Long-term Follow-up and Trends in Breast Augmentation in 527 Transgender Women and Nonbinary Individuals: A 30-year experience in Amsterdam.

BACKGROUND: Transgender women and transfeminine spectrum nonbinary individuals may opt for breast augmentation. The aim of the study is to analyze the complications, surgical trends, and long-term follow-up of breast augmentations in this population over the past 30 years. METHODS: All transgender women and nonbinary individuals who underwent breast augmentation at our center between 01-1990 and 01-2020 were retrospectively identified. A retrospective chart study was conducted, recording individual demographics, implant characteristics, surgical timing, postoperative complications or other reasons requiring reoperation, and implant survival. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE on clinical outcomes and revision surgery of this procedure. RESULTS: A total of 527 individuals were identified. Median clinical follow-up time was 11.2 years (interquartile range 3.3-17.5). Median implant size increased significantly over the last years (1990-1990 median 275cc, 2000-2009 252cc, 2010-2019 375cc, p<0.01). Most individuals underwent breast augmentation and genital gender-affirming surgery in one-stage. Reoperations due to short-term complications were infrequent (hematoma (0.4%) or infection (0.4%)). Reoperations due to long-term complications comprised: implant rupture (5.7%), capsular contracture (4.9%), aesthetic problems (3.8%), low-grade infection (0.4%), or seroma (0.6%). In total, 2.5% of individuals requested larger implants. After performing the literature search and manuscript screening, 9 out of 115 identified studies were included for review. Follow-up time ranged from 30 days to 5.5 years. Reported complications requiring reoperation were capsular contraction (range 0.0-5.6%), asymmetry (3.6%), hematoma (range 0.0-2.9%), infection (range 0.0-0.9%) and implant rupture (0.7%), CONCLUSION: Implant-based breast augmentation is a safe procedure in transgender individuals.

A Systematic Review and Overview of Flap Reconstructive Techniques for Nasal Skin Defects.

Background: Reconstruction of nasal skin defects can be challenging due to limited skin laxity and underlying cartilage and, therefore, often require a complex repair. The aim of this review is to systematically analyze the literature on nasal skin reconstructions with specific detail to flap reconstructions. Methods: A systematic literature review of nasal skin reconstruction was performed and focused on flap reconstructions. Flap reconstructions were stratified based on defect size, nasal subunit, and reconstruction type. Complication rates (CRs) and patient outcomes were also assessed. Results: A total of 176 articles (11,370 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 59 articles showed various flap techniques. For defects ≤1.5 cm, every subunit had four to six options except the alar rim, which showed one option. Rotation-advancement flaps were mostly used for the nasal tip and sidewall, whereas bilobed flaps were used more for the ala and dorsum. Defects >1.5 cm were most commonly reconstructed with the forehead flap. The mean CR of flap reconstructions was 13.8%. Only 8 of the 176 articles (4.5%) reported patient satisfaction using a standardized questionnaire. Conclusion: This review shows various flap reconstruction options with their corresponding CR that will help guide the surgeon in choosing reconstructive options for different nasal skin defects.