Faculty Bibliography

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.

Background/UNASSIGNED:While possessing numerous benefits, microsurgical breast reconstruction is associated with longer operative times and post-operative hospital length of stay compared to implant-based reconstruction. We therefore evaluate factors associated with increased length of stay (LOS) after microsurgical breast reconstruction with a case-control study design. Methods/UNASSIGNED:All patients undergoing immediate or delayed abdominally-based microsurgical breast reconstruction over a two-year time period were identified. Risk factors associated with LOS greater than or equal to 5 days were identified. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 116 patients undergoing immediate or delayed abdominally-based microsurgical breast reconstruction were identified. Of these, 86 (74.1%) had a LOS of 4 days or less (mean: 3.70 days) while 30 (25.9%) had a LOS of 5 days or greater (mean: 5.50 days).With regards to patient demographics and intra-operative factors, patients with a LOS of 5 days or greater were significantly more likely to have diabetes mellitus (p < 0.0001), undergo bilateral reconstruction (p = 0.0003) and total mastectomy (p < 0.0001), and have a longer operative time (p < 0.0001) while significantly less likely to undergo post-operative radiation (p = 0.0421). Notably, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of follow-up time, or time since breast reconstruction (p = 0.0600).With regards to reconstructive complications, patients with LOS of 5 days of greater were significantly more likely to experience abdominal donor site abscess (p < 0.0001), breast hematoma (p = 0.0186), and return to the operating room for flap compromise (p < 0.0001). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Multiple patient-specific, intra-operative, and post-operative outcomes factors are associated with increased length of stay with immediate and delayed microsurgical breast reconstruction.

Twenty percent of breast cancer cases may be related to a genetic mutation conferring an increased risk of malignancy. The most common and prominent breast cancer susceptibility genes are BRCA1 and BRCA2, found in nearly 40% of such cases. However, continued interest and investigation of cancer genetics has led to the identification of a myriad of different breast cancer susceptibility genes. Additional genes, each with unique significance and associated characteristics, continue to be recognized. Concurrently, advanced genetic testing, while still controversial, has become more accessible and cost-effective. As oncologic and reconstructive advances continue to be made in prophylactic breast reconstructive surgery, patients may present to plastic surgeons with an increasingly more diverse array of genetic diagnoses to discuss breast reconstruction. It is therefore imperative that plastic surgeons be familiar with these breast cancer susceptibility genes and their clinical implications. We, therefore, aim to review the most common non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer susceptibility genetic mutations in an effort to assist plastic surgeons in counseling and managing this unique patient population. Included in this review are syndromic breast cancer susceptibility genes such as TP53, PTEN, CDH1, and STK11, among others. Nonsyndromic breast cancer susceptibility genes herein reviewed include PALB2, CHEK2, and ataxia telangiectasia mutated gene. With this knowledge, plastic surgeons can play a central role in the diagnosis and comprehensive treatment, including successful breast reconstruction, of all patients carrying genetic mutations conferring increased risk for breast malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic complications after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have been associated with numerous variables. However, the impact of NSM flap thickness has been incompletely evaluated. METHODS: NSM flap thickness was determined for all NSMs from 2006 to 2016 with available pre- or postoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs). Demographics and outcomes were stratified by those with and without ischemic complications. RESULTS: Of 1,037 NSM reconstructions, 420 NSMs had MRI data available, which included 379 preoperative MRIs and 60 postoperative MRIs. Average total preoperative skin/subcutaneous tissue NSM flap thickness was 11.4 mm. Average total postoperative NSM flap thickness was 8.7 mm. NSMs with ischemic complications were found to have significantly thinner overall postoperative NSM flap thickness compared with those without ischemic complications (P = 0.0280). Average overall postoperative NSM flap thickness less than 8.0 mm was found to be an independent predictor of ischemic complications (odds ratio, 6.5263; P = 0.026). In NSMs with both pre- and postoperative MRIs, the overall average postoperative NSM flap thickness was 68.2% of preoperative measurements. Average overall postoperative NSM flap thickness was significantly less than average overall preoperative NSM flap thickness (P < 0.0001). NSMs with ischemic complications were found to have a significantly lower ratio of overall postoperative to preoperative flap thickness (52.0% versus 74.0%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Ischemic complications after NSM are significantly associated with thinner postoperative NSM flap thickness. Particularly, NSM flap thickness less than 8.0 mm is a positive independent predictor of ischemic complications. The ratio of postoperative to preoperative NSM flap thickness was significantly lower in reconstructions with ischemic complications.

BACKGROUND: The increasing use of autologous fat grafting in breast cancer patients has raised concerns regarding its oncologic safety. This study evaluated patient outcomes and tumor recurrence following mastectomy reconstruction and autologous fat grafting. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent mastectomy followed by breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2015. Eight hundred twenty-nine breasts met inclusion criteria: 248 (30.0 percent) underwent autologous fat grafting, whereas 581 (70.0 percent) breasts did not. Patient demographics, cancer characteristics, oncologic treatment, surgical treatment, surgical complications, local recurrence, and distant metastases were analyzed. RESULTS: Autologous fat grafting patients and control patients were of similar body mass index, smoking status, and BRCA status. Patients who underwent fat grafting were significantly younger than control patients and were less likely to have diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. The two groups represented similar distributions of BRCA status, Oncotype scores, and hormone receptor status. Patients underwent one to four grafting procedures: one procedure in 83.1 percent, two procedures in 13.7 percent, three in 2.8 percent, and four in 0.4 percent. Mean follow-up time from initial surgery was 45.6 months in the fat grafting group and 38.8 months in controls. The overall complication rate following fat grafting was 9.4 percent. Among breasts undergoing surgery for therapeutic indications, there were similar rates of local recurrence (fat grafting group, 2.5 percent; controls, 1.9 percent; p = 0.747). Interestingly, mean time to recurrence was significantly longer in the fat grafting group (52.3 months versus 22.8 months from initial surgery; p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Autologous fat grafting is a powerful tool in breast reconstruction. This large, single-institution study provides valuable evidence-based support for its oncologic safety. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

BACKGROUND: Soft-tissue support devices are used during breast reconstruction. This study investigated long-term clinical data following SERI Surgical Scaffold (SERI) implantation, a bioresorbable, silk-derived scaffold for soft-tissue support. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter study in 103 subjects who received SERI during stage 1 of 2-stage breast reconstruction with subpectoral tissue expander placement (Natrelle Style 133V; Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland) followed by subpectoral breast implant placement. Investigator satisfaction (11-point scale: 0, very dissatisfied and 10, very satisfied) at 6 months was the primary endpoint. Ease of use, satisfaction, scaffold palpability/visibility, breast anatomy measurements via 3D images, SERI integration, histology, and safety were also assessed through 2 years after stage 1 surgery. RESULTS: Analyses were performed on the per-protocol population (103 subjects; 161 breasts) with no protocol deviations that could affect outcomes. Ease of use and subject and investigator satisfaction with SERI were high throughout 2 years. Breast anatomy measurements with 3D images demonstrated long-term soft-tissue stability of the lower breast mound. Key complication rates per breast were tissue/skin necrosis and wrinkling/rippling (8.1% each) and seroma, wound dehiscence, and breast redness (5.0% each). Over 2 years, 4 breasts in 4 subjects underwent reoperation with explantation of any device; 2 breasts required SERI explantation. SERI was retained in 98.8% of breasts (159/161) at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: SERI was associated with high and consistent levels of investigator and subject satisfaction and demonstrated soft-tissue stability in the lower breast through 2 years. SERI provides a safe, long-term benefit for soft-tissue support in 2-stage breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy permits complete preservation of the nipple-areola complex with excellent aesthetic results and with oncologic safety similar to that associated with traditional mastectomy techniques. However, outcomes have not been directly compared for tissue expander-, immediate implant-, and autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. METHODS: All patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy from 2006 to June of 2016 were identified at a single institution. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed and compared among different types of breast reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 1028 nipple-sparing mastectomies were performed. Of these, 533 (51.8 percent) were tissue expander-based, 263 (25.6 percent) were autologous tissue-based, and 232 (22.6 percent) were immediate implant-based reconstructions. Tissue expander-based reconstructions had significantly more minor cellulitis (p = 0.0002) but less complete nipple necrosis (p = 0.0126) and major mastectomy flap necrosis (p < 0.0001) compared with autologous tissue-based reconstructions. Compared to immediate implant-based reconstruction, tissue expander-based reconstructions had significantly more minor cellulitis (p = 0.0006) but less complete nipple necrosis (p = 0.0005) and major (p < 0.0001) and minor (p = 0.0028) mastectomy flap necrosis (p = 0.0059). Immediate implant-based reconstructions had significantly more minor cellulitis (p = 0.0051), minor mastectomy flap necrosis (p = 0.0425), and partial nipple necrosis (p = 0.0437) compared with autologous tissue-based reconstructions. Outcomes were otherwise equivalent among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue expander, immediate implant, and autologous tissue breast reconstruction techniques may all be safely offered with nipple-sparing mastectomy. However, reconstructive complications appear to be greater with immediate implant- and autologous tissue-based techniques compared with tissue expander-based reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy suffer from increased complications and inferior outcomes compared with those not irradiated, but advances in radiation delivery have allowed for more nuanced therapy. The authors investigated whether these advances impact patient outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified all implant-based reconstructions performed at a single institution from November of 2010 to November of 2013. These data were cross-referenced with a registry of patients undergoing breast irradiation. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-six patients (533 reconstructions) were not irradiated, whereas 83 patients (125 reconstructions) received radiation therapy; mean follow-up was 24.7 months versus 26.0 months (p = 0.49). Overall complication rates were higher in the irradiated group (35.2 percent versus 14.4 percent; p < 0.01). Increased maximum radiation doses to the skin were associated with complications (maximum dose to skin, p = 0.05; maximum dose to 1 cc of skin, p = 0.01). Different treatment modalities (e.g., three-dimensional conformal, intensity-modulated, field-in-field, and hybrid techniques) did not impact complication rates. Prone versus supine positioning significantly decreased the maximum skin dose (58.5 Gy versus 61.7 Gy; p = 0.05), although this did not translate to significantly decreased complication rates in analysis of prone versus supine positioning. CONCLUSIONS: As radiation techniques evolve, the maximum dose to skin should be given consideration similar to that for heart and lung dosing, to optimize reconstructive outcomes. Prone positioning significantly decreases the maximum skin dose and trends toward significance in reducing reconstructive complications. With continued study, this may become clinically important. Interdepartmental studies such as this one ensure quality of care. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.