Surgical Treatment for Capsular Contracture: A New Paradigm and Algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Capsular contracture following breast augmentation is prone to recurrence with conventional surgical therapy. Adding acellular dermal matrix improves results but significantly increases operating time and cost. This study tested a new treatment algorithm that uses acellular dermal matrix selectively to optimize success rates while minimizing its drawbacks. METHODS: All patients surgically treated by the authors for Baker grade III/IV capsular contracture between 2007 and 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Data were collected on patient, breast augmentation, capsular contracture, and surgical treatment characteristics, in addition to follow-up findings. Treatment success was defined as Baker grade II or better. RESULTS: One hundred eighty patients underwent 217 surgical treatments for capsular contracture. Conventional treatment was used in 185 cases and acellular dermal matrix in 32. Twenty-six patients were treated for a second occurrence and four were treated for a third. The average follow-up was 2.4 years. Conventional treatment was successful in 72.5 percent of first occurrences, 62.5 percent of second occurrences, and 50.0 percent of third occurrences. Acellular dermal matrix was successful in 96.9 percent of cases. The odds of failure were increased by bilateral capsular contracture (3.9 times) and previous treatment failure (3.5 times). When acellular dermal matrix was used selectively for bilateral capsular contracture or in unilateral cases with a previous treatment failure, the overall treatment success rate improved to 85.6 percent compared with 64.2 percent when this algorithm was not followed (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that selective acellular dermal matrix use can increase success rate to over 85 percent in the overall treatment of capsular contracture, and to nearly 100 percent in individual cases.

Current Trends in Breast Augmentation: An International Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation surgery remains the most frequently performed aesthetic surgical procedure worldwide. However, many variations exist regarding preoperative planning, surgical management, and postoperative care. OBJECTIVES: The goal was to evaluate current trends and practices in breast augmentation, with a focus on international variability. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to over 5000 active breast surgeons in 44 countries worldwide. The survey inquired about current controversies, new technologies, common practices, secondary procedures, and surgeon demographics. The findings and variations were evaluated and correlated to evidence-based literature. RESULTS: There were a total 628 respondents equaling a response rate of approximately 18%. While certain approaches and common practices prevail also on an international basis, there exist several geographic controversies. For example, while almost fifty percent of surgeons in the United States and Latin America never use anatomically shaped implants, in Europe and Oceania most surgeons use them. Similarly, in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania, over 80% of surgeons use silicone implants only, whereas in the United States only 20% use them - meanwhile US surgeons use the largest implants (78% > 300 cc). Internationally dominant practice preferences include preoperative sizing with silicone implants, as well as the use of inframammary incisions and partial submuscular pockets. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences exist when comparing most common surgical breast augmentation approaches on an international basis. While certain techniques seem to be universal standards, there still remain several controversies. Further standardizing this most common aesthetic surgical procedure according to evidence-based guidelines will help to improve outcomes.

Intraoperative Comparison of Anatomical versus Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine whether anatomical implants are aesthetically superior to round implants in breast augmentation. METHODS: Seventy-five patients undergoing primary breast augmentation had a round silicone implant of optimal volume, projection, and diameter placed in one breast and an anatomical silicone device of similar volume and optimal shape placed in the other. After intraoperative photographs were taken, the anatomical device was replaced by a round implant to complete the procedure. A survey designed to measure breast aesthetics was administered to 10 plastic surgeon and 10 lay reviewers for blind evaluation of the 75 cases. RESULTS: No observable difference in breast aesthetics between anatomical and round implants was reported by plastic surgeons in 43.6 percent or by lay individuals in 29.2 percent of cases. When a difference was perceived, neither plastic surgeons nor lay individuals preferred the anatomical side more often than the round side. Plastic surgeons judged the anatomical side superior in 51.1 percent of cases and the round side superior in 48.9 percent of cases (p = 0.496). Lay individuals judged the anatomical side superior in 46.7 percent of cases and the round side superior in 53.3 percent (p = 0.140). Plastic surgeons identified implant shape correctly in only 26.5 percent of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides high-level evidence supporting no aesthetic superiority of anatomical over round implants. Given that anatomical implants have important and unique disadvantages, a lack of proven aesthetic superiority argues against their continued use in breast augmentation. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.

Aesthetic Surgery in Patients with Lung Cancer: A Paradigm Shift.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most common cancer worldwide and the leading cause of cancer death. With the development of targeted therapy against causative driver mutations, some patients have experienced dramatic responses that have converted their disease into a chronic, stable form. Shifting concerns away from survival and back to quality-of-life issues has led some of these patients to seek aesthetic surgery. METHODS: Three patient examples are presented to illustrate current lung cancer treatment modalities, disease responses, and subsequent experiences with aesthetic surgical procedures. Two patients presented for blepharoplasty and the third for revisional breast augmentation surgery. RESULTS: Two patients were treated for lung cancer with targeted therapy and a third with more traditional chemotherapy before undergoing aesthetic surgery. All 3 patients experienced a normal recovery from surgery without any untoward results. Two remain free of disease and one has chronic stable disease. All have returned to normal, active lives. CONCLUSIONS: Recent developments in lung cancer treatment are transforming this entity into a less formidable diagnosis for some patients, much like breast cancer and prostate cancer. Plastic surgeons should be aware of this paradigm shift. Successfully treated patients should be considered as reasonable candidates for aesthetic surgery, particularly when they have the full support of their oncologist. Beyond the typical psychological benefits that plastic surgery can produce, it also provides affirmation in this patient population of a return to normalcy, thereby imparting hope and optimism for the future.

Current Trends and Controversies in Breast Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: A survey was conducted to study current attitudes and common practices in breast augmentation. METHODS: A 35-item electronic questionnaire was sent to the entire active American Society of Plastic Surgeons membership. It was divided into current controversies, new technologies, common practices, secondary procedures, and member demographics. RESULTS: There were 1067 respondents. Fifty percent of surgeons never use anatomically shaped implants and another 42 percent do so less than half the time. Autologous fat is used infrequently as a primary technique but more often as a supplemental technique. Approximately 7 percent report a case of anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Eighty-five percent do not use preoperative three-dimensional imaging. More than half of surgeons use acellular dermal matrix in secondary procedures. Approximately half do not use insertion funnels. Preoperative sizing with silicone implants, inframammary incisions, partial submuscular pockets, and smooth silicone implants larger than 300 cc are dominant practice preferences. Postoperative massage is still popular with over half of respondents. Just over half do not use pharmacologic agents for capsular contracture. Capsular contracture and size change were the most frequent reasons for reoperation. Capsular contracture is typically treated with anterior capsulectomy the first time, and either total capsulectomy or anterior capsulectomy with acellular dermal matrix use when recurrent. Almost half of respondents perform fewer than 50 breast augmentations yearly. CONCLUSIONS: There is an established most common approach to breast augmentation among respondents. Most surgeons are slow to embrace controversial practices and to adopt new technologies, although acellular dermal matrix use is becoming more popular. The 7 percent incidence of anaplastic large cell lymphoma was noteworthy.

Postreduction Breast Augmentation.

UNLABELLED: Most breast reduction patients are highly satisfied after surgery. However, there is a subset of women who seek breast augmentation years later to restore lost volume chiefly associated with weight loss and postpartum changes. Breast shape and overall aesthetics are often revised at the same time. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 2 surgeons' experiences with post-reduction breast augmentation. Twenty patients were identified between 2002 and 2014. An in-depth chart review was conducted to determine patient motivation and to examine the operative techniques employed. Implant variables, a reduction specimen weight to implant volume comparison (where available), and complications are reported. RESULTS: The average age was 37.1 years and average body mass index was 21.8 kg/m(2). Most patients waited over a decade to have their breasts revised. Weight loss was the motivating factor in 8 patients and pregnancy changes in 11. Nineteen patients wished to stay with the same bra size or 1 cup size larger. Although all patients elected to have an implant placed, 19 patients wished to have an improved breast shape, not specifically a larger volume. The average breast implant was 203.5 cm(3) (range, 120-340 cm(3)). Complications from implant placement included a seroma treated by aspiration and a Baker class III capsular contracture that required surgical correction. CONCLUSIONS: A small subset of reduction mammaplasty patients seek breast augmentation many years later primarily to improve breast contour, not to restore their prereduction breast volumes. Conservative augmentation combined with revision of breast shape and areolar aesthetics yields good results with minimal complications.

The Caudal Septum Columellar Strut Graft: An Alternative for Tip Support.

UNLABELLED: The authors describe a convenient option for obtaining a columellar strut graft without the need for harvesting septal or auricular cartilage. Its utility has been shown by use in almost 10 percent of 569 patients in the senior author's (D.A.H.) series. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.

Breast augmentation.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Assess patient physical characteristics that influence implant selection. 2. Adopt a system to aid in implant size selection. 3. Become cognizant of the advantages and disadvantages of incision, pocket plane, and implant options. 4. Understand implant positioning concepts and aseptic implant handling methods. 5. Manage untoward postoperative sequelae 6. Understand secondary surgery concepts. SUMMARY: Breast augmentation is the most commonly performed aesthetic surgical procedure. Choices of incisions, pocket plane, and myriad implant characteristics constitute the basis for surgical planning. Analysis of physical characteristics and inclusion of the patient in implant selection contribute to overall satisfaction and reduce requests for secondary surgery. Technical expertise in implant positioning and aseptic handling helps to prevent capsular contracture, implant malposition, and other shape problems. Despite the need for secondary surgery in some, patient satisfaction is high.

Mastopexy.

Mastopexy includes multiple skin incision design and parenchymal manipulation options. Patient evaluation includes assessment of goals, degree of ptosis, tissue volume, skin quality, and breast position on the chest wall. There are critical technical details for each of the three incision options, the various methods of parenchymal manipulation, and implant placement. The potential for complications is greatest for combined augmentation and mastopexy. Although they are effective, mastopexy procedures have the greatest incidence of litigation among aesthetic breast procedures.