27 (54.0 percent) under ultrasound guidance] and 64 patients (56.1 percent) did not. Patients with the blocks had significantly decreased oral and total narcotic consumption (p = 0.0001 and p < 0.0001, respectively) and significantly less donor-site pain (3.3 versus 4.3; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in hospital expenses between the two cohorts ($21,531.53 versus $22,050.15 per patient; p = 0.5659). Patients with a body mass index of 25 kg/m or greater who received a block had a significantly decreased length of stay (3.8 days versus 4.4 days; p = 0.0345) and decreased narcotic consumption and postoperative pain compared with patients without blocks. Patients with a body mass index less than 25 kg/m did not have a significant difference in postoperative pain, narcotic consumption, or length of stay between groups. CONCLUSIONS:Transversus abdominis plane blocks with liposomal bupivacaine significantly reduce oral and total postoperative narcotic consumption and donor-site pain in all patients after abdominally based microvascular breast reconstruction without increasing hospital expenses. The blocks also significantly decrease length of stay in patients with a body mass index greater than or equal to 25 kg/m. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic, III.

BACKGROUND:Initially performed only in prophylactic cases, indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy have expanded. Trends and surgical outcomes stratified by nipple-sparing mastectomy indication have not yet been fully examined. METHODS:Demographics and outcomes for all nipple-sparing mastectomies performed from 2006 to 2017 were compared by mastectomy indication. RESULTS:A total of 1212 nipple-sparing mastectomies were performed: 496 (40.9 percent) for therapeutic and 716 (59.1 percent) for prophylactic indications. Follow-up time was similar between both the therapeutic and prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy groups (47.35 versus 46.83 months, respectively; p = 0.7942). Therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomies experienced significantly greater rates of major (p = 0.0165) and minor (p = 0.0421) infection, implant loss (p = 0.0098), reconstructive failure (p = 0.0058), and seroma (p = 0.0043). Rates of major (p = 0.4461) and minor (p = 0.2673) mastectomy flap necrosis and complete (p = 0.3445) and partial (p = 0.7120) nipple necrosis were equivalent. The overall rate of locoregional recurrence/occurrence per nipple-sparing mastectomy was 0.9 percent: 2.0 percent in therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomies and 0.1 percent in prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomies (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Approximately 40 percent of nipple-sparing mastectomies are currently performed for therapeutic indications. Therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomies had higher rates of infectious complications and reconstructive failure. Rates of locoregional cancer recurrence/occurrence are low, but occur significantly more often after therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic, III.

BACKGROUND:Concerns exist that immediate breast reconstruction may delay adjuvant chemotherapy initiation, impacting oncologic outcomes. Here, we determine how post-operative complications impact chemotherapy timing, and identify factors associated with greater risk for delays. METHODS:Retrospective chart review identified patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction and adjuvant chemotherapy at a single institution from 2010 to 2015. Patients were analyzed based on occurrence of post-operative complications and time to chemotherapy. RESULTS:A total of 182 patients (244 breast reconstructions) were included in the study; 210 (86%) reconstructions did not experience post-operative complications, 34 (13.9%) did. Patients who experienced post-operative complications had a higher mean age (53.6 vs. 48.1 years, p=0.002), and higher rates of diabetes (23.5% vs. 3.8%, p<0.001).The complication group had delays in initiation of chemotherapy (56 vs. 45 days, p=0.017). Only the immediate autologous reconstruction subgroup demonstrated a statistically significant delay in initiation of chemotherapy.Patients who initiated chemotherapy >48.5 days were of higher mean age (55.9 vs. 50.7 years, p=0.074), had increased rates of diabetes (36.8% vs. 6.7%, p=0.053), and immediate autologous reconstruction (31.6% vs. 0%, p=0.027). A predictive model based on these findings determined that patients with at least 1 of these 3 risk factors have a 74% chance of experiencing prolonged times to chemotherapy initiation vs. 18% without risk factors (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS:Risk factors for delayed chemotherapy in the context of post-operative complications are age >51.7 years, diabetes, and autologous reconstruction. Reconstructive candidates who fit this profile are at highest risk and merit extra consideration and counseling.

BACKGROUND:Reconstructive trends and outcomes for nipple-sparing mastectomy continue to be defined. The graduated impact of breast size and mastectomy weight remains incompletely evaluated. METHODS:All patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy from 2006 to June of 2016 were identified. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed and stratified by mastectomy weight of 800 g or higher (large group), between 799 and 400 g (intermediate group), and less than 400 g (small group). RESULTS:Of 809 nipple-sparing mastectomies, 66 (8.2 percent) had mastectomy weights of 800 g or higher, 328 (40.5 percent) had mastectomy weights between 799 and 400 g, and 415 nipple-sparing mastectomies (51.3 percent) had mastectomy weights less than 400 g. Nipple-sparing mastectomies in the large group were significantly more likely to be associated with major mastectomy flap necrosis (p = 0.0005), complete nipple-areola complex necrosis (p < 0.0001), explantation (p < 0.0001), cellulitis treated with oral (p = 0.0008) and intravenous (p = 0.0126) antibiotics, abscess (p = 0.0254), and seroma (p = 0.0126) compared with those in the intermediate group. Compared with small nipple-sparing mastectomies, patients in the large group had greater major mastectomy flap necrosis (p < 0.0001), complete (p < 0.0001) and partial (p = 0.0409) nipple-areola complex necrosis, explantation (p < 0.0001), cellulitis treated with oral (p < 0.0001) and intravenous (p < 0.0001) antibiotics, abscess (p = 0.0119), and seroma (p < 0.0001). Patients in the intermediate group were more likely to experience major (p < 0.0001) and minor (p < 0.0001) mastectomy flap necrosis, complete (p = 0.0015) and partial (p < 0.0001) nipple-areola complex necrosis, cellulitis treated with oral antibiotics (p = 0.0062), and seroma (p = 0.0248) compared with those undergoing small nipple-sparing mastectomies. Larger mastectomy weights were significant predictors of complications on logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Reconstructive and ischemic complications in nipple-sparing mastectomy are progressively greater as mastectomy weight and breast size increase. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Risk, II.

Growing public awareness of hereditary breast cancers, notably BRCA1 and BRCA2, and increasing popularity of personalized medicine have led to a greater number of young adult patients presenting for risk-reduction mastectomies and breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons must be familiar with treatment guidelines, necessary referral patterns, and particular needs of these patients to appropriately manage their care. Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is most often reserved for patients older than the age of consent, and can be performed in the young adult population (aged 18 to 25 years) with the appropriate preemptive genetic counseling. Subsequent risk-reduction procedures are usually delayed until at least the latter end of the young adult age range, and must be considered on an individualized basis with regard for a patient's level of maturity and autonomy. Prophylactic mastectomies in young adults also can serve to aid the unique psychosocial needs of this population, although the long-term psychological and physical ramifications must be considered carefully. With the development of nipple-sparing mastectomy and improvement in reconstructive techniques, risk-reducing surgery has become more accepted in the younger population. Immediate, implant-based reconstruction is a common reconstructive technique in these patients but requires extensive discussion regarding reconstructive goals, the risk of possible complications, and long-term implications of these procedures. Comprehensive, continuous support with multispecialty counseling is necessary throughout the spectrum of care for the high-risk, young adult patient.

BACKGROUND:Free flap monitoring in autologous reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) remains controversial. We therefore examined outcomes in NSM with buried free flap reconstruction versus free flap reconstruction incorporating a monitoring skin paddle. METHODS:Autologous free flap reconstructions with NSM performed from 2006 to 2015 were identified. Demographics and operative results were analyzed and compared between buried flaps and those with a skin paddle for monitoring. RESULTS:221 free flaps for NSM reconstruction were identified: 50 buried flaps and 171 flaps incorporating a skin paddle. Most common flaps used were deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) (64%), profunda artery perforator (PAP) (12.1%), and muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (MS-TRAM) flaps (10.4%). Autologous reconstructions with a skin paddle had significantly greater BMI (p=0.006). Mastectomy weight (p = 0.017) and flap weight (p<0.0001) were significantly greater in flaps incorporating a skin paddle. Comparing outcomes, there were no significant differences in flap failure (2.0% vs. 2.3%, p=1.000) or percentage of flaps requiring return to the operating room (6.0% vs. 4.7%, p=0.715) between groups. Buried flaps had an absolute greater mean number of revisional procedures per NSM (0.82) compared to the skin paddle group (0.44), however rates of revision procedures per NSM were statistically equivalent between the groups (p=0.296). CONCLUSIONS:While buried free flap reconstruction in NSM has been shown to be safe and effective, our technique has evolved to favor incorporating a skin paddle, which allows for clinical monitoring and can be removed at the time of secondary revision.