Faculty Bibliography

Currently, there is an increasing trend in women seeking aesthetic flat closure after mastectomy. To date, there is no plastic surgery literature on specific techniques to achieve an aesthetic flat closure after mastectomy. As plastic surgeons, we need to continue to innovate and to iterate new surgical techniques in our reconstructive armamentarium to address the desires of and to optimize the outcomes for our reconstructive breast surgery patients. Herein, we seek to delineate key considerations and employed techniques for reconstructive plastic surgeons performing aesthetic flat closure after mastectomy. Namely, it is crucial to listen to the patient, and to fully understand the patient's concerns, wishes, and particular aesthetic desired. From a technical perspective, the key surgical pearls include completely obliterating the inframammary fold, ensuring the same size and flap thickness bilaterally, appropriately de-fatting medially on the chest wall to allow for a smooth contour, obviating any presence of dog ears medially or laterally with precise tissue excision, and confirming that the incisions are entirely symmetric bilaterally. Intraoperatively, it is important to sit these patients up to assess soft tissue re-draping, and to confirm that there are no dog ears nor any excess tissue that could compromise the perfectly flat aesthetic chest closure. With the increasing demand for flat closures after mastectomy, plastic surgeons need to be keen on employing modified surgical techniques to best optimize the desired aesthetic flat closure reconstructions for these patients, as these reconstructions are not simply linear closures.

Background/Purpose: Craniofacial microsomia (CFM) is the second most common congenital facial anomaly, yet its genetic etiology remains unknown. Methods/Description: We perform whole-exome or genome sequencing of 146 kindreds with sporadic (n=138) or familial (n=8) CFM.
Result(s): We identify a highly significant burden of loss of function variants in SF3B2 (P=3.8 x 10-10), a component of the U2 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein complex, in probands. We describe twenty individuals from seven kindreds harboring de novo or transmitted haploinsufficient variants in SF3B2. Probands display mandibular hypoplasia, microtia, facial and preauricular tags, epibulbar dermoids, lateral oral clefts in addition to skeletal and cardiac abnormalities. Targeted morpholino knockdown of SF3B2 in Xenopus results in disruption of cranial neural crest precursor formation and subsequent craniofacial cartilage defects, supporting a link between spliceosome mutations and impaired neural crest development in congenital craniofacial disease.
Conclusion(s): The results establish haploinsufficient variants in SF3B2 as the most prevalent genetic cause of CFM, explaining ~3% of sporadic and ~25% of familial cases

BACKGROUND:Incision planning is a critical factor in nipple-sparing mastectomy outcomes. Evidence on optimal incision patterns in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate microvascular breast reconstruction is lacking in the literature. METHODS:A single-institution retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate microvascular autologous reconstruction from 2007 to 2019. Outcomes-including major mastectomy flap necrosis, full nipple-areola complex necrosis, and any major ischemic complication of the skin envelope-were compared among incision types. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with major ischemic complication. RESULTS:Two hundred seventy-nine reconstructions (163 patients) were identified, primarily using internal mammary recipient vessels (98.9 percent). Vertical incisions were used in 139 cases; inframammary, in 53; lateral radial, in 51; and inverted-T, in 35. Thirty-two cases (11.5 percent) had major mastectomy flap necrosis, 11 (3.9 percent) had full nipple-areola complex necrosis, and 38 (13.6 percent) had any major ischemic complication. Inframammary incisions had higher rates of major ischemic complication (25 percent) than vertical (5.8 percent; p < 0.001) and lateral radial (7.8 percent; p = 0.032) incisions. Inverted-T incisions also had higher rates of major ischemic complication (36.1 percent) than both vertical (p < 0.001) and lateral radial (p = 0.002) incisions. Inframammary incisions (OR, 4.382; p = 0.002), inverted-T incisions (OR, 3.952; p = 0.011), and mastectomy weight (OR, 1.003; p < 0.001) were independently associated with an increased risk of major ischemic complication. Inframammary incisions with major ischemic complication demonstrated significantly higher body mass index, mastectomy weight, and flap weight compared to those without. CONCLUSIONS:Inframammary and inverted-T incisions are associated with a higher risk of major ischemic skin envelope complications after nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate microvascular breast reconstruction. Radial incisions can be considered to optimize recipient vessel exposure without compromising perfusion. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic, III.

BACKGROUND: Stacked and conjoined (SC) flaps are a useful means of increasing flap volume in autologous breast reconstruction. The majority of studies, however, have been limited to smaller, single-center series. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to identify outcomes-based studies on microvascular SC-flap breast reconstruction. Pooled rates of flap and operative characteristics were analyzed. Meta-analytic effect size estimates were calculated for reconstructive complication rates and outcomes of studies comparing SC flaps to non-SC flaps. Meta-regression analysis identified risk factors for flap complications. RESULTS: = 0.00%), though rates of any flap and donor-site complication were similar. Age, body mass index, flap weight, and flap donor site and recipient vessels were not associated with increased risk of any flap complication. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: A global appraisal of the current evidence demonstrated the safety of SC-flap breast reconstruction with low complication rates, regardless of donor site, and lower rates of fat necrosis compared with non-SC flaps.

BACKGROUND:Implant-based breast reconstruction accounts for the vast majority of breast reconstruction procedures and is commonly performed with human acellular dermal matrix. There is no consensus as to the optimal human acellular dermal matrix preparation, and high-quality evidence concerning comparative effectiveness is lacking. This study is the first prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial to compare human acellular dermal matrix-related complications of the two most commonly used human acellular dermal matrices in implant-based breast reconstruction. The authors hypothesize that there will be no difference in infection, seroma, and reconstructive failure between FlexHD Pliable and AlloDerm RTU. METHODS:The authors conducted a Level 1 prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial to assess complications associated with the use of two human acellular dermal matrices in immediate postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction across seven clinical sites. Group A patients received FlexHD Pliable (113 patients with 187 breast reconstructions), and group B patients received AlloDerm RTU (117 patients with 197 breast reconstructions). RESULTS:There was no significant difference with respect to patient demographics, indications, comorbidities, and reconstruction approach between groups. Mean follow-up time was 10.7 ± 3.2 months. There was no statistical difference in the overall matrix-related complications between groups A and B (4.3 percent versus 7.1 percent, p = 0.233). Obesity (OR, 1.14; 95 percent CI, 1.05 to 1.24; p = 0.001) and prepectoral placement of matrix (OR, 4.53; 95 percent CI, 1.82 to 11.3; p = 0.001) were independently associated with greater risks of overall matrix-related complications. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This work supports the use of human acellular dermal matrices in implant-based breast reconstruction and demonstrates no significant difference in matrix-related complication rates between FlexHD Pliable and AlloDerm RTU.