UNLABELLED: Fat grafting during primary breast augmentation has the ability to address the limitations of soft tissue coverage of breast implants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current evidence on patient selection, surgical techniques, and assessment of outcomes with composite breast augmentation. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed for studies reporting on primary composite breast augmentation. Studies were analyzed for level of evidence, surgical techniques for implant placement and fat grafting, postoperative complications, and assessment of additional outcomes. RESULTS: Five studies (4 case series and 1 retrospective cohort study) were identified for review with a pooled total of 382 patients. Implants were most commonly placed in the subfascial plane (156 patients, 54.1%) followed by dual-plane placement (51 patients, 17.6%). Round (220 patients, 57.6%) and textured (314 patients, 82.2%) implants were utilized in the majority of cases. The average amount of fat grafted among all 5 studies was 109.2 ml per breast (range 55-134 ml). The most common fat grafting location was in the subcutaneous plane and over the medial breast/cleavage (80% of studies). Overall complication rates were low. The pooled reoperation rate was 3.7% with repeat fat grafting as the most common reason for reoperation (9 cases, 2.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Primary composite breast augmentation is a safe procedure with a trend toward subfascial implant placement and low fat grafting volumes focused on the medial breast borders. Long-term studies with analysis of additional outcome measures including patient-reported outcomes will further bolster the current evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy flap and nipple-areola complex (NAC) ischemia can be devastating complications after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). Predictors of reconstructive failure with major skin envelope ischemia and implications for decision-making remain to be fully elucidated. METHODS: All cases of implant-based reconstruction after NSM from 2006 to June 2018 with mastectomy flap necrosis or NAC necrosis requiring debridement were reviewed. Data on patient demographics, operative characteristics, additional complications, and the nature and management of ischemic complications were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 1045 NSMs, 70 cases (6.7%) had major ischemic complications. Fifty-two cases (74.3% of major ischemic complications) had isolated major mastectomy flap necrosis, 7 (10%) had full NAC necrosis and 11 (15.7%) had both. Five cases (7.1%) underwent implant exchange at the time of debridement and 15 cases (21.4%) required explantation. Explanted cases had significantly lower body mass index (22.3 versus 24.7, P = 0.013) and larger debridement size (49.5 cm2 versus 17.6 cm2, P = 0.0168). Additionally, explanted cases had a higher rate of acellular dermal matrix/mesh (100% versus 45.5%, P < 0.0001), prior radiation (20.0% versus 0%, P = 0.0083), immediate implants (46.7% versus 20.0%, P = 0.0491), major infection (30.0% versus 1.8%, P = 0.028), and both major mastectomy flap/NAC necrosis (33.3% versus 10.9%, P = 0.0494). CONCLUSIONS: NSM cases with major ischemia requiring explantation had a lower body mass index and significantly higher rate of preoperative radiation, immediate implant placement, use of acellular dermal matrix/mesh, and concomitant major infection. These variables should be taken into account when discussing risks with patients preoperatively and assessing the quality of mastectomy flaps and subsequent reconstructive choices intraoperatively.

BACKGROUND: 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: 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: In total, 76 cases (51 patients) were identified, of which 35 cases utilized ADM and 41 did not. Risk factors and demographics were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of body mass index, which was higher in the ADM cohort (29.3 versus 25.4, P = 0.011). Average follow-up length was also longer in patients who received ADM (20.3 versus 12.3 months, P < 0.001). Intraoperative expander fill was higher in patients who did not receive ADM (296.8 cm3 versus 151.4 cm3, P < 0.001) though final implant size was comparable in both cohorts (P = 0.584). There was no significant difference in the rate of any complication between the ADM and no ADM cohorts (25.7% versus 17.1%, respectively P = 0.357), including major mastectomy flap necrosis (P = 0.245), major infection (P = 1.000), seroma (P = 0.620), expander explantation (P = 1.000), capsular contracture (P = 1.000), implant dystopia (P = 1.000), and rippling (P = 0.362). CONCLUSIONS: 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: Implant-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) presents unique benefits and challenges. The literature has compared outcomes among total submuscular (TSM), dual-plane (DP), and prepectoral (PP) planes; however, a dedicated meta-analysis relevant to NSM is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies on immediate breast reconstruction after NSM using TSM, DP, or PP prosthesis placement in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. In total, 1317 unique articles were identified, of which 49 were included in the systematic review and six met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Pooled descriptive outcomes were analyzed for each cohort for all 49 studies. Fixed-effects meta-analytic methods were used to compare PP with subpectoral (TSM and DP) reconstructions. RESULTS: A total of 1432 TSM, 1546 DP, and 1668 PP reconstructions were identified for descriptive analysis. Demographics were similar between cohorts. Pooled descriptive outcomes demonstrated overall similar rates of reconstructive failure (3.3%-5.1%) as well as capsular contracture (0%-3.9%) among cohorts. Fixed-effects meta-analysis of six comparative studies demonstrated a significantly lower rate of mastectomy flap necrosis in the PP cohort compared with the subpectoral cohort (relative risk 0.24, 95% confidence interval [0.08-0.74]). All other consistently reported outcomes, including, hematoma, seroma, infection, mastectomy flap necrosis, nipple -areola complex necrosis, and explantation were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis demonstrated the safety of immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction after NSM, compared with submuscular techniques. Submuscular reconstruction had a higher risk of mastectomy flap necrosis, though potentially influenced by selection bias.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges for breast reconstruction. Many professional organizations initially placed restrictions on breast reconstruction, leading surgeons to conceive innovative protocols for offering breast reconstruction. This study reviewed the current evidence on breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide guidance for surgeons facing future crises. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for studies (1) describing implant and autologous breast reconstruction following mastectomy and (2) occurring during or pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Of the 1347 studies identified, 26 were included. Studies discussed type of reconstruction (18, 69%), complications (11, 42%), timing of reconstruction (10, 38%), protocols (10, 38%), COVID-19 screening (7, 27%), and length of hospital stay (7, 27%). The type of reconstruction varied depending on the stage of the pandemic: early on, autologous breast reconstruction was halted to preserve resources, but was later resumed. Within implant-based reconstruction, direct-to-implant was favored over serial tissue expansion. Several protocols were developed, with many emphasizing multidisciplinary collaborations for patient selection, use of specialized measures to reduce risk of COVID-19 transmission, and optimization of same-day discharge. Complication rates following breast reconstruction were similar to pre-pandemic rates. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the landscape of breast reconstruction by raising important questions about delivery of care, cost, and resource utilization. The findings of this review may inform surgeons as they plan for similar future crises or strive for improved patient care and efficacy even during nonpandemic times.

UNLABELLED: Ischemic complications after immediate breast reconstruction have devastating consequences; however, individual risk assessment remains challenging. We seek to develop an intraoperative assessment tool to assist in estimating risk of ischemic complications in immediate breast reconstruction. METHODS: Patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction were prospectively identified and evaluated with an intraoperative mastectomy flap ischemia risk assessment tool consisting of 8 binary questions. Breast measurements and patient demographics were recorded. Reconstructions were then prospectively evaluated postoperatively for ischemic complications. Outcomes were analyzed with significance set at P values <0.05. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients underwent 45 immediate breast reconstruction. The majority of reconstructions were tissue expander based (64.4%) following therapeutic (62.2%) skin-sparing (93.3%) mastectomies. Average follow-up was 11.16 months. Sixteen reconstructions (35.6%) experienced an ischemic complication. The average total mastectomy flap ischemic risk score was 4.29. The correlation value of higher scores with increasing ischemic complications was 0.65. Reconstructions with scores greater than 5 had significantly higher rates of ischemic complications (P = 0.0025). Reconstructions with a score of >6 and >7 also had significantly higher rates of ischemic complications (P < 0.0001, each). The sensitivity and specificity of intraoperative mastectomy flap compromise were 81.25% and 62.07%. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemic complications after immediate breast reconstruction were positively correlated with higher scores using a clinical intraoperative mastectomy flap ischemia risk assessment tool. Scores greater than 5 seem to be a threshold value at which ischemic complications are significantly greater. This simple, easy-to-implement intraoperative tool may assist plastic surgeons in assessing risk and optimizing outcomes in immediate breast reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic dramatically changed the delivery of breast cancer care. The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of the pandemic on breast cancer screening, treatment, and reconstruction at a single institution in New York City. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to determine the number of mammograms, lumpectomies, mastectomies, and breast reconstruction operations performed between January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2021. Outcomes analyzed included changes in mammography, oncologic surgery, and breast reconstruction surgery volume before, during and after the start of the pandemic. RESULTS: Mammography volume declined by 11% in March-May of 2020. Oncologic breast surgeries and reconstructive surgeries similarly declined by 6.8% and 11%, respectively, in 2020 compared with 2019, reaching their lowest levels in April 2020. The volume of all procedures increased during the summer of 2020. Mammography volumes in June and July 2020 were found to be at pre-COVID levels, and in October-December 2020 were 15% higher than in 2019. Oncologic breast surgeries saw a similar rebound in May 2020, with 24.6% more cases performed compared with May 2019. Breast reconstruction volumes increased, though changes in the types of reconstruction were noted. Oncoplastic closures were more common during the pandemic, while two-stage implant reconstruction and immediate autologous reconstruction decreased by 27% and 43%, respectively. All procedures are on track to increase in volume in 2021 compared to that in 2020. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic reduced the volume of breast cancer surveillance, surgical treatment, and reconstruction procedures. While it is reassuring that volumes have rebounded in 2021, efforts must be made to emphasize screening and treatment procedures in the face of subsequent surges, such as that recently attributable to the Delta and Omicron variants.