Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

Background Prolonged operative time has been associated with increased postoperative complications and higher costs. Many academic centers have a designated day for didactics that cause cases to start 1 hour later. The purpose of this study is to analyze the late-start effect of microvascular breast reconstructions on operative duration. Methods A retrospective review was performed on all patients who underwent abdomina-based free flap breast reconstruction from 2007 to 2011 and analyzed by those who had surgery on late-start versus normal-start days. Patient demographics, average operative time, postoperative complications, and individual surgeon effects were analyzed. A Student t-test was used to compare operative times with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to control for potential confounders. Results A total of 272 patients underwent 461 free flap breast reconstructions. Twenty-one cases were performed on late-start days and 251 cases were performed on normal-start days. Patient demographics and complications were not statistically different between the groups. The average operative time for all reconstructions was 434.3 minutes. The average operative times were significantly longer for late-start days, 517.6 versus 427.3 minutes (p = 0.002). This was true for both unilateral and bilateral reconstructions (432.8 vs. 350.9 minutes, p = 0.05; 551.5 vs. 461.2 minutes, p = 0.007). There were no differences in perioperative complications and multivariate regression showed no statistically significant relationship of confounders to duration of surgery. Conclusion Starting cases 1 hour later can increase operative times. Although outcomes were not affected, we recommend avoiding lengthy procedures on late-start days.

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.

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.