Oncological safety and complication risks of mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction: A Bayesian analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy (MA) have three surgical options: MA only and reconstruction at the time of MA ("immediate," IBR) or at a later time ("delayed," DBR). To assess the oncological safety and complication risks associated with different surgical choices, a systematic review with Bayesian network analysis was conducted. METHODS: Cochrane library, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically searched in November 2019. The odds ratios [OR] were estimated for oncological safety (including disease-free survival, overall survival, local recurrence, and distant metastases) and complication risks (including overall complications, surgical site infection, and lymphedema) among MA, IBR, and DBR groups. RESULTS: In the included 51 studies (265,522 patients), reconstruction after MA for IBR or DBR was associated with increased overall survival compared to simple MA (DBR vs. MA: OR 4.12, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.80-10.01; IBR vs. MA: OR 1.75, 95% CrI 1.32-2.32). Additionally, IBR was associated with a decreased distant metastasis rate compared to MA (IBR vs. MA: OR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.51-0.90). However, the risk of overall complications and surgical site infection was higher in the IBR group than in the other two groups (complications, IBR vs. DBR: OR 1.40, 95% CrI 1.01-1.93; surgical site infection, IBR vs. MA: OR 1.77, 95% CrI 1.03-3.13). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggested that breast reconstruction, whether IBR or DBR, does not adversely affect oncological safety in the setting of breast cancer. IBR is associated with an increased risk of overall complications and surgical site infection, but technical advances in this surgical procedure have cumulated over time.

A comparative assessment of three planes of implant placement in breast augmentation: A Bayesian analysis.

BACKGROUND: Techniques based on three planes of implant placement, including the subglandular (SG), subpectoral (SP), and subfascial (SF) planes are used for breast augmentation. The placement that offers the greatest balance of risks and benefits is unclear. This study presents a systematic review with a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare different implant placement techniques for augmentation mammaplasty. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. We estimated the odds ratios (ORs) for capsular contractures, hematomas, seromas, infections, reoperation rates, rippling, nipple numbness, malplacements, ruptures, and asymmetry among the different interventions. Muscle movement events and satisfaction rates were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies (25,744 cases) were included. SG placement significantly increased the incidence of capsular contractures (SP vs. SG: OR 0.42; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.28-0.63; SF vs. SG: OR 0.41; 95% CrI 0.17-0.97), hematomas (SF vs. SG: OR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.06-0.63), and seromas (SF vs. SG: OR 0.04; 95% CrI 0.00-0.81) compared to other placement techniques. Muscle movement only occurred in the SP group, but it did not increase the risk of subsequent malplacements, asymmetries, or ruptures. Most patients were highly satisfied with their surgical results. Comparisons did not show significant differences in the remaining results. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence suggests that SG placement increases the risk of capsular contractures, hematomas, and seromas. The SP and SF planes were safe and effective for controlling total complication rates and achieving high satisfaction rates; however, the long-term benefits of the SF technique require further research.

Treatment of Tear Trough Deformity: Fat Repositioning versus Autologous Fat Grafting.

BACKGROUND: Fat-preserving lower blepharoplasty techniques and filling techniques using autologous or non-autologous materials are increasingly used to treat tear trough deformity. However, there has been no definitive comparison of the results of fat repositioning versus autologous fat grafting for this condition. The authors used statistical analysis to compare the results of the two methods. METHODS: From October 2013 to September 2015, a total of 101 patients, aged 20-43 years, underwent fat repositioning or autologous fat grafting in our department. Group 1 (51 patients, 102 eyes) underwent intraorbital fat repositioning with septal reset by transconjunctival lower blepharoplasty. Group 2 (50 patients, 100 eyes) underwent autologous fat grafting by lipoinjection. RESULTS: No significant complications occurred in any patient postoperatively. Four of 102 eyes in Group 1 and seven of 100 eyes in Group 2 had no improvement; the rest had different degrees of improvement. In Grade II and III deformities, fat repositioning resulted in significantly greater improvement of grade compared with autologous fat grafting. The surgical method of Group 1 resulted in better curative effects than that of Group 2. CONCLUSION: In patients with tear trough deformity and without obvious skin or orbicularis oculi muscle laxity, both fat repositioning and autologous fat grafting are acceptable for mild deformity. In patients with higher-grade deformities, fat repositioning produced superior results than autologous fat grafting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that the 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 http://www.springer.com/00266 .