ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of postreconstruction radiation therapy on patients undergoing pedicled TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Post-TRAM radiation patients were compared with patients who received pre-TRAM radiation and a control TRAM-only group who received no radiation. Overall aesthetic appearance, evidence of symmetry, flap contracture, and hyperpigmentation were assessed by blinded reviewers. A total of 171 pedicled TRAM reconstructions were performed in 150 patients. Total flap complications were seen in 49.5 percent of the control patients, 57.1 percent of pre-TRAM radiation patients, and 50 percent of post-TRAM radiation patients but were not statistically different. The complete flap necrosis rate was 0.6 percent and the partial flap necrosis rate was 7.6 percent, again with no statistical differences among the groups. Donor-site complications occurred in approximately one third of patients in each of the groups. Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolus each occurred once and only in the post-TRAM radiation group. In terms of overall aesthetic outcome, symmetry, and contracture, the control group consistently rated better than the pre-TRAM (p = 0.021, p = 0.03, p = 0.03, respectively) and the post-TRAM (p = 0.0001, p = 0.0001, and p =0.0001, respectively) radiation groups. The control group also had clinically and statistically significant less hyperpigmentation than the post-TRAM radiation group (p = 0.0002). In contrast, irradiated postreconstruction patients had scores, including aesthetic outcome, symmetry, and contracture, worse than those of irradiated prereconstruction patients. When these two groups were compared with each other, except for contracture, no statistical significance, because of a small patient sample, was found. Neither preoperative nor postoperative radiation increased the risk for flap or donor-site complications. In contrast, radiation of any type did affect aesthetic appearance, symmetry, contracture, and hyperpigmentation. The authors recommend that TRAM flap breast reconstruction be postponed in those patients known or expected to receive postmastectomy radiation.
Subject(s)
Mammaplasty/methods , Neoadjuvant Therapy/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Radiodermatitis/etiology , Radiotherapy, Adjuvant/adverse effects , Surgical Flaps , Adult , Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Combined Modality Therapy , Contracture/etiology , Esthetics , Female , Humans , Hyperpigmentation/etiology , Mastectomy , Middle Aged , Necrosis , Postoperative Period , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Rectus Abdominis/radiation effects , Rectus Abdominis/surgery , Single-Blind Method , Skin Pigmentation/radiation effects , Tissue and Organ Harvesting/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Venous Thrombosis/epidemiologyABSTRACT
In the absence of any published information on the indications, frequency, and outcomes of revision augmentation/mastopexy, an 8-year retrospective review was undertaken of all patients undergoing revision of a previous augmentation/mastopexy in the senior author's practice. The data collected included original implant type, location and mastopexy type, indication for revision, interval from original surgery, new implant type, location, and associated corrective surgical procedures. A simultaneous review was also performed of all primary augmentation/mastopexies done during the same period. Twenty patients underwent revision of 34 previously performed augmentation/mastopexies. Five patients underwent revisions of a prior revision. Fourteen were bilateral, while 6 were unilateral, for a total of 34 breasts. Forty patients underwent primary augmentation/mastopexy during the same period. Among the revisions, 10 implants were originally subglandular, while 24 were either partly or totally submuscular. Twelve of the previous mastopexies were periareolar, 2 were vertical, and 20 were of the inverted T-type. The indications for revision included capsular contracture in 11 of 20 (55%) patients, nipple ptosis in 11 of 20 (55%) patients, implant malposition in 7 of 20 (35%) patients, dissatisfaction with implant size in 6 of 20 (30%) patients, poor scar in 5 of 20 (25%) patients, breast ptosis in 4 of 20 (20%) patients, nipple malposition in 2 of 20 (10%) patients, and patient preference in 1 of 20 (5%) patients. Most patients had 2 or more indications for revision. The average duration to revision was 7 years. In 13 of 20 (65%) patients, no change in implant type was made. The remainder had exchanges to a different type. In 12 of 20 (60%) patients, no change in implant location was made, whereas 8 of 20 (40%) patients had a change to the subpectoral or dual plane position. In 18 of 20 (90%) patients, the revision included the same type of mastopexy, while in 2 of 20 (10%) patients, the type of mastopexy was changed. Corrective surgical procedures performed included repeat mastopexy, capsulectomy, change of implant type, change of implant location, change of implant size, capsulotomy, capsulorrhaphy, and scar revision. To date, all of the patients are satisfied with their appearance. Follow-up ranged from 2 months to 4 years. Revision augmentation mastopexy is not an uncommon procedure, occurring half as often as primary augmentation/mastopexy in our series. There were 8 common indications for revision, with capsular contracture and recurrent ptosis being the most common. Eight surgical procedures, in various combinations, were performed during revision, with repeat mastopexy being the most common.
