Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction have higher long-term satisfaction rates compared with those undergoing prosthetic reconstruction. Regardless, most patients still undergo prosthetic reconstruction. The authors compared outcomes of microsurgical reconstruction to those of prosthetic reconstruction in thin patients and evaluated the effect of reconstructive type on quality of life. METHODS: After institutional review board approval was obtained, the authors reviewed all patients undergoing breast reconstruction at a single institution from November of 2007 to May of 2012. Thin patients (body mass index <22 kg/m) were included for analysis and divided into two cohorts: microsurgical reconstruction and tissue expander/implant reconstruction. Once identified, patients were mailed a BREAST-Q survey for response; a retrospective chart review was also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients met inclusion criteria: 81.7 percent (n = 223) underwent tissue expander/implant reconstruction and 18.3 percent (n = 50) underwent microsurgical reconstruction. Of the patients undergoing microsurgical reconstruction, 50 percent (n = 25) responded to the BREAST-Q survey, whereas 48.4 percent of patients (n = 108) with implant reconstruction were responders. Microsurgical patients required more secondary revision [48 percent (n = 12) versus 25.9 percent (n = 28)] and autologous fat grafting [32 percent (n = 8) versus 16.9 percent (n = 19)] and a greater volume of fat per injection (147.85 ml versus 63.9 ml; p < 0.001). Furthermore, BREAST-Q responses showed that these patients were more satisfied with their breasts (71.1 percent versus 64.9 percent; p = 0.004), but had similar overall satisfaction with reconstruction (73.0 percent versus 74.8 percent; p = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Microsurgical breast reconstruction is efficacious in patients with a body mass index less than 22 kg/m and, when compared with prosthetic reconstruction, results in higher satisfaction with breasts. However, it requires more secondary revision surgery and the use of autologous fat grafting as an adjunct. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Three-dimensional surface imaging has gained clinical acceptance in plastic and reconstructive surgery. In contrast to computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, three-dimensional surface imaging relies on triangulation in stereophotography to measure surface x, y, and z coordinates. This study reviews the past, present, and future directions of three-dimensional topographic imaging in plastic surgery. Historically, three-dimensional imaging technology was first used in a clinical setting in 1944 to diagnose orthodontologic conditions. Karlan established its use in the field of plastic surgery in 1979, analyzing contours and documenting facial asymmetries. Present use of three-dimensional surface imaging has focused on standardizing patient topographic measurements to enhance preoperative planning and to improve postoperative outcomes. Various measurements (e.g., volume, surface area, vector distance, curvature) have been applied to breast, body, and facial topography to augment patient analysis. Despite the rapid progression of the clinical applications of three-dimensional imaging, current use of this technology is focused on the surgeon's perspective and secondarily the patient's perspective. Advancements in patient simulation may improve patient-physician communication, education, and satisfaction. However, a communal database of three-dimensional surface images integrated with emerging three-dimensional printing and portable information technology will validate measurements and strengthen preoperative planning and postoperative outcomes. Three-dimensional surface imaging is a useful adjunct to plastic and reconstructive surgery practices and standardizes measurements to create objectivity in a subjective field. Key improvements in three-dimensional imaging technology may significantly enhance the quality of plastic and reconstructive surgery in the near future.

Background The purpose of this investigation was to examine patients with low body mass index (BMI) regarding the feasibility to perform autologous breast reconstruction in such patients, as well as to determine optimal donor sites and evaluate outcomes accordingly. Patients and Methods All patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction were divided into three cohorts based on BMI. Group 1 included patients with BMI greater than or equal to 22 kg/m2 and was defined "low-normal BMI." Patients with BMI 22 to 25 kg/m2 were placed in Group 2, labeled as "high-normal BMI." Group 3, defined as "overweight," included patients with BMI greater than 25 kg/m2, but less than 30 kg/m2. Patients were then analyzed based on demographics, breast cancer history, intraoperative details, complications, and revisionary surgeries. F-tests, chi-square goodness-of-fit tests, and Freeman-Halton extension of the Fisher exact tests were used for statistical analysis. Results During the study period, a total of 259 reconstructions were performed. Group 1 included 30 patients (n = 49 flaps), Group 2 included 58 patients (n = 98 flaps), and Group 3 included 69 patients (n = 112 flaps). Patients undergoing nipple-areolar sparing mastectomy were more likely to be in Groups 1 (39% [n = 19]) and 2 (37% [n = 37]) as compared with Group 3 (14.2% [n = 16]) (p < 0.001) as compared with the overweight cohort. Patients with increasing BMI were more likely to undergo abdominally based free flaps as compared with alternative donor sites (Group 1 = 2.26, Group 2 = 7.9, Group 3 = 27 [p < 0.001]). Conclusions Abdominally based free flaps are possible in the majority of patients, however alternative harvest sites have to be used more frequently in low BMI patients.

PURPOSE: Melanoma, the skin cancer with the lowest incidence, causes the majority of all skin cancer-related deaths. Early detection has led to the discovery of melanoma at less advanced stages, thus shifting the reconstructive paradigm from sole survivorship to the improvement of function and cosmesis while still maintaining an overall adequate outcome. Reconstructive approaches rely on two main factors: location of the lesion and size of the lesion. Due to the complexity of the hand, reconstructive options are quite heterogeneous. The purpose of this study is to explore the clinical data and reconstructive strategies of hand and digital cutaneous melanoma and subungual melanoma, review the current reconstructive options presented in the medical literature, and offer a reconstructive algorithm to surgically approach primary melanoma of the hand. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients undergoing oncologic resection of primary melanoma of the hand at New York University Langone Medical Center (NYULMC) between April 2003 and October 2011. Variables collected included age, race, gender, type of melanoma, Breslow depth, stage, oncologic resection, reconstructive surgery, and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients with primary melanoma of the hand comprised the study cohort. The mean age of presentation was 56 years with a total of 24 women and 11 men. The average Breslow depth of the cohort was 1.58 mm. There were 13 cases of melanoma in situ (MIS). All MIS cases were treated with wide local excision, yet the subungual group needed more extensive reconstruction including paronychial advancement flaps and full-thickness skin grafts (FTSG). Twenty-two cases presented as malignant melanoma. The majority of the patients with cutaneous melanoma underwent wide local excision with primary closure or FTSG. In the subungual group, all patients underwent amputation at the most distal interphalangeal joint or wide local excision. The reconstruction consisted of local advancement flaps, FTSG, or primary closure. CONCLUSION: Reconstructive options for primary melanoma of the hand are quite varied without strong guidelines as to which technique is superior. Location, size, and type of lesion (cutaneous or subungual) help shape which reconstructive strategies are optimal. With more conservative oncologic approaches and advanced reconstructive techniques, patients are able to maintain function with a satisfactory degree of cosmesis.

Subungual melanoma is a rare but lethal form of melanoma. Amputation at the level of the interphalangeal joint or proximal has been described as appropriate surgical management for all stages of subungal melanoma. In cases of subungual melanoma in situ (SMIS), wide local excision can improve functional and aesthetic outcomes. We reviewed our experience of wide local excision for the treatment of SMIS. Between 2003 and 2010, we treated 9 cases of SMIS. We performed a retrospective review of this series looking at the primary outcomes of recurrence or metastasis. Average age was 40 years (range, 5-65 years). Presenting lesions were on the thumb (5) and index finger (4). All patients underwent definitive reconstruction with a combination of full-thickness skin graft (8) and paronychial advancement flap (6). Reexcision was performed when disease-free margins could not be confirmed. To date, there have been no cases of metastasis or local recurrence in any of our 9 patients (mean follow-up time of more than 4 years). Wide local excision can improve functional and aesthetic outcomes with similar success in rates of local recurrence and metastasis when compared to treatment by amputation in SMIS.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is a recent advance in the therapeutic and prophylactic management of breast cancer; however, the procedure is associated with increased reconstructive complications. Data on NSM after previous breast augmentation are limited. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared reconstructive complications after NSM between patients with previously augmented breasts and a larger cohort that had not undergone prior augmentation. An approach to NSM that involves 2-stage reconstruction in augmented patients is also described. METHODS: Medical records of NSMs performed at New York University Langone Medical Center from 2006 to 2013 were reviewed. Data points evaluated included patient characteristics, comorbidities, breast implant plane, and reconstructive complications. Fisher's exact and t tests were used for the comparisons. RESULTS: During the study period, NSMs were performed in 17 augmented breasts at this institution. After NSM, 15 of these breasts underwent implant-based reconstruction and 2 breasts underwent microvascular free flaps. Reconstructive complications included 1 hematoma managed nonoperatively (5.9%) and 1 partial necrosis of the nipple-areola complex (NAC) (5.9%). Compared with the larger nonaugmented cohort (n = 332), patients with previously augmented breasts had fewer complications, and there were no statistically significant differences in the rates of mastectomy flap necrosis, partial NAC necrosis, complete NAC necrosis, hematoma, capsular contracture, explantation, implant displacement, seroma, or breast cellulitis. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that NSM reconstruction is associated with minimal complications in patients with previous augmentation mammaplasty. Level of Evidence: 4.

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction in the setting of prior breast irradiation is conventionally considered a higher-risk procedure. Limited data exist regarding nipple-sparing mastectomy in irradiated breasts, a higher-risk procedure in higher-risk patients. METHODS: The authors identified and reviewed the records of 501 nipple-sparing mastectomy breasts at their institution from 2006 to 2013. RESULTS: Of 501 nipple-sparing mastectomy breasts, 26 were irradiated. The average time between radiation and mastectomy was 12 years. Reconstruction methods in the 26 breasts included tissue expander (n = 14), microvascular free flap (n = 8), direct implant (n = 2), latissimus dorsi flap with implant (n = 1), and rotational perforator flap (n = 1). Rate of return to the operating room for mastectomy flap necrosis was 11.5 percent (three of 26). Nipple-areola complex complications included one complete necrosis (3.8 percent) and one partial necrosis (3.8 percent). Complications were compared between this subset of previously irradiated patients and the larger nipple-sparing mastectomy cohort. There was no significant difference in body mass index, but the irradiated group was significantly older (51 years versus 47.2 years; p = 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference with regard to mastectomy flap necrosis (p = 0.46), partial nipple-areola complex necrosis (p = 1.00), complete nipple-areola complex necrosis (p = 0.47), implant explantation (p = 0.06), hematoma (p = 1.00), seroma (p = 1.00), or capsular contracture (p = 1.00). CONCLUSION: In the largest study to date of nipple-sparing mastectomy in irradiated breasts, the authors demonstrate that implant-based and autologous reconstruction can be performed with complications comparable to those of the rest of their nipple-sparing mastectomy patients.

BACKGROUND: Loss of volume after autologous fat transfer to the breast is well documented, and various methods to improve long-term survival of fat grafts have been investigated (including both distant and neighboring harvest sites), but no optimal technique has been identified. OBJECTIVE: The authors compare fat graft survival from 2 anatomical donor sites to determine whether there is an optimal site for fat graft harvesting in breast reconstruction. METHODS: Seventy-three patients (109 breasts) who received fat grafting to reconstructed breasts from 2009 to 2012 were enrolled in this retrospective study and divided into 2 groups: group A had fat harvested from the abdomen and group B from the thighs. Fat grafting was performed using a modified Coleman technique for symmetry. For all patients, 3-dimensional scans were obtained and volumes were analyzed. RESULTs: Forty-six patients (66 breasts) received an average of 101 mL of fat injected from the abdomen, and 27 (43 breasts) received an average of 102 mL from the thighs. Group A had 82% volume retention at 16 days, 63% at 49 days, and 45% at 140 days. Group B had 86% at 16 days, 63% at 49 days, and 46% at 140 days (P > .05). Patients were also stratified by radiation exposure and volume injected; neither affected donor site volume retention (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that donor site, regardless of volume injected or tissue radiation, did not affect volume retention in fat grafting. Longer-term studies are needed to assess the stability of the breast after fat grafting.