Technical and Clinical Differences Between Transgender and Cisgender Females Undergoing Breast Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Gender-affirming surgery is a quickly expanding field. However, it is facing a shortage of specialized surgeons for a population exceeding 1.4 million individuals. Many studies comparing outcomes between cisgender and transgender patients fail to describe the technical differences of the operation. Breast augmentation in the transgender female patient involves important anatomical, technical, and clinical features that differ from the cisgender female. In this study, we aimed to describe and compare these characteristics between these 2 groups to better inform the new generation of gender-affirming surgeons. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent primary breast augmentation between 2009 and 2019 at a specialized tertiary center for transgender care was performed. Mastopexy, secondary augmentation, and reconstructive procedures were excluded. Demographic, operative, and clinical data were collected from medical records. All patients had a minimum of 1 year of follow-up after the initial surgery. Bivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 250 cisgender females and 153 transgender females were included. The transgender group showed higher rates of smoking ( P < 0.0001), immunosuppression ( P < 0.0001), obesity ( P < 0.0001), mental health disorders ( P < 0.0001), and hypertension ( P = 0.002). Median base width ( P < 0.0001), sternal notch to nipple distance ( P < 0.0001), and implant size (500 mL [interquartile range, 425-600 mL] vs 350 mL [interquartile range, 325-385 mL]; P < 0.0001) were larger in transgender patients. Transgender patients also demonstrated a stronger correlation between implant size and body surface area ( r = 0.71, P < 0.0001). Readmission, reoperation, and complication rates were similar between the groups; however, transgender females had a higher incidence of surgical site infections (3.9% vs 0.4%, P < 0.013). Capsular contracture was the most common complication and indication for reoperation in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are important anatomical, clinical, and technical differences between reconstructive gender-affirming breast augmentation in transgender female patients and cosmetic breast augmentation in the cisgender female. The gender-affirming surgeon must know these differences to provide the best quality of care and help patients achieve better congruence between their gender identity and body image.

Inflammatory signatures distinguish metabolic health in African American women with obesity.

Obesity-driven Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a systemic inflammatory condition associated with cardiovascular disease. However, plasma cytokines and tissue inflammation that discriminate T2D risk in African American women with obese phenotypes are not well understood. We analyzed 64 circulating cytokines and chemokines in plasma of 120 African American women enrolled in the Black Women's Health Study. We used regression analysis to identify cytokines and chemokines associated with obesity, co-morbid T2D and hypertension, and compared results to obese women without these co-morbidities, as well as to lean women without the co-morbidities. We then used hierarchical clustering to generate inflammation signatures by combining the effects of identified cytokines and chemokines and summarized the signatures using an inflammation score. The analyses revealed six distinct signatures of sixteen cytokines/chemokines (P = 0.05) that differed significantly by prevalence of T2D (P = 0.004), obesity (P = 0.0231) and overall inflammation score (P < E-12). Signatures were validated in two independent cohorts of African American women with obesity: thirty nine subjects with no metabolic complications or with T2D and hypertension; and thirteen breast reduction surgical patients. The signatures in the validation cohorts closely resembled the distributions in the discovery cohort. We find that blood-based cytokine profiles usefully associate inflammation with T2D risks in vulnerable subjects, and should be combined with metabolism and obesity counselling for personalized risk assessment.

Lower extremity free flap outcomes using an anastomotic venous coupler device.

INTRODUCTION: Venous anastomosis is one of the most challenging technical aspects of microsurgery. Recently, it has been expedited by the use of an anastomotic coupler device in multiple reconstructive venues. However, there are few studies in the literature evaluating the use of the coupler in lower extremity reconstruction. We present one of the largest series to date examining the use of the venous coupler in microsurgical reconstruction of the lower extremity. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed including all lower extremity soft tissue reconstruction over a 26-month period performed by the senior authors. The Synovis venous coupler was used in all coupled venous anastomoses (Synovis Micro Companies Alliance Inc, Birmingham, Alabama). Patients under 18 years of age were excluded. RESULTS: Forty-nine free flaps were performed in 48 patients. All arterial anastomoses were hand sewn. The anastomotic venous coupler was used in 48 of 49 flaps (97.9%) with 1 hand-sewn case due to attending preference during early experience. There were no intraoperative vascular complications. Successful free flap reconstruction occurred in 47 of 49 flaps (95.9%). Of the flap losses, one was due to delayed venous thrombosis, the other attributed to delayed arterial thrombosis. Venous thrombosis rate was 2.1% when the coupler was used (1 failure in 48 flaps). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the venous coupler device in lower extremity reconstruction can be performed with a high degree of success. The potential of the venous coupler for reduced operative time, more efficient anastomoses with decreased ischemia, and reduced thrombotic rates represents potential benefits of this important tool.

An evidence-based approach to lower extremity acute trauma.

The Maintenance of Certification module series is designed to help the clinician structure his or her study in specific areas appropriate to his or her clinical practice. This article is prepared to accompany practice-based assessment of preoperative assessment, anesthesia, surgical treatment plan, perioperative management, and outcomes. In this format, the clinician is invited to compare his or her methods of patient assessment and treatment, outcomes, and complications, with authoritative, information-based references. This information base is then used for self-assessment and benchmarking in parts II and IV of the Maintenance of Certification process of the American Board of Plastic Surgery. This article is not intended to be an exhaustive treatise on the subject. Rather, it is designed to serve as a reference point for further in-depth study by review of the reference articles presented.