Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:A seroma following prepectoral tissue expander (TE) reconstruction often begets other complications, which may compromise the reconstruction. This study investigated the association between seroma and subsequent complications. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:All consecutive prepectoral TE reconstructions performed between March 2017 and December 2022 at a single center were reviewed. Demographics, operative characteristics, and complications data were extracted for all patients and analyzed. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< 0.01). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Although causality cannot be determined, our data suggests that seroma may be the "kiss of death" in prepectoral TE reconstruction because half of all breasts with a seroma went on to develop other complications.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Although many factors in prepectoral breast reconstruction such as mastectomy weight and flap quality are out of the plastic surgeon's control, some elements such as intraoperative tissue expander (TE) fill can be optimized. This study assesses the impact of intraoperative TE fill on postoperative complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction and posits the optimal fill. METHODS:All consecutive, prepectoral TE reconstructions performed between March 2017 and December 2022 at a single center were reviewed. A "fill ratio" or ratio of intraoperative TE fill to mastectomy weight (TEF/MW) was constructed to quantify deadspace in the breast pocket, with values closer to 1 signifying less deadspace. Major complications include those requiring readmission or reoperation and minor complications include those that could be treated as an outpatient. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS:A total of 200 patients (318 breasts) with average follow-up of 22 months were included. Patients were, on average, 53 years old, were nonsmoker (98%), were nondiabetic (91%), and had a body mass index of 26 kg/m2. Only immediate reconstructions were included and were performed following prophylactic mastectomies in 34% and therapeutic mastectomies in 66% of cases. Seventy-six (24%) breasts were radiated, and 93 (47%) patients received chemotherapy. Mean mastectomy weight was 546 g, median intraoperative TE fill was 175 ± 250 cc, and median final TE fill was 390 ± 220 cc.Major complications occurred in 64 (20%) breasts and were associated with less deadspace (0.49 vs 0.36, P < 0.05). In multivariable models, a higher fill ratio was associated with 2.4 times higher odds of major complications (95% CI, 1.2-4.7; P = 0.01). Optimal intraoperative TE fill for avoiding major complications was 80 cc, and optimal fill ratio was 0.09.Explantation occurred in 44 (14%) breasts and was associated with less deadspace (0.51 vs 0.35, P < 0.05); the optimal fill for avoiding explantation was 80 cc, and optimal ratio was 0.12. CONCLUSIONS:Higher intraoperative TE fill and less deadspace were associated with postoperative complications. Filling a TE to 80 cc or approximately a tenth of mastectomy weight may reduce complications.

BACKGROUND:Reports suggest neurotization can help restore sensation in patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). There is a dearth of information regarding the outcomes and cost associated with neurotization of the nipple-areola complex (NAC). The objective of this study is to determine perioperative complications of performing NAC neurotization in IBBR and analyze the added cost of performing this procedure. METHODS:A retrospective chart review was performed of patients who underwent NSM with IBBR. Breasts undergoing neurotization of the NAC were compared to breasts that did not undergo neurotization using 2:1 propensity score matching on age, reconstruction type, and BMI. Primary endpoints included 30-day complications and cost. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, t tests, and chi-square tests where applicable with a predetermined level of significance of P < 0.05. RESULTS:A total of 15 patients (26 breasts) were in the neurotized cohort and matched to 30 patients (52 breasts) in the nonneurotized cohort. Mean follow-up period was 10 months and significantly lower in neurotized group (P < 0.001). Rates of major and minor complications did not vary by neurotization (P > 0.05). Cases of neurotization added a mean cost of $7839 per breast. CONCLUSIONS:As NAC neurotization introduces increased complexity from coordination with the oncologic surgeons, use of microsurgical instruments, and additional implantable devices, it is important to compare perioperative outcomes to standard breast reconstruction. As our institution begins to offer this new technique, we have identified no increased risk of perioperative complications with NAC neurotization.

Therapeutic, IV.

BACKGROUND:Breast implant illness (BII) has become a contentious subject in recent years. Although some studies have reported associations between breast implants and autoimmune diseases, others have failed to establish a definitive link. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date evaluation of the literature surrounding BII, with an emphasis on identifying patient-related factors that may be associated with BII. METHODS:A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines by searching the PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies published in the last 20 years. RESULTS:Thirty-one studies were included, which covered 39,505 implant patients with a mean [standard deviation] age of 44.2 [9.30] years. Fifteen studies reported implant explantation status, with 72.4% patients choosing to remove their implants. Among these, 9 studies reported symptom improvement in 83.5% patients. Fifty-three percent of patients undergoing explantation had total capsulectomy. Twenty-eight studies documented total numbers of patients experiencing symptoms related to BII, with 31.3% patients reporting such symptoms. Among these, 16 studies of 4109 BII patients distinguished whether the reason for implantation was cosmetic augmentation or reconstruction. When specified, more patients experiencing BII-related symptoms received implants for "cosmetic" vs "reconstructive" reasons (cosmetic, 3864/4109 [94.0%] vs reconstruction, 245/4109 [5.96%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:This review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding BII. The study highlights a potential relationship between BII and indication for implants (cosmetic vs reconstructive) among other variables, offering valuable insight on factors associated with BII and directions for future research.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) viability remains a significant concern following prepectoral tissue expander (TE) reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). This study assesses the impact of intraoperative TE fill on NAC necrosis and identifies strategies for mitigating this risk. METHODS:A chart review of all consecutive, prepectoral TEs placed immediately after NSM was performed between March 2017 and December 2022 at a single center. Demographics, mastectomy weight, intraoperative TE fill, and complications were extracted for all patients. Partial NAC necrosis was defined as any thickness of skin loss including part of the NAC, whereas total NAC necrosis was defined as full-thickness skin loss involving the entirety of the NAC. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS:Forty-six patients (83 breasts) with an average follow-up of 22 months were included. Women were on average 46 years old, nonsmoker (98%), and nondiabetic (100%) and had a body mass index of 23 kg/m2. All reconstructions were performed immediately following prophylactic mastectomies in 49% and therapeutic mastectomies in 51% of cases. Three breasts (4%) were radiated, and 15 patients (33%) received chemotherapy. Mean mastectomy weight was 346 ± 274 g, median intraoperative TE fill was 150 ± 225 mL, and median final TE fill was 350 ± 170 mL. Partial NAC necrosis occurred in 7 breasts (8%), and there were zero instances of complete NAC necrosis. On univariate analysis, partial NAC necrosis was not associated with any patient demographic or operative characteristics, including intraoperative TE fill. In multivariable models controlling for age, body mass index, mastectomy weight, prior breast surgery, and intraoperative TE fill, partial NAC necrosis was associated with lower body mass index (odds ratio, 0.53; confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.98; P < 0.05) and higher mastectomy weight (odds ratio, 1.1; CI, 1.01-1.20; P < 0.05). Prior breast surgery approached significance, as those breasts had a 19.4 times higher odds of partial NAC necrosis (95% CI, 0.88-427.6; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS:Nipple-areolar complex necrosis following prepectoral TE reconstruction is a rare but serious complication. In this study of 83 breasts, 7 (8%) developed partial NAC necrosis, and all but one were able to be salvaged.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Given the dialogistic properties of ChatGPT, we hypothesized that this artificial intelligence (AI) function can be used as a self-service tool where clinical questions can be directly answered by AI. Our objective was to assess the content, accuracy, and accessibility of AI-generated content regarding common perioperative questions for reduction mammaplasty. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:less than 0.05. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< 0.0001). AI outputs specifically recommended following surgeon provided postoperative instructions in 82.5% of instances. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Currently available AI tools, in their nascent form, can provide recommendations for common perioperative questions and concerns for reduction mammaplasty. With further calibration, AI interfaces may serve as a tool for fielding patient queries in the future; however, patients must always retain the ability to bypass technology and be able to contact their surgeon.

BACKGROUND:Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has become widely available for breast cancer prophylaxis. There are limited data on its long-term oncologic safety. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of breast cancer in patients who underwent prophylactic NSM. METHODS:All patients undergoing prophylactic NSM at a single institution from 2006 through 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographic factors, genetic predispositions, mastectomy specimen pathology, and oncologic occurrences at follow-up were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed where necessary to classify demographic factors and oncologic characteristics. RESULTS:A total of 871 prophylactic NSMs were performed on 641 patients, with median follow-up of 82.0 months (standard error 1.24). A total of 94.4% of patients ( n = 605) underwent bilateral NSMs, although only the prophylactic mastectomy was considered. The majority of mastectomy specimens (69.6%) had no identifiable pathology. A total of 38 specimens (4.4%) had cancer identified in mastectomy specimens, with ductal carcinoma in situ being the most common (92.1%; n = 35). Multifocal or multicentric disease was observed in seven cases (18.4%) and lymphovascular invasion was identified in two (5.3%). One patient (0.16%), who was a BRCA2 variant carrier, was found to have breast cancer 6.5 years after prophylactic mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS:Overall primary oncologic occurrence rates are very low in high-risk patients undergoing prophylactic NSM. In addition to reducing the risk of oncologic occurrence, prophylactic surgery itself may be therapeutic in a small proportion of patients. Continued surveillance for these patients remains important to assess at longer follow-up intervals. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Risk, IV.

BACKGROUND:The superomedial pedicle for reduction mammaplasty remains less commonly performed than the inferior pedicle. This study seeks to delineate the complication profiles and outcomes for reduction mammaplasty using a superomedial pedicle technique in a large series. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted of all consecutively performed reduction mammaplasty cases at a single institution by two plastic surgeons over a 2-year period. All consecutive superomedial pedicle reduction mammaplasty cases for benign symptomatic macromastia were included. RESULTS:A total of 462 breasts were analyzed. Mean age was 38.3 ± 13.38 years, mean body mass index was 28.5 ± 4.95, and mean reduction weight was 644.4 ± 299.16 g. Regarding surgical technique, a superomedial pedicle was used in all cases; Wise-pattern incision was used in 81.4%, and short-scar incision was used in 18.6%. The mean sternal notch-to-nipple measurement was 31.2 ± 4.54 cm. There was a 19.7% rate of any complication, the majority of which were minor in nature, including any wound healing complications treated with local wound care (7.5%) and scarring with intervention in the office (8.6%). There was no statistically significant difference in breast reduction complications and outcomes using the superomedial pedicle, regardless of sternal notch-to-nipple distance. Body mass index ( P = 0.029) and breast reduction specimen operative weight ( P = 0.004) were the only significant risk factors for a surgical complication, and with each additional gram of reduction weight, the odds of a surgical complication increased by 1.001. Mean follow-up time was 40.5 ± 7.1 months. CONCLUSION:The superomedial pedicle is an excellent option for reduction mammaplasty, portending a favorable complication profile and long-term outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic, IV.