Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The availability of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and synthetic mesh products has prompted plastic surgeons to revisit subcutaneous implant-based breast reconstruction. The literature is limited, however, with regards to evidence on patient selection, techniques, and outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of the Medline and Cochrane databases was performed for original studies reporting breast reconstruction with ADM or mesh, and subcutaneous implant placement. Studies were analyzed for level of evidence, inclusion/exclusion criteria for subcutaneous reconstruction, reconstruction characteristics, and outcomes. RESULTS: Six studies (186 reconstructions) were identified for review. The majority of studies (66.7%) were level IV evidence case series. Eighty percent of studies had contraindications for subcutaneous reconstruction, most commonly preoperative radiation, high body mass index, and active smoking. Forty percent of studies commenting on patient selection assessed mastectomy flap perfusion for subcutaneous reconstruction. Forty-five percent of reconstructions were direct-to-implant, 33.3% 2-stage, and 21.5% single-stage adjustable implant, with ADM utilized in 60.2% of reconstructions versus mesh. Pooled complication rates included: major infection 1.2%, seroma 2.9%, hematoma 2.3%, full nipple-areola complex necrosis 1.1%, partial nipple-areola complex necrosis 4.5%, major flap necrosis 1.8%, wound healing complication 2.3%, explantation 4.1%, and grade III/IV capsular contracture 1.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled short-term complication rates in subcutaneous alloplastic breast reconstruction with ADM or mesh are low in preliminary studies with selective patient populations, though techniques and outcomes are variable across studies. Larger comparative studies and better-defined selection criteria and outcomes reporting are needed to develop appropriate indications for performing subcutaneous implant-based reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate, permanent implant reconstruction offers patients a prosthetic "breast in a day" compared to tissue expander techniques requiring multiple procedures. METHODS: Patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate, permanent implant reconstruction were reviewed with patient demographics and outcomes analyzed. RESULTS: Of 842 nipple-sparing mastectomies from 2006 to June of 2015, 160 (19.0 percent) underwent immediate, permanent implant reconstruction. The average age and body mass index were 46.5 years and 23.3 kg/m. The majority of implants were either Allergan Style 20 (48.1 percent) or Style 15 (22.5 percent). The average implant size was 376.2 ml, and 91.3 percent of reconstructions used acellular dermal matrix. The average number of reconstructive operations was 1.3. Follow-up was 21.9 months. The most common major complication was major mastectomy flap necrosis (8.1 percent). The rate of reconstructive failure was 5.6 percent and implant loss was 4.4 percent. The most common minor complication was minor mastectomy flap necrosis (14.4 percent). The rates of full-thickness and partial-thickness nipple necrosis were 4.4 and 7.5 percent, respectively. Age older than 50 years (p = 0.0276) and implant size greater than 400 ml (p = 0.0467) emerged as independent predictors of overall complications. Obesity (p = 0.4073), tobacco use (p = 0.2749), prior radiation therapy (p = 0.4613), and acellular dermal matrix (p = 0.5305) were not associated with greater complication rates. CONCLUSION: Immediate, permanent implant reconstruction in nipple-sparing mastectomy provides patients with a breast in a day in less than two procedures, with a low complication rate. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

BACKGROUND: Permanent paraffin subareolar biopsy during nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) tests for occult cancer at the nipple-areolar complex. Intraoperative subareolar frozen section can provide earlier detection intraoperatively. Cost analysis for intraoperative subareolar frozen section has never been performed. METHODS: NSM cases from 2006-2013 were reviewed. Patient records including financial charges were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 480 subareolar biopsies for NSM from 2006-2013, 21 were abnormal (4.4 %). A total of 307 of the subareolar biopsies included intraoperative frozen section. Of the 307, 12 (3.9 %) were abnormal with 7 of 12 detected on intraoperative frozen section. The median baseline charge for an intraoperative subareolar frozen section was $309 for an estimated total cost of $94,863 in 307 breasts. The median baseline charge for interval operative resection of a nipple-areolar complex following an abnormal subareolar pathology result was $11,021. Intraoperative subareolar biopsy avoided an estimated six return trips to the operating room for savings of $66,126. At our institution, routine use of intraoperative frozen section resulted in an additional $28,737 in healthcare charges or $95 per breast. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first cost analysis to evaluate intraoperative subareolar frozen section in NSM. This practice obviated an estimated six return trips to the operating room. With our institutional frequency of abnormal subareolar pathology, intraoperative frozen sections resulted in a marginal increased charge per mastectomy.

Background The internal mammary vessels are the most commonly used recipients for microsurgical breast reconstructions. Often, the costal cartilage is sacrificed to obtain improved vessel exposure. In an effort to reduce adverse effects associated with traditional rib sacrifice, recent studies have described less-invasive, rib-sparing strategies. Methods After obtaining institutional review board's approval, a retrospective review of all patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction at a single institution between November 2007 and December 2013 was conducted. Patients were divided into two cohorts for comparison: rib-sacrificing and rib-sparing internal mammary vessel harvests. Results A total of 547 reconstructions (344 patients) met inclusion criteria for this study. A total of 64.9% (n = 355) underwent rib-sacrificing internal mammary vessel harvest. Cohorts were similar in baseline patient characteristics, indications for surgery, and cancer therapies. However, patients undergoing rib-sparing reconstructions had significantly shorter operative times (440 vs. 476 minutes; p < 0.01), and significantly less postoperative pain on postoperative day (POD) 1 (2.8/10 vs. 3.4/10; p = 0.033) and POD2 (2.4/10 vs. 3.0/10; p = 0.037). Furthermore, patients undergoing rib-sparing techniques had greater incidence of fat necrosis requiring excision (12.5 vs. 2.8%; p < 0.01) and a trend toward higher incidence of hematoma, venous thrombosis, and arterial thrombosis when compared with rib-sacrificing patients. Conclusions Rib-sparing harvest of internal mammary vessels is a feasible technique in microsurgical breast reconstruction. However, given the significant increase in fat necrosis requiring surgical excision, the trend toward increased postoperative complications, and no significant difference in postoperative revision rates, the purported benefits of this technique may fail to outweigh the possible risks.

Use of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) for risk-reduction and therapeutic breast cancer resection is growing. The role for intraoperative frozen section of the nipple-areolar complex remains controversial. Records of patients undergoing NSM at our institution from 2006 to 2013 were reviewed. Records from 501 nipple-sparing mastectomies were reviewed (216 therapeutic, 285 prophylactic). Of the 480 breasts with sub-areolar biopsies, 307 had intraoperative frozen sections and 173 were evaluated with permanent paraffin section only. Among the 307 intraoperative frozen sections, 12 biopsies were positive on permanent paraffin section (3.9% or 12/307). Of the 12 positive permanent biopsies, five were false negative and the remaining seven concordant intraoperatively. Sensitivity and specificity of sub-areolar frozen section were 0.58 and 1, respectively. Positive sub-areolar biopsies consisted primarily of ductal carcinoma in situ (62% or 13/21). The nipples or nipple-areolar complex were resected in a separate procedure following mastectomy (10/21), intraoperatively following frozen section results (7/21) or during second-stage breast reconstruction (3/21; 1 additional scheduled). Only 30% (6/20) of resected specimens had abnormal residual pathology. Intraoperative frozen section is highly specific and moderately sensitive for the detection of positive sub-areolar biopsies in NSM. Its use can help guide intraoperative reconstructive planning. The presence of positive sub-areolar biopsies in both contralateral and high-risk prophylactic mastectomy specimens emphasizes the need to perform sub-areolar biopsies in all nipple-sparing mastectomies.

Unilateral breast reconstruction poses a special set of challenges to the reconstructive breast surgeon compared to bilateral reconstructions. No studies to date provide an objective comparison between autologous and implant based reconstructions in matching the contralateral breast. This study compares the quantitative postoperative results between unilateral implant and autologous flap reconstructions in matching the native breast in shape, size, and projection using three-dimensional (3D) imaging. Sixty-four patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy with tissue expander (TE)-implant (n = 34) or autologous microvascular free transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous (TRAM; n = 18) or deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP; n = 12) flap (n = 30) reconstruction from 2007 to 2010 were analyzed. Key patient demographics and risk factors were collected. Using 3D scans of patients obtained during pre and postoperative visits including over 1 year follow-ups for both groups, 3D models were constructed and analyzed for total breast volume, anterior-posterior projection from the chest wall, and 3D comparison. No significant differences in mean age, body mass index, or total number of reconstructive surgeries were observed between the two groups (TE-implant: 52.2 +/- 10, 23.9 +/- 3.7, 3 +/- 0.9; autologous: 50.7 +/- 9.4, 25.4 +/- 3.9, 2.9 +/- 1.3; p > 0.05). The total volume difference between the reconstructed and contralateral breasts in the TE-implant group was insignificant: 27.1 +/- 22.2 cc, similar to the autologous group: 29.5 +/- 24.7 cc, as was the variance of breast volume from the mean. In both groups, the reconstructed breast had a larger volume. A-P projections were similar between the contralateral and the reconstructed breasts in the TE-implant group: 72.5 +/- 3.21 mm versus 71.7 +/- 3.5 mm (p > 0.05). The autologous reconstructed breast had statistically insignificant but less A-P projection compared to the contralateral breast (81.9 +/- 16.1 mm versus 61.5 +/- 9.5 mm; p > 0.05). Variance of A-P projection from the mean was additionally insignificant between the contralateral and reconstructed breasts. Both groups produced similar asymmetry scores based on global 3D comparison (TE-implant: 2.24 +/- 0.3 mm; autologous: 1.96 +/- 0.2 mm; p > 0.05). Lastly, when the autologous group was further subdivided into TRAM and DIEP cohorts, no significant differences in breast volume, A-P projection or symmetry existed. Using 3D imaging, we demonstrate that both TE-implant and autologous reconstruction can achieve symmetrical surgical results with the same number of operations. This study demonstrates that breast symmetry, while an important consideration in the breast reconstruction algorithm, should not be the sole consideration in a patient' decision to proceed with autologous versus TE-implant reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term oncologic outcomes in nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) continue to be defined. Rates of locoregional recurrence for skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and NSM in the literature range from 0% to 14.3%. We investigated the outcomes of NSM at our institution. METHODS: Patients undergoing NSM at our institution from 2006 to 2014 were identified and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2014, 319 patients (555 breasts) underwent NSM. One-hundered and fourty-one patients (237 breasts) had long-term follow-up available. Average patient age and BMI were 47.78 and 24.63. Eighty-four percent of patients underwent mastectomy primarily for a therapeutic indication. Average tumor size was 1.50 cm with the most common histologic type being invasive ductal carcinoma (62.7%) followed by DCIS (23.7%). Average patient follow-up was 30.73 months. There was one (0.8%) incidence of ipsilateral chest-wall recurrence. There were 0.37 complications per patient. CONCLUSIONS: We examined our institutional outcomes with NSM and found a locoregional recurrence rate of 0.8% with no nipple-areolar complex recurrence. This rate is lower than published rates for both NSM and SSM. J. Surg. Oncol. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrices are used in implant-based breast reconstruction. The introduction of contour fenestrated AlloDerm (Life-Cell, Branchburg, N.J.) offers sterile processing, a crescent shape, and prefabricated fenestrations. However, any evidence comparing reconstructive outcomes between this newer generation acellular dermal matrices and earlier versions is lacking. METHODS: Patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2014 were identified. Reconstructive outcomes were stratified by 4 types of implant coverage: aseptic AlloDerm, sterile "ready-to-use" AlloDerm, contour fenestrated AlloDerm, or total submuscular coverage. Outcomes were compared with significance set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 620 patients (1019 reconstructions) underwent immediate, implant-based breast reconstruction; patients with contour fenestrated AlloDerm were more likely to have nipple-sparing mastectomy (P = 0.0001, 0.0004, and 0.0001) and immediate permanent implant reconstructions (P = 0.0001). Those with contour fenestrated AlloDerm coverage had lower infection rates requiring oral (P = 0.0016) and intravenous antibiotics (P = 0.0012) compared with aseptic AlloDerm coverage. Compared with sterile "ready-to-use" AlloDerm coverage, those with contour fenestrated AlloDerm had similar infection outcomes but significantly more minor mastectomy flap necrosis (P = 0.0023). Compared with total submuscular coverage, those with contour fenestrated AlloDerm coverage had similar infection outcomes but significantly more explantations (P = 0.0001), major (P = 0.0130) and minor mastectomy flap necrosis (P = 0.0001). Significant independent risk factors for increased infection were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Contour fenestrated AlloDerm reduces infections compared with aseptic AlloDerm, but infection rates are similar to those of sterile, ready-to-use AlloDerm and total submuscular coverage.