Faculty Bibliography

Background/UNASSIGNED:The majority of two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction has been described utilizing acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Although reports of prepectoral breast reconstruction without ADM exist, there is a paucity of comparative studies. Methods/UNASSIGNED:A single-institution retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients undergoing immediate prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from 2017 to 2019. Short-term reconstructive and aesthetic complications were compared between cases that utilized ADM for support and those that did not. Results/UNASSIGNED:0.362). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Immediate two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with tissue expanders has comparable rates of short-term complications with or without ADM support. Safety of prepectoral expander placement without ADM may warrant more selective ADM use in these cases.

BACKGROUND:Stacked and conjoined free flaps are increasingly utilized in autologous breast reconstruction to augment tissue transfer volume. However, there is a paucity of comparative data on abdominally-based stacked/conjoined versus non-stacked/conjoined flaps. The purpose of this study was to compare ability to match native breast size, complications, recovery, and symmetrizing procedures between these two cohorts in unilateral breast reconstruction. METHODS:A retrospective review of all stacked (two separate hemiabdominal)/conjoined (bipedicled full abdominal) flaps and non-stacked/conjoined (unipedicled hemiabdominal) flaps in unilateral abdominally-based autologous breast reconstructions was performed from 2011 to 2018. Variables including demographics, operative characteristics, complications, and revisions were compared in 36 stacked/conjoined patients versus 146 non-stacked/conjoined patients. RESULTS:The stacked/conjoined cohort had more DIEP flaps (91.7 vs. 65.1%) and the non-stacked/conjoined group more MS-TRAMs (34.2 vs. 6.9%, p = .000). Additionally, non-stacked/conjoined flaps had greater utilization of combined medial and lateral row perforators (p = .000). Mean flap weight was significantly higher than mastectomy weight in stacked/conjoined flaps (+110.7 g) when compared to non-stacked/conjoined flaps (-40.2) (p = .023). Average follow-up was 54.7 ± 27.5 and 54.6 ± 29.3 months, respectively. Stacked/conjoined flaps had lower fat necrosis rates (8.3 vs. 25.4%, p = .039) and had a decreased risk of fat necrosis on multivariable regression analysis (OR 0.278, p = 0.045). There were otherwise no differences in flap, breast, or donor-site complications. Stacked/conjoined flaps also had a lower rate of contralateral breast reduction (p = .041). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Stacked/conjoined flaps were associated with a lower risk of fat necrosis compared with non-stacked/conjoined flaps and had a lower rate of contralateral symmetrizing reductions in patients undergoing unilateral abdominally-based breast reconstruction.

The aesthetics of breast reconstruction inherently rely on both the ablative and reconstructive procedures. Mastectomy flap quality remains one of the most critical factors in determining the success of a reconstruction and its aesthetic outcome. Maintaining the segmental perfusion to the nipple and skin envelope during mastectomy requires preserving the subcutaneous tissue superficial to the breast capsule. Because this layer of tissue varies in thickness among different patients and within each breast, anatomic dissection along the appropriate planes is required rather than a "one-size-fits-all" mentality. A team-based approach between the breast surgeon and plastic surgeon will optimize both the ablative and reconstructive procedures while engaging in a process of shared decision-making with the patient. Preoperative clinical analysis and utilization of imaging to assess individual breast anatomy will help guide mastectomies as well as decisions on reconstructive modalities. Critical assessment of mastectomy flaps is paramount and requires flexibility to adapt reconstructive paradigms intraoperatively to minimize the risk of complications and provide the best aesthetic result.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been associated with improved quality of life and patient satisfaction with similar oncologic outcomes compared with traditional mastectomy techniques. By conserving the nipple-areola complex and the majority of the breast skin envelope, NSM allows for improved aesthetic outcomes after breast reconstruction. However, the technique is also associated with a steep learning curve that must be considered to achieve optimal outcomes. It is important that the plastic surgeon functions in concert with the extirpative breast surgeon to optimize outcomes because the reconstruction is ultimately dependent on the quality of the overlying mastectomy flaps. Various other factors influence the complex interplay between aesthetic and reconstructive outcomes in NSM, including preoperative evaluation, specific implant- and autologous-based considerations, as well as techniques to optimize and correct nipple-areola complex position. Management strategies for complications necessary to salvage a successful reconstruction are also reviewed. Lastly, techniques to expand indications for NSM and maximize nipple viability as well as preshape the breast are discussed. Through thoughtful preoperative planning and intraoperative technique, ideal aesthetic results in NSM may be achieved.

Bilateral prophylactic mastectomies (BPM) in young previvors with high-risk mutations are rising; however, little data on management, therapy timing, and outcomes exist. BRCA+ patients under 30 undergoing BPM from 2006 to 2018 were reviewed. Twenty-two patients aged 23-29 underwent mastectomy 4.2 years after genetic diagnosis. Twelve patients completed surveys, most often citing personal decisions (50%) for undergoing mastectomy and plastic surgeons' recommendations (83.3%) for reconstruction. About 73% of patients completely understood risks/benefits of mastectomy and 63.6% of reconstruction. Patients reported high BREAST-Q Satisfaction and Well-Being scores. Continued educational resource development will optimize shared decision-making in the reconstructive process.

Background/UNASSIGNED:The omentum provides abundant lymphatic tissue with reliable vascular anatomy, representing an ideal donor for vascularized lymph node transfer without risk for donor site lymphedema. We describe a novel, robotically assisted approach for omental flap harvest. Methods/UNASSIGNED:All patients undergoing robotically assisted omentum harvest for vascularized lymph node transfer from 2017 to 2019 were identified. Patient demographics, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes were reviewed. Results/UNASSIGNED:, respectively. Indications for lymph node transfer were upper extremity lymphedema following mastectomy, radiation, and lymphadenectomy (60.0%); congenital unilateral lower extremity lymphedema (20.0%); and bilateral lower extremity/scrotal lymphedema following partial penectomy and bilateral inguinal/pelvic lymphadenectomy (20.0%). Four patients (80.0%) underwent standard robotic harvest, whereas 1 patient underwent single-port robotic harvest. The average number of port sites was 4.4. All patients underwent omentum flap transfer to 2 sites; in 2 cases, the flap was conjoined, and in 3 cases, the flap was segmented. The average overall operative time was 9:19. The average inpatient hospitalization was 5.2 days. Two patients experienced cellulitis, which is resolved with oral antibiotics. There were no major complications. All patients reported subjective improvement in swelling and softness of the affected extremity. The average follow-up was 8.8 months. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Robotically assisted omental harvest for vascularized lymph node transfer is a novel, safe, and viable minimally invasive approach offering improved intra-abdominal visibility and maneuverability for flap dissection.

BACKGROUND:Optimizing outcomes and assessing appropriate candidates for breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy is an ongoing goal for plastic surgeons. METHODS:All patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy from 2006 to June of 2018 were reviewed and randomly divided into test and validation groups. A logistic regression model calculating the odds ratio for any complication from 12 risk factors was derived from the test group, whereas the validation group was used to validate this model. RESULTS:The test group was composed of 537 nipple-sparing mastectomies (50.2 percent), with an overall complication rate of 27.2 percent (146 nipple-sparing mastectomies). The validation group was composed of 533 nipple-sparing mastectomies (49.8 percent), with an overall complication rate of 22.9 percent (122 nipple-sparing mastectomies). A logistic regression model predicting overall complications was derived from the test group. Nipple-sparing mastectomies in the test group were divided into deciles based on predicted risk in the model. Risk increased with probability decile; decile 1 was significantly protective, whereas deciles 9 and 10 were significantly predictive for complications (p < 0.0001). The relative risk in decile 1 was significantly decreased (0.39; p = 0.006); the relative risk in deciles 9 and 10 was significantly increased (2.71; p < 0.0001). In the validation group, the relative risk of any complication in decile 1 was decreased at 0.55 (p = 0.057); the relative risk in deciles 9 and 10 was significantly increased (1.89; p < 0.0001). In a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve was 0.668 (p < 0.0001), demonstrating diagnostic meaningfulness of the model. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The authors establish and validate a predictive risk model and calculator for nipple-sparing mastectomy with far-reaching impact for surgeons and patients alike.