The pedicle tram flap: a focus on improved aesthetic outcome.

BACKGROUND: The transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM) flap technique is the most versatile and artistic procedure currently used for breast reconstruction. Several variations have been described in the past with regard to the aesthetic objectives of reconstruction and the technical steps to achieve these goals. This study aimed to analyze changes introduced by the authors to improve the aesthetic outcome of breast reconstruction using the pedicle TRAM flap in terms of three specific aesthetic goals: (1) better definition of the submammary fold, (2) improved reconstruction of the tail of the breast and anterior axillary wall after axillary clearance, and (3) improved projection of the lower pole of the reconstructed breast. METHODS: The design of the pedicle flap has been modified to accommodate four surgical scenarios: vertical orientations of the flap with either an ipsi or contralateral pedicle and horizontal orientation of the flap with either an ipsi or contralateral pedicle. In each of these variations, specific surgical steps were undertaken to produce extension of the flap into the axilla, better definition of the submammary fold, and folding of the flap in its lower part to increase lower pole projection. Postoperatively, standardized five-view images of the patients were taken and presented to blinded observers, who were requested to award a numeric score to the aesthetic outcome. The numeric scores then were analyzed statistically. An experimental group of 11 patients who underwent reconstruction using the modified/improved technique were compared with a control group of 17 patients who underwent reconstruction using the classic technique. The incidences of complications for the two groups were compared and analyzed as well. RESULTS: The two groups of patients were comparable in terms of their age distribution and incidences of donor site and recipient site complications. A statistically significant difference was noted between the aesthetic scores awarded to patients who underwent surgery using the improved technique and those awarded to those who underwent surgery using the classic technique (p = 0.0006). CONCLUSION: A model is presented for statistical analysis of the aesthetic outcome for breast reconstruction using an improved TRAM flap design as compared with using a classic TRAM flap design. This model offers an evidence-based decision-making process and uses the principle of aesthetic breast surgery adapted to breast reconstruction. On the basis of this model, the authors conclude that the aesthetic outcome of breast reconstruction can be improved by attention to details such as better projection of the breast's lower pole, improved sculpting of the submammary fold, and attention to filling contour deficits of the axilla after axillary clearance.

Comparative analysis of bupivacaine and ropivacaine for infiltration analgesia for bilateral breast surgery.

Local anesthesia infiltration has been established as a preferred method of perioperative analgesia in many cosmetic operations. In an attempt to maximize the risk-benefit ratio of local anesthesia, a study was conducted to compare efficacy of two local anaesthetic agents. Bupivacaine was compared to ropivacaine in a bilaterally symmetrical breast surgery model. A local anaesthetic solution containing either bupivacaine or ropivacaine was infiltrated into each of the breasts of 15 patients undergoing either breast augmentation or breast reduction. Both surgeon and patient were blinded to the nature of local anaesthetic agent injected. Patients were requested to score their pain at 1, 2, 6, and 10 hours after surgery on a visual analog scale. The results were analyzed statistically using a cross-sectional time-series regression model employing the random effects option of the xtreg command from Strata Release 6 statistical software. We found that overall analgesia achieved with bupivacaine and ropivacaine infiltrations was not statistically different. The use of a higher dose of ropivacaine is likely to have removed the clinical advantage noted for the bupivacaine group. There was, however, a statistical and clinical difference in the efficacy of local anaesthetic infiltration of both agents in breast augmentation patients as compared to breast reduction patients, local anaesthetic being less effective in patients who had submuscular breast augmentation than in patients who had breast reduction. In view of these findings, it appears reasonable to recommend the use of ropivacaine in high-dose infiltration breast analgesia, as it is reported to be less cardiotoxic than bupivacaine. Serious attention needs also to be given to the adequacy of field infiltration of local anesthesia in submuscular breast augmentation.

Outcome study: periareolar mammaplasty patients' perspective.

Residual scars on occasion compromise patient satisfaction with breast reduction procedures. Periareolar breast reduction was proposed to minimize the scarring produced by the operation. This technique was criticized predominantly for producing a breast with low projection, for recurrence of ptosis after surgery, and for widening of the periareolar scar. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction from this technique. In the first branch of the study, 11 patients who had periareolar or circumareolar breast reduction were compared with 13 patients who had vertical scar reduction mammaplasty. The groups were matched for patient's age, size of reduction, and follow-up period. The patients were contacted by phone and requested to comment on four aspects of their operation: breast size, symmetry, quality of scars, and appearance and position of the nipple-areola complex. The replies were converted to numerical values and analyzed statistically. A panel of three women, prospective patients for breast reduction, were presented with standardized five-view before-and-after photographs and requested to score the results using the same criteria. Their responses were analyzed in the same manner. Both phases of the study produced similar results. Breast reduction done through a periareolar scar scored higher than a vertical scar technique. The operation did not differ with respect to shape, symmetry, or nipple-areola shape but did with respect to dissatisfaction with scars, which affected the overall result. This experimental model of assessing results of cosmetic operations is proposed as a tool to assess the patient's rather than the surgeon's perspective of a surgical technique, and it could find application in assessing other cosmetic operations.