Faculty Bibliography

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.

BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrix is a commonly used adjunct in implant-based breast reconstruction. Several investigations have shown increased complications associated with its use. Therefore, the authors' institution placed strict limitations on its use and transitioned to sterile "ready-to-use" acellular dermal matrix. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the infectious complications associated with aseptic versus sterile acellular dermal matrix. METHODS: A prospective study of all patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction at a single academic medical center between November of 2010 and October of 2012 was conducted. AlloDerm (Life Cell Corporation, Branchburg, N.J.) was used as the source of acellular dermal matrix. Breasts were divided into three cohorts: total submuscular coverage, aseptic acellular dermal matrix, and sterile, ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix. Breasts were then compared based on demographic information, cancer qualities, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 546 reconstructed breasts met inclusion criteria: 64.3 percent (n = 351) with no acellular dermal matrix, 16.5 percent (n = 90) with aseptic matrix, and 19.2 percent (n = 105) with ready-to-use matrix. When comparing reconstructions with ready-to-use versus aseptic acellular dermal matrix, patients had a decrease in overall infection (8.5 percent versus 20.0 percent; p = 0.0088), major infection (4.7 percent versus 12.2 percent; p = 0.069), and need for explantation (1.9 percent versus 6.6 percent; p = 0.1470). When comparing patients undergoing reconstruction with ready-to-use matrix to total submuscular coverage, patients had similar overall infectious complications (8.5 percent versus 5.7 percent; p = 0.3602). Diabetes mellitus, seroma, mastectomy skin flap necrosis, and aseptic acellular dermal matrix were independent predictors of infectious complications. CONCLUSIONS: Ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction provides a useful adjunct. In addition, it mitigates the risks of infectious complications when compared with aseptic acellular dermal matrix. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

BACKGROUND: Autologous microvascular breast reconstruction is an increasingly common procedure. While arterial anastomoses are traditionally being hand-sewn, venous anastomoses are often completed with a coupler device. The largest coupler size possible should be used, as determined by the smaller of either the donor or recipient vein. While its efficacy has been shown using 3.0-mm size and greater couplers, little is known about the consequences of using coupler sizes less than or equal to 2.5 mm. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction was conducted at NYU Medical Center between November 2007 and November 2011. Flaps were divided into cohorts based on coupler size used: 2.0 mm, 2.5 mm, and 3.0 mm. Outcomes included incidence of arterial or venous insufficiency, hematoma, fat necrosis, partial flap loss, full flap loss, and need for future fat grafting. Results: One-hundred ninety-seven patients underwent 392 flaps during the study period. Patients were similar in age, type of flap, smoking status, and radiation history. Coupler size less than or equal to 2.0 mm was found to be a significant risk factor for venous insufficiency (P = 0.038), as well as for development of fat necrosis (P = 0.041) and future need for fat grafting (P = 0.050). In multivariate analysis, body mass index was found to be an independent risk factor for skin flap necrosis (P = 0.010) and full flap loss (P = 0.035). Conclusions: Complications were significantly increased in patients where couplers of 2.0 mm or less were used, therefore to be avoided whenever possible. When needed, more aggressive vessel exposure through rib harvest, the use of thoracodorsal vessels or hand-sewing the anastomosis should be considered in cases of internal mammary vein caliber of 2.0 mm or less. CLINICAL QUESTION: Therapeutic LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 2013.

BACKGROUND: Infection requiring explantation remains the most devastating complication associated with implant-based breast reconstruction. There are many treatment algorithms to prevent reconstructive failure in face of infection using both oral and intravenous antibiotics. In the absence of patient-specific culture data, antibiotic selection is generally directed toward broad-spectrum coverage based on historical data. We hypothesize that reviewing our institution's microbiology data obtained from explanted implant-based breast reconstructions would provide a rational basis for antibiotic selection in the future. METHODS: A retrospective review of 902 consecutive immediate implant-based breast reconstructions at a single institution from November 2007 to May 2011 was conducted. Implant reconstructions requiring explantation or drainage by interventional radiology were identified. Patient demographics, implant characteristics, presence of skin necrosis, microbiological data, and outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: Forty-three (4.76%) implant reconstructions requiring explantation or drainage by interventional radiology met the inclusion criteria for this study. Five patients (11.6%) had round, smooth silicone implants, and 36 (88.4%) had textured tissue expanders. Twenty-six implants were explanted because of infection; 3, because of exposure from skin necrosis; and 11, because of the combination of flap necrosis and infection; and 1, secondarily because of cancer invasion into the skin. Reconstruction was salvaged in 21 breasts (51.2%): 12 (57.1%) by implant reconstruction, 5 (23.8%) by pedicled latissimus dorsi flaps, and 4 (19.1%) with a microvascular free flap. Thirty explants had microbiology data available. The most common organism isolated was Staphylococcus epidermidis (10), followed by methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (5), Serratia marcescens (5), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (4), enterococcus (3), Escherichia coli (2), Enterobacter (2), group B streptococcus (1), and Morganella morganii (1). Forty percent of the organisms were resistant to cefazolin; however, 86% were sensitive to gentamicin, 80% were sensitive to Levaquin, and 63% were sensitive to ciprofloxacin. CONCLUSIONS: Infection associated with implant-based breast reconstructions continues to threaten explantation and reconstructive failure. Based on our microbiological data, initial cellulitis amenable to oral antibiotics should be treated with oral fluoroquinolones as a first-line treatment. If this regimen fails, intravenous imipenem or gentamicin and vancomycin should be initiated. Obviously, clinical judgment regarding specific patient risk factors and compliance should play a role in decision making, but these data provide an evidence-based rationale for first-line oral antibiotic selection.

BACKGROUND: Autologous breast reconstruction offers higher rates of patient satisfaction, but not all patients are ideal candidates, often due to inadequate volume of donor sites. Although autologous fat grafting is frequently used to augment volume and contour abnormalities in implant-based breast reconstruction, its clear utility in microsurgical breast reconstruction has yet to be defined. Here, we examined patients undergoing autologous microsurgical breast reconstruction with and without the adjunct of autologous fat grafting to clearly define utility and indications for use. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction with microvascular free flaps at a single institution between November 2007 and October 2011 was conducted. Patients were divided into 2 groups as follows: those requiring postoperative fat grafting and those not requiring fat grafting. Patient demographics, indications for surgery, history of radiation therapy, patient body mass index, mastectomy specimen weight, need for rib resection, flap weight, and complications were analyzed in comparison. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-eight patients underwent 374 microvascular free flaps for breast reconstruction. One hundred (26.7%) reconstructed breasts underwent postoperative fat grafting, with an average of 1.12 operative sessions. Fat was most commonly injected in the medial and superior medial poles of the breast and the average volume injected was 147.8 mL per breast (22-564 mL). The average ratio of fat injected to initial flap weight was 0.59 (0.07-1.39). Patients undergoing fat grafting were more likely to have had deep inferior epigastric perforator and profunda artery perforator flaps as compared to muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous. Patients additionally were more likely to have a prophylactic indication 58% (n = 58) versus 42% (n = 117) (P = 0.0087), rib resection 68% (n = 68) versus 54% (n = 148) (P < 0.0153), and acute postoperative complications requiring operative intervention 7% (n = 7) versus 2.1% (n = 8) (P < 0.0480). Additionally, patients undergoing autologous fat grafting had smaller body mass index, mastectomy weight, and flap weight. CONCLUSIONS: Fat grafting is most commonly used in those breasts with rib harvest, deep inferior epigastric perforator flap reconstructions, and those with acute postoperative complications. It should be considered a powerful adjunct to improve aesthetic outcomes in volume-deficient autologous breast reconstructions and additionally optimize contour in volume-adequate breast reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: : Nipple-sparing mastectomy has gained popularity, but the question remains of whether it can be offered safely to women with a history of reduction mammaplasty or mastopexy. The authors present their experience with nipple-sparing mastectomy in this patient population. METHODS: : Patients at the authors' institution who had reduction mammaplasty or mastopexy before nipple-sparing mastectomy were identified. Outcomes measured include nipple-areola complex viability, mastectomy flap necrosis, infection, presence of cancer in the nipple-areola complex, and breast cancer recurrence. RESULTS: : The records of the nipple-sparing mastectomy patients at the authors' institution from 2006 through 2012 were reviewed. The authors identified 13 breasts in eight patients that had nipple-sparing mastectomy following reduction mammaplasty or mastopexy. Within this subset of patients, the mean age was 46.6 years and the mean body mass index was 25.1. Nine of 13 breasts had therapeutic resections, whereas the remaining four were for prophylactic indications. Average time elapsed between reduction mammaplasty or mastopexy and nipple-sparing mastectomy was 51.8 months (range, 33 days to 11 years). In all cases, prior reduction mammaplasty/mastopexy incisions were used for nipple-sparing mastectomy. Ten breasts underwent reconstruction immediately with tissue expanders, one with a latissimus dorsi flap with immediate implant and two with immediate abdominally based free flaps. Complications included one hematoma requiring evacuation and one displaced implant requiring revision. There were no positive subareolar biopsy results, and the nipple viability was 100 percent. Mean follow-up time was 10.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: : The authors' experience demonstrates that nipple-sparing mastectomy can be offered to patients with a history of reduction mammaplasty or mastopexy with reconstructive outcomes comparable to those of nipple-sparing mastectomy alone. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: : Therapeutic, IV.