Tissue-engineered breast reconstruction with Brava-assisted fat grafting: a 7-year, 488-patient, multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: The ability of autologous fat transfer to reconstruct an entire breast is not established. The authors harnessed the regenerative capabilities of external expansion and autologous fat transfer to completely reconstruct breasts. METHODS: The authors performed 1877 Brava plus autologous fat transfer procedures on 616 breasts in 488 women to reconstruct 99 lumpectomies, 87 immediate breast reconstructions, and 430 delayed total breast reconstructions. After 2 to 4 weeks of Brava expansion, which increased volume by 100 to 300 percent, the authors diffusely grafted the breasts with 100 to 400 ml (225 ml average) of 15 g-sedimented, manually harvested lipoaspirate. The procedure was repeated every 8 to 14 weeks until completion. The authors compared costs of this reconstruction with established deep inferior epigastric artery perforator/transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps and implant procedures. RESULTS: Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 7 years (mean, 2.5 years), with 0.5 percent locoregional recurrence. Four hundred twenty-seven women completed the reconstruction, whereas 12.5 percent dropped out (2.5 percent medical, 10 percent personal reasons). Completion required 2.7 procedures for nonirradiated and 4.8 procedures for irradiated mastectomies. Patients recovered soft, natural appearing breasts with nearly normal sensation. Complications included five pneumothoraces and 20 ulcerative infections. Radiographically recognized benign palpable masses were observed in 12 percent of nonirradiated and 37 percent of irradiated breasts. The cost of Brava plus autologous fat transfer is 47 percent and 66 percent that of current reconstruction alternatives. CONCLUSION: Brava plus autologous fat transfer is a minimally invasive, incisionless, safe, economic, and effective alternative for breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Megavolume autologous fat transfer: part II. Practice and techniques.

The authors describe the techniques that use the principles of fat grafting to allow them to successfully graft megavolumes (250-ml range) of autologous fat into breasts. The Brava external volume expansion device preoperatively increases the volume and vascularity of the recipient site. Low-pressure liposuction and minimal centrifugation are used to gently extract and purify the adipose tissue with minimal trauma. Even and diffuse reinjection of the fat increases graft-to-recipient interface and reduces interstitial fluid pressure. Postoperative Brava use protects the graft and acts as a three-dimensional immobilizing splint. By adhering to these techniques, we have been able to graft megavolumes of fat into the breasts of over 1000 patients and obtain substantial long-term volume retention.

Aesthetic applications of Brava-assisted megavolume fat grafting to the breasts: a 9-year, 476-patient, multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Autologous fat grafting to the breasts was banned in 1987 because of unpredictable graft retention and cyst formation that could not be differentiated from cancer. Surgical and radiologic advances induced a lifting of the ban in 2009. Small- to moderate-volume autologous fat grafting to the breast has become common. The authors present their aesthetic applications of megavolume autologous fat grafting to the breast. METHODS: Autologous fat grafting with Brava preexpansion was performed on 294 patients for aesthetic augmentation, 45 patients for congenital deformity correction, 43 patients for iatrogenic deformity correction, and six patients for implant-to-fat conversion. Autologous fat grafting for implant-to-fat conversion was performed on 88 patients without Brava. A case example is presented for each indication. The baseline, perioperative, grafted, and postoperative volumes were recorded. RESULTS: Follow-up ranges from 6 months to 9 years (mean, 3.5 years). The mean volume grafted was 346 ml per breast, and the mean postoperative augmentation measured at least 6 months postoperatively was 266 ml per breast. No patients required open biopsy or were diagnosed with cancer. There was one pneumothorax, requiring a temporary chest tube, with no further complication. CONCLUSION: Large-volume autologous fat grafting after Brava use or implant removal is a safe and effective alternative for breast augmentation and deformity correction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Megavolume autologous fat transfer: part I. Theory and principles.

This article describes the theory and principles behind the authors' success in megavolume (250-ml range) autologous fat transfer to the breasts. When large volumes are grafted into a tight space, the interstitial fluid pressure increases to impair capillary blood flow and the crowded graft droplets coalesce into lakes, with poor graft-to-recipient interface. These factors have historically restricted the volume of fat that can be grafted into small recipient breasts. The decreased interface increases the distance oxygen must diffuse to reach the grafted adipocytes, causing central necrosis to occur before neovascularization. The increased interstitial fluid pressure reduces capillary radius, reducing oxygen delivery to grafted adipose tissue. The Brava external expansion device harnesses the regenerative capabilities of mechanical forces to preoperatively increase the volume and vascularity of the recipient site, allowing megavolumes of fat to be grafted diffusely without significantly decreasing graft-to-recipient interface or increasing interstitial fluid pressure. The application of these principles has allowed the authors to successfully graft megavolumes of fat into the breasts of over 1000 patients with substantial long-term retention.

Breast augmentation with anatomic implants: a method based on the breast implantation base.

UNLABELLED: Currently, aesthetic and reconstructive surgery of the breast should be considered in terms of contouring, and hence in terms of dimensions. Based on experience performing more than 5,000 breast augmentations with highly cohesive anatomic implants, the authors explore the aesthetic anatomy of the (augmented) breast and explain the importance of the breast implantation base (BIB), the aesthetic proportions of the lower breast pole, and the patient's somatotype in the implant selection for a natural-appearing breast augmentation. A method is described for transferring all these concepts and proportions to the preoperative marking of the individual patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Selecting the implant height in breast augmentation with anatomical prosthesis: the "number Y".

BACKGROUND: Selecting the appropriate implant is one of the most important and demanding decisions in breast augmentation with anatomical implants, because different widths, heights, and projections can be found for a given volume. Most of the related literature and surgeons' concern have focused on width and projection. Implant height selection, however, has remained deeply overlooked, and it has been assumed that it depended on the suprasternal notch-to-nipple distance and, to a large extent, on the patient's height. METHODS: With more than 5123 breast augmentations performed over the past 15 years, the authors performed an analysis of the breast and implant height with consequences in aesthetic augmentation of the breast. Two concepts--breast implantation base (or breast footprint) and somatotype--were explored. Their influence in the selection of the appropriate anatomical implant height is investigated. RESULTS: Selection of implant height should follow the patient's breast implantation base, which is highly influenced by her somatotype. With this assumption, a "number Y" is proposed that correlates the suprasternal notch-to-nipple distance with the thoracic perimeter and unveils the shape of the breast implantation base in the particular patient. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting the implant shape/footprint to the breast implantation base/breast footprint gives the surgeon control over the upper pole of the breast and allows a predictable postoperative result. The number Y rationalizes the selection of the implant height in breast augmentation. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Maintaining shape in mastopexy.

The authors describe a mastopexy technique that is effective in treating small and mildly ptotic breasts to extremely large breasts and maintains breast shape over time. Tissue that in more traditional procedures has frequently "bottomed out" is moved into the upper pole and supported with a sling of pectoralis muscle.

In search of better shape in mastopexy and reduction mammoplasty.

"Bottoming out" of parenchyma after several months is a problem extant in previous techniques of mastopexy and reduction mammaplasty. The authors have addressed this problem by creation of a mobile, chest wall-based flap of breast tissue that is passed under and held in place by a loop of pectoral muscle. Experience with this technique spans a period of 7 years and includes 390 patients, indicating the permanence of this correction.