Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved through advances in mastectomy and reconstruction techniques to offer excellent outcomes with both prepectoral and subpectoral implant placement. Proper patient selection and surgical technique are key for optimizing outcomes and minimizing complications regardless of implant location. Therefore, familiarity with the benefits and limitations of each technique is vital. Several patient characteristics, such as history of significant comorbidities, radiation or active smoking, portend higher risk of complications with prepectoral reconstruction, in which case subpectoral implant placement may be a safer option. Oncologic consideration such as location and size of tumors also play an important role in determining the appropriate technique. The most critical factor in the success of prepectoral reconstruction is the quality of mastectomy flaps. Thorough intraoperative evaluation of mastectomy flap perfusion and viability will determine whether immediate prepectoral reconstruction is possible or other alternatives such as subpectoral or delayed prepectoral techniques should be considered. Discussing these factors with patients preemptively as well as developing a coordinated plan with the patient and oncologic surgeon will maximize success in both subpectoral and prepectoral implant-based reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic complications after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have been associated with numerous variables. However, the impact of NSM flap thickness has been incompletely evaluated. METHODS: NSM flap thickness was determined for all NSMs from 2006 to 2016 with available pre- or postoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs). Demographics and outcomes were stratified by those with and without ischemic complications. RESULTS: Of 1,037 NSM reconstructions, 420 NSMs had MRI data available, which included 379 preoperative MRIs and 60 postoperative MRIs. Average total preoperative skin/subcutaneous tissue NSM flap thickness was 11.4 mm. Average total postoperative NSM flap thickness was 8.7 mm. NSMs with ischemic complications were found to have significantly thinner overall postoperative NSM flap thickness compared with those without ischemic complications (P = 0.0280). Average overall postoperative NSM flap thickness less than 8.0 mm was found to be an independent predictor of ischemic complications (odds ratio, 6.5263; P = 0.026). In NSMs with both pre- and postoperative MRIs, the overall average postoperative NSM flap thickness was 68.2% of preoperative measurements. Average overall postoperative NSM flap thickness was significantly less than average overall preoperative NSM flap thickness (P < 0.0001). NSMs with ischemic complications were found to have a significantly lower ratio of overall postoperative to preoperative flap thickness (52.0% versus 74.0%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Ischemic complications after NSM are significantly associated with thinner postoperative NSM flap thickness. Particularly, NSM flap thickness less than 8.0 mm is a positive independent predictor of ischemic complications. The ratio of postoperative to preoperative NSM flap thickness was significantly lower in reconstructions with ischemic complications.

BACKGROUND: While possessing numerous benefits, microsurgical breast reconstruction is associated with longer operative times and post-operative hospital length of stay compared to implant-based reconstruction. We therefore evaluate factors associated with increased length of stay (LOS) after microsurgical breast reconstruction with a case-control study design. METHODS: All patients undergoing immediate or delayed abdominally-based microsurgical breast reconstruction over a two-year time period were identified. Risk factors associated with LOS greater than or equal to 5 days were identified. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients undergoing immediate or delayed abdominally-based microsurgical breast reconstruction were identified. Of these, 86 (74.1%) had a LOS of 4 days or less (mean: 3.70 days) while 30 (25.9%) had a LOS of 5 days or greater (mean: 5.50 days).With regards to patient demographics and intra-operative factors, patients with a LOS of 5 days or greater were significantly more likely to have diabetes mellitus (p < 0.0001), undergo bilateral reconstruction (p = 0.0003) and total mastectomy (p < 0.0001), and have a longer operative time (p < 0.0001) while significantly less likely to undergo post-operative radiation (p = 0.0421). Notably, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of follow-up time, or time since breast reconstruction (p = 0.0600).With regards to reconstructive complications, patients with LOS of 5 days of greater were significantly more likely to experience abdominal donor site abscess (p < 0.0001), breast hematoma (p = 0.0186), and return to the operating room for flap compromise (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple patient-specific, intra-operative, and post-operative outcomes factors are associated with increased length of stay with immediate and delayed microsurgical breast reconstruction.

Twenty percent of breast cancer cases may be related to a genetic mutation conferring an increased risk of malignancy. The most common and prominent breast cancer susceptibility genes are BRCA1 and BRCA2, found in nearly 40% of such cases. However, continued interest and investigation of cancer genetics has led to the identification of a myriad of different breast cancer susceptibility genes. Additional genes, each with unique significance and associated characteristics, continue to be recognized. Concurrently, advanced genetic testing, while still controversial, has become more accessible and cost-effective. As oncologic and reconstructive advances continue to be made in prophylactic breast reconstructive surgery, patients may present to plastic surgeons with an increasingly more diverse array of genetic diagnoses to discuss breast reconstruction. It is therefore imperative that plastic surgeons be familiar with these breast cancer susceptibility genes and their clinical implications. We, therefore, aim to review the most common non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer susceptibility genetic mutations in an effort to assist plastic surgeons in counseling and managing this unique patient population. Included in this review are syndromic breast cancer susceptibility genes such as TP53, PTEN, CDH1, and STK11, among others. Nonsyndromic breast cancer susceptibility genes herein reviewed include PALB2, CHEK2, and ataxia telangiectasia mutated gene. With this knowledge, plastic surgeons can play a central role in the diagnosis and comprehensive treatment, including successful breast reconstruction, of all patients carrying genetic mutations conferring increased risk for breast malignancies.

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 availability of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and synthetic mesh products has prompted plastic surgeons to revisit subcutaneous implant-based breast reconstruction. The literature is limited, however, with regards to evidence on patient selection, techniques, and outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of the Medline and Cochrane databases was performed for original studies reporting breast reconstruction with ADM or mesh, and subcutaneous implant placement. Studies were analyzed for level of evidence, inclusion/exclusion criteria for subcutaneous reconstruction, reconstruction characteristics, and outcomes. RESULTS: Six studies (186 reconstructions) were identified for review. The majority of studies (66.7%) were level IV evidence case series. Eighty percent of studies had contraindications for subcutaneous reconstruction, most commonly preoperative radiation, high body mass index, and active smoking. Forty percent of studies commenting on patient selection assessed mastectomy flap perfusion for subcutaneous reconstruction. Forty-five percent of reconstructions were direct-to-implant, 33.3% 2-stage, and 21.5% single-stage adjustable implant, with ADM utilized in 60.2% of reconstructions versus mesh. Pooled complication rates included: major infection 1.2%, seroma 2.9%, hematoma 2.3%, full nipple-areola complex necrosis 1.1%, partial nipple-areola complex necrosis 4.5%, major flap necrosis 1.8%, wound healing complication 2.3%, explantation 4.1%, and grade III/IV capsular contracture 1.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled short-term complication rates in subcutaneous alloplastic breast reconstruction with ADM or mesh are low in preliminary studies with selective patient populations, though techniques and outcomes are variable across studies. Larger comparative studies and better-defined selection criteria and outcomes reporting are needed to develop appropriate indications for performing subcutaneous implant-based reconstruction.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) places greater stress on the breast-skin envelope compared with traditional mastectomy techniques. Precise mastectomy flap dissection is critical to optimize breast skin flap thickness and minimize complication risk. This study evaluated patient-specific factors associated with mastectomy flap quality to improve technical success in NSM. Ideal NSM flap thickness was determined for all NSMs from 2006 to 2016 with available preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs). Demographic, operative variables, and flap thickness were compared for NSMs as stratified by body mass index (BMI) and mastectomy weight. Of the 1,037 NSMs, 420 cases (40.5%; 243 patients) had MRI data available, which included 379 (36.5%) preoperative breast MRIs. Average BMI was 24.08 kg/m2, whereas average mastectomy weight was 442.28 g. NSMs were classified according to BMI <25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and >30 kg/m2. Average ideal overall NSM flap thicknesses in these groups were 10.43, 12.54, and 14.91 mm, respectively. Each incremental increase in average overall NSM flap thickness per BMI category was statistically significant (P < 0.0001; P < 0.0001; P = 0.0002). NSMs were also classified into mastectomy weight categories: <400 g, 400-799 g, and ≥800 g. Average overall NSM flap thicknesses in these groups were 9.97, 12.21, and 14.50 mm, respectively. Each incremental increase in average overall NSM flap thickness per mastectomy weight category was similarly statistically significant (P < 0.0001; P < 0.0001; P < 0.0001). NSM flap thickness and quality is related to BMI and breast size. Characterizing these anatomic variations preoperatively will help surgeons optimize mastectomy flap dissections and minimize ischemic complications in breast reconstruction after NSM.

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.

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.