ABSTRACT
Chest masculinization surgery is an increasingly common procedure and has offered significant benefits to the gender-diverse community. Although major complications are an infrequent occurrence in chest masculinization surgery, they may still impact surgical success. While the long-term success of chest masculinization surgery has been examined through patient-reported outcome measures, there is no study that has assessed the association between complications and patient-reported outcomes. In this study, patients who underwent double incision or periareolar mastectomies for chest masculinization by a single surgeon were surveyed. Demographic, operative, and postoperative variables were obtained from medical records. The BODY-Q and SCAR-Q modules (Q-Portfolio.org) were used to assess postoperative patient-reported outcomes. There were 151 survey responders (43% response rate), 132 without complications and 19 with complications. No significant differences in patient-reported outcomes were noted when comparing the groups with and without complications. While some providers may be reluctant to offer chest masculinization to patients they deem high risk for complications, patients and providers should be assured that complications do not significantly impact patient satisfaction. LAY SUMMARY: Gender-affirming chest masculinization surgery is increasingly common. We investigated the impact of complications on patient-reported outcomes in chest masculinization. Patients and providers should be assured that complications do not significantly impact patient satisfaction.
ABSTRACT
Background: Rippling remains one of the most common complications following prepectoral implant-based reconstruction (IBR). Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess how implant cohesivity, a measure of elasticity and form stability, affects the incidence of rippling in prepectoral IBR. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 2-stage prepectoral IBR performed between January 2020 and June 2022 at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comparing outcomes in patients who received Allergan Natrelle least cohesive, moderately cohesive, and most cohesive silicone gel implants. Outcomes of interest were rippling and reoperation for fat grafting. Results: A total of 129 patients were identified, of whom 52 had the least cohesive implants, 24 had the moderately cohesive implants, and 53 patients had the most cohesive implants. The mean follow-up time was 463 (±220) days. A decreased incidence of rippling was seen with moderately cohesive (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, P < .05) and most cohesive (OR 0.39, P < .05) implants. Third stage reoperation for fat grafting was less frequent in patients with the most cohesive implant (OR 0.07, P < .05). In subgroup analyses, the patients with the most cohesive implant, who did not receive fat grafting at the time of initial implant placement, did not require reoperation for fat grafting (0%). Conclusions: The use of highly cohesive implants in prepectoral IBR is associated with decreased rippling and fewer reoperations for fat grafting.
