Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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: 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.

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.

Perioperative infection is the most common and dreaded complication associated with tissue expander (TE) breast reconstruction. Historically, the expansion period was thought to be the time of greatest hazard to the implant. However, recent institutional observations suggest infectious complications occur prior to expansion. This investigation, therefore, was conducted to determine the timing of infectious complications associated with two-stage TE breast reconstructions. Following IRB approval, a retrospective review of all consecutive two-stage immediate TE breast reconstructions at a single institution from November 2007 to November 2011 was conducted. Reconstructions were then divided into two cohorts: those suffering infectious complications and those that did not. Infectious complications including minor cellulitis, major cellulitis, abscess drainage, and explantation were identified. Various operative and patient variables were evaluated in comparison. Eight hundred ninety immediate two-stage TE breast reconstructions met inclusion criteria. Patients suffering infection were older (55.4 years versus 49.3 years; p < 0.001), and more likely to have therapeutic mastectomy (94% versus 61%; p < 0.0001), the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM; 72.5% versus 54.9%; p = 0.001), and greater initial TE fill (448.6 mL versus 404.7 mL; p = 0.0078). The average time to developing of infectious symptoms was 29.6 days (range 9-142 days), with 94.6% (n = 87) of infections prior to the start of expansion. Perioperative infections in immediate two-stage TE to implant breast reconstructions are significant and occur mostly prior to the start of expansion. Thus, challenging the conventional wisdom that instrumentation during expander filling as the primary cause of implant infections. Possible etiologic factors include greater age, therapeutic mastectomy versus prophylactic mastectomy, larger initial TE fill, and the use of ADM.

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.