Breast Reduction with Implants or Augmentation Reduction: Patient-Reported Outcomes from a Single-Centre Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

Background and Objectives: The correction of breast hypertrophy and ptosis with implant placement has always posed a challenge for plastic surgeons. Various methods have been devised, yielding conflicting results. The purpose of this study is to describe our surgical technique of breast reduction with silicone implants, present the safety profile of the procedure, and report patient-reported outcomes. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was performed on our case series of cosmetic breast surgery performed by the senior author between October 2020 and November 2023. Only patients who had over 300 g of breast tissue removed were included. The surgery and demographic characteristics were recorded. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire about satisfaction with their breasts pre-operatively and after the surgery. Results: Over 745 cases were performed, and 25 were included in the analysis. In total, 78.3% of the patients presented with a Grade 3 ptosis. The mean implant size was 352.39 cc (range 300-455 cc). The breast tissue removed ranged from 312 to 657 g. The mean follow-up was 14.17 months. Only one case required revision surgery after developing capsular contracture and a waterfall deformity. Patients reported a statistically significant improvement across all domains of the questionnaire (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Breast reduction plus implants is a safe and effective alternative for patients with large ptotic breasts who wish to attain a full upper pole. It carries a similar risk profile to augmentation mastopexy and maintains its functional benefits in alleviating back, neck, and shoulder pain.

The influence of a previous implant-based breast reconstruction on postoperative sensation of the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap.

BACKGROUND: Implants and DIEP flaps have different outcomes regarding postoperative breast sensation. When compared to the preoperative healthy breast, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) negatively influences postoperative breast sensation. However, it is currently unknown whether a prior IBBR also influences postoperative sensation of a replacing DIEP flap. The goal of this cohort study is to evaluate the influence of an IBBR on the postoperative sensation of a replacing DIEP flap. METHODS: Women were included if they received a DIEP flap reconstruction after mastectomy, with or without prior tissue expander (TE) and/or definitive breast implant. Sensation was measured at four intervals in 9 areas of the breast with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments: T0 (preoperative, implant/no reconstruction), T1 (2-7 months postoperative, DIEP), T2 (± 12 months postoperative, DIEP), Tmax (maximum follow-up, DIEP). Linear mixed-effects models were used to investigate the relationship between an implant/TE prior to the DIEP flap and recovery of breast sensation. RESULTS: 142 women comprising 206 breasts were included. 48 (23.3%) breasts did, and 158 (76.7%) breasts did not have a TE/IBBR prior to their DIEP. No statistically significant or clinically relevant relationships were found between a prior implant/TE and recovery of DIEP flap breast sensation for the flap skin, native skin, or total breast skin at T1, T2, or Tmax. There were also no relationships found after adjustment for the confounders radiation therapy, BMI, diabetes, age, flap weight, follow-up, and nerve coaptation. CONCLUSIONS: An implant/TE prior to a DIEP flap does not influence the recovery of postoperative breast sensation of the DIEP flap.

The Spectrum of Non-neoplastic Changes Associated With Breast Implants: Histopathology, Imaging, and Clinical Significance.

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma has been recognized as a distinct entity in the World Health Organization classification of hematolymphoid neoplasms. These neoplasms are causally related to textured implants that were used worldwide until recently. Consequently, there is an increased demand for processing periprosthetic capsules, adding new challenges for surgeons, clinicians, and pathologists. In the literature, the focus has been on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma; however, benign complications related to the placement of breast implants occur in up to 20% to 30% of patients. Imaging studies are helpful in assessing patients with breast implants for evidence of implant rupture, changes in tissues surrounding the implants, or regional lymphadenopathy related to breast implants, but pathologic examination is often required. In this review, we couple our experience with a review of the literature to describe a range of benign lesions associated with breast implants that can be associated with different clinical presentations or pathogenesis and that may require different diagnostic approaches. We illustrate the spectrum of the most common of these benign disorders, highlighting their clinical, imaging, gross, and microscopic features. Finally, we propose a systematic approach for the diagnosis and handling of breast implant specimens in general.

Development and Validation of a Diagnostic Histopathological Scoring System for Capsular Contracture Based on 720 Breast Implant Capsules.

BACKGROUND: Capsular contracture is traditionally evaluated with the Baker classification, but this has notable limitations regarding reproducibility and objectivity. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and validate procedure-specific histopathological scoring systems to assess capsular contracture severity. METHODS: Biopsies of breast implant capsules were used to develop histopathological scoring systems for patients following breast augmentation and breast reconstruction. Ten histological parameters were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression to identify those most associated with capsular contracture. Significant parameters (P < .05) were selected for the scoring systems and assigned weighted scores (1-10). Validation was assessed from the area under the curve (AUC) and the mean absolute error (MAE). RESULTS: A total of 720 biopsies from 542 patients were included. Four parameters were selected for the augmentation scoring system, namely, collagen layer thickness, fiber organization, inflammatory infiltration, and calcification, providing a combined maximum score of 26. The AUC and MAE for the augmentation scoring system were 81% and 0.8%, which is considered strong. Three parameters were selected for the reconstruction scoring system, namely, fiber organization, collagen layer cellularity, and inflammatory infiltration, providing a combined maximum score of 19. The AUC and MAE of the reconstruction scoring system were 72% and 7.1%, which is considered good. CONCLUSIONS: The new histopathological scoring systems provide an objective, reproducible, and accurate assessment of capsular contracture severity. We propose these novel scoring systems as a valuable tool for confirming capsular contracture diagnosis in the clinical setting, for research, and for implant manufacturers and insurance providers in need of a confirmed capsular contracture diagnosis.

Technical Refinements and Outcomes Assessment in Prepectoral Pocket Conversion After Postmastectomy Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Several studies show how submuscular breast reconstruction is linked to animation deformity, shoulder dysfunction, and increased postoperative chest pain, when compared to prepectoral breast reconstruction. In solving all these life-impairing side effects, prepectoral implant pocket conversion has shown encouraging results. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to propose a refinement of the prepectoral implant pocket conversion applied to previously irradiated patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on 42 patients who underwent previous nipple- or skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate submuscular reconstruction, followed by radiotherapy. We performed fat grafting sessions as regenerative pretreatment. Six months after the last fat graft, we performed the conversion, with prepectoral placement of micropolyurethane foam-coated implants. We investigated the preconversion and postconversion differences in upper limb range of motion, Upper Extremity Functional Index, and patient satisfaction with the breast and physical well-being of the chest. RESULTS: We reported a resolution of animation deformity in 100% of cases. The range of motion and the Upper Extremity Functional Index scores were statistically improved after prepectoral implant pocket conversion. BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with the breast and physical well-being of the chest were also improved. CONCLUSIONS: The refined prepectoral implant pocket conversion is a reliable technique for solving animation deformity and improving quality of life in patients previously treated with submuscular reconstruction and radiotherapy.

The Effect of 3-Dimensional-Printed Sequential Dual Drug-Releasing Patch on the Capsule Formation Around the Silicone Implant in a Rat Model.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction is associated with increased risk of early infection and late-stage capsular contracture. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the feasibility of a dual drug-releasing patch that enabled the controlled delivery of antibiotics and immunosuppressants in a temporally and spatially appropriate manner to the implant site. METHODS: The efficacy of a dual drug-releasing patch, which was 3-dimensional-printed (3D-printed) with tissue-derived biomaterial ink, was evaluated in rats with silicone implants. The groups included implant only (n = 10); implant plus bacterial inoculation (n = 14); implant, bacterial inoculation, and patch loaded with gentamycin placed on the ventral side of the implant (n = 10), and implant, bacterial inoculation, and patch loaded with gentamycin and triamcinolone acetonide (n = 9). Histologic and immunohistochemical analyses were performed 8 weeks after implantation. RESULTS: The 2 drugs were sequentially released from the dual drug-releasing patch and exhibited different release profiles. Compared to the animals with bacterial inoculation, those with the antibiotic-only and the dual drug-releasing patch exhibited thinner capsules and lower myofibroblast activity and inflammation, indicating better tissue integration and less foreign body response. These effects were more pronounced with the dual drug-releasing patch than with the antibiotic-only patch. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D-printed dual drug-releasing patch effectively reduced inflammation and capsule formation in a rat model of silicone breast reconstruction. The beneficial effect of the dual drug-releasing patch was better than that of the antibiotic-only patch, indicating its therapeutic potential as a novel approach to preventing capsular contracture while reducing concerns of systemic side effects.

Polyurethane Implants in Revisional Breast Augmentation: A Prospective 5-Year Study.

BACKGROUND: Revisional surgery for aesthetic breast augmentation remains a challenging procedure. Polyurethane (PU) implants have been found to avoid capsular contracture recurrence as well as to prevent implant displacement by bio-integrating with the pocket. OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to assess the use of PU implants in breast revisional surgery and to provide an algorithm. METHODS: Over a 5-year period, a prospective study was conducted involving consecutive patients undergoing implant revision. Patient demographics, previous breast procedures, and specific surgical details were documented. Postoperative outcomes were followed up. RESULTS: Out of 92 patients (184 breasts), 78 (156 breasts) were included in the analysis. The average age was 47.5, with a BMI of 22.3 and a mean follow-up of 5 years. A majority (63%) represented secondary revisional cases, while 37% were tertiary cases. Implant size averaged 296 cc, with 53% placed in retropectoral position and 47% prepectoral. Significantly more implants in secondary cases were changed from prepectoral to retropectoral (P = .005), and in tertiary changed from retropectoral to prepectoral (P = .002). Complete capsulectomy was performed in 61.5% and partial in 25.6%. Additional lipofilling was performed in 32%, and concurrent mastopexy in 40%. Revisional surgery in our series had a 1.9% acute complication rate, 4.5% longer-term reoperation rate for corrections, 0.6% implant exchange rate, and no recurrent capsular contracture. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to provide data on outcomes of revisional breast augmentation surgery with PU implants. It shows that polyurethane implants offer consistent stability and have low rates of recurrent capsular contracture in revisional surgery.

Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction With Gas vs Saline Tissue Expanders: Does the Fill Type Matter?

The most common reconstruction technique following mastectomy is a 2-stage technique that involves tissue expansion followed by definitive implant-based reconstruction (IBR). Tissue expanders (TEs) have classically used saline for initial fill; however, TEs with an initial gas fill (GTE)-including the CO2-based AeroForm (AirXpanders, San Francisco, CA) TE and TEs initially filled with atmospheric air-have been increasingly used in the past decade. We aimed to compare the outcomes in breast reconstruction for tissue expanders initially filled with saline vs gas. PubMed was queried for studies comparing gas- and saline-filled tissue expanders (STEs) used in IBR. A meta-analysis was performed on major postoperative outcomes and the required expansion and definitive reconstruction time. Eleven studies were selected and included in the analysis. No significant differences existed between tissue expansion with GTEs vs STEs for 11 of the 13 postoperative outcomes investigated. Out of the complications investigated, only the risk of infection/cellulitis/abscess formation was significantly lower in the GTE cohort (odds ratio 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.82; P = .0009). The time to definitive reconstruction was also significantly lower in the GTE cohort (mean difference [MD], 45.85 days; 95% CI, -57.80 to -33.90; P < .00001). The total time to full expansion approached significance in the GTE cohort (MD, -20.33 days; 95% CI, -41.71 to 1.04; P = .06). A cost analysis considering TE cost and infection risk determined that GTE use saved a predicted $2055.34 in overall healthcare costs. Surgical outcomes for both fill types were predominantly similar; however, GTEs were associated with a significantly decreased risk of postoperative infection compared to saline-filled TEs. GTEs could also reduce healthcare expenditures and require less time until definitive reconstruction after placement.

Preventing Bacterial Contamination of Breast Implants Using Infection Mitigation Techniques: An In Vitro Study.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial contamination of implants has been linked to biofilm formation and subsequent infection, capsular contracture, and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Reducing contamination during implant insertion should therefore reduce biofilm formation disease sequelae. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare levels of contamination between preventative techniques. METHODS: A model to simulate the passage of implants through a skin incision was designed that utilized a sterile textured polyvinyl plastic sheet contaminated with Staphylococcus epidermidis. In the first stage of the polyvinyl contamination model, implants were subject to infection-mitigation techniques and passed through the incision, then placed onto horse blood agar plates and incubated for 24 hours. In the second stage of the study the same contamination was applied to human abdominal wall specimens. A 5 cm incision was made through skin and fat, then implants were passed through and levels of contamination were measured as described. RESULTS: Smooth implants grew a mean of 95 colony-forming units (CFUs; approximately 1 CFU/cm2) and textured implants grew 86 CFUs (also approximately 1 CFU/cm2). CFU counts were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U-test which showed no significant difference between implant types (P < .05); independent-sample t-tests showed a significant difference. The dependent-variable techniques were then compared as groups by one-way analysis of variance, which also showed a significant reduction compared with the control group (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: This in vitro study has shown the effectiveness of antiseptic rinse and skin/implant barrier techniques for reducing bacterial contamination of breast implants at the time of insertion.

Pre-pectoral Immediate Breast Reconstruction Following Conservative Mastectomy Using Acellular Dermal Matrix and Semi-smooth Implants.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Improvements in acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and surgical techniques have facilitated pre-pectoral immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Outer shell texturing is a key risk factor for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, prompting this evaluation of reconstruction with nano-textured rounded implants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-one consecutive patients underwent 72 pre-pectoral ADM-assisted (fenestrated SurgiMend™) IBRs using nano-textured implants (Sebbin™). Patients were invited to complete a satisfaction questionnaire, including aesthetic outcome (linear scale 0-10) during follow-up. RESULTS: Average mastectomy weight was 300 g (range=83-1,018 g). After a mean follow-up of 18.3 month, 2 patients (2.8%) had minor wound complications. One patient suffered nipple necrosis. Capsular contracture occurred in 5 cases (6.9%) and significant rippling in one case. No implants were lost. Patient-reported aesthetic outcomes had a mean score of 9.3 (range=3-10; N=71). CONCLUSION: Pre-pectoral ADM-assisted IBR using semi-smooth implants following NSM is reliable and safe, with a low incidence of complications and high patient satisfaction.

TGF-ß1 and CD68 immunoexpression in capsules formed by textured implants with and without mesh coverage: a study on female rats

Purpose: To evaluate fibrosis formation and number of macrophages in capsules formed around textured implants without and with mesh coverage. Methods: Fibrosis was analyzed through transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-ß1) immunomarker expression and the number of macrophages through CD68 percentage of cells in magnified field. Sixty female Wistar rats were distributed into two groups of 30 rats (unmeshed and meshed). Each group was then subdivided into two subgroups for postoperative evaluation after 30 and 90 days. The p value was adjusted by Bonferroni lower than 0.012. Results: No difference was observed in fibrosis between meshed and unmeshed groups (30 days p = 0.436; 90 days p = 0.079) and from 30 to 90 days in the unmeshed group (p = 0.426). The meshed group showed higher fibrosis on the 90th day (p = 0.001). The number of macrophages was similar between groups without and with mesh coverage (30 days p = 0.218; 90 days p = 0.044), and similar between subgroups 30 and 90 days (unmeshed p = 0.085; meshed p = 0.059). Conclusions: In the meshed group, fibrosis formation was higher at 90 days and the mesh-covered implants produced capsules similar to microtextured ones when analyzing macrophages. Due to these characteristics, mesh coating did not seem to significantly affect the local fibrosis formation.

Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently experienced a resurgence in popularity because of its lower levels of postoperative pain and animation deformity. BREAST-Q, a well-validated patient-reported outcomes tool, was used to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life. The goal of this study was to assess patient-reported outcomes at 6-month and 1-year follow-up after direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction. METHODS: Sixty-nine consented adult patients undergoing a total of 110 direct-to-implant, prepectoral, postmastectomy breast reconstructions completed BREAST-Q questionnaires immediately preoperatively, and at 6 and 12 months thereafter. RESULTS: Mean breast satisfaction decreased nonsignificantly from 61.3 preoperatively to 58.6 at 12 months after reconstruction (p = 0.32). Psychosocial well-being improved nonsignificantly from 67.1 preoperatively to 71.1 at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.26). Physical well-being of the chest was insignificantly different, from 74.4 to 73.3 at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.62). Finally, sexual well-being similarly remained nonsignificantly changed from 60.2 preoperatively, to 59.1 at 12 months (p = 0.80). The use of acellular dermal matrix and postmastectomy radiotherapy did not have any significant effects on patient-reported outcomes. Through regression analysis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, increased age, and incidence of rippling were found to negatively influence BREAST-Q results. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction demonstrated an overall satisfaction with their outcomes. As prepectoral breast reconstruction continues to advance and grow in popularity, patient-reported outcomes such as those presented in this study become of paramount importance in practice. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Breast Implantation Rates in Israel: Is There a Change in Trend?

BACKGROUND: Breast implant illness (BII) is a rising concern among many patients. Although not fully understood, a connection between silicone breast implants and systemic diseases may be present. This connection may influence the types of breast surgeries performed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate changing trends in breast surgeries in Israel over time, with regard to implantation, explantation, and implant exchange surgeries. METHODS: In this ecological study, we presented data from four private medical centers in Israel regarding the number of breast implant surgeries performed in the years 2018-2019. Data were collected bi-yearly. The types of surgeries included breast implantation, explantation, and breast implant exchange. RESULTS: When we summed and compared the yearly data, we saw that the number of implantations in 2018 was 2267 (80.1% of breast implant procedures that year), and 1929 (68.9%) in 2019. The number of implant exchanges in 2018 and 2019 was 482 (17.0%) and 608 (21.7%), respectively. In 2018, 80 (2.8%) explantations were performed and 262 (9.4%) in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a trend in the rise of implant removal surgeries in addition to a decrease in breast implantations. One possible reason may be patient concerns of BII. Another reason may be the increased public interest and discussion about systemic effects of breast implants. More research is needed in this field to achieve better understanding of the phenomenon, the reasons behind it, and the possible solutions and ways of treatment.

Breast Implants: Common Questions and Answers.

Breast implants are used for a wide range of cosmetic and reconstructive purposes. In addition to breast augmentation, implants can be used for postmastectomy breast reconstruction, correction of congenital breast anomalies, breast or chest wall deformities, and male-to-female top surgery. Breast implants may confer significant benefits to patients, but several factors are important to consider preoperatively, including the impact on mammography, future lactation, and potential long-term implant complications (e.g., infection, capsular contracture, rupture, and the need for revision, replacement, or removal). A fundamental understanding of implant monitoring is also paramount to implant use. Patients with silicone breast implants should undergo routine screening for implant rupture with magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography completed five to six years postoperatively and then every two to three years thereafter. With the exception of complications, there are no formal recommendations regarding the timing of breast implant removal or exchange. Women with unilateral breast swelling should be evaluated with ultrasonography for an effusion that might indicate breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. There are no specific breast cancer screening recommendations for patients with breast implants, but special mammographic views are indicated to enhance accuracy. Although these discussions are a routine component of consultation and postoperative follow-up for plastic surgeons performing these procedures, family physicians should have a working knowledge of implant indications, characteristics, and complications to better counsel their patients, to ensure appropriate screening, and to coordinate care after surgery.

Difficulties of Breast Reconstruction - Problems That No One Likes to Face.

Reconstructive breast surgery following total or partial mastectomy can be performed using autologous tissues or breast implants, and each has its own set of complications. Most women do not experience significant complications and are highly satisfied but breast reconstruction must consider potential complications from surgical techniques, as well as additional complications that may arise from oncological treatment modalities such as radiation therapy and chemotherapy. The aim of this article is to provide a systemic overview of possible complications that may arise in the course of reconstructive breast surgery. Complications associated with flap-based or implant-based breast reconstruction can be classified as: i) Complications inherent to surgery and common to all, including seroma, bleeding, and hematoma; skin necrosis; and infection, among others. ii) Complications specifically related to reconstruction, such as flap ischemia/necrosis/loss; fat necrosis; implant capsular contracture; implant failure, exposure, or malposition. In conclusion, this overview of possible complications is intended to improve the decision-making process when considering breast reconstruction.

Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction Does Not Affect Early Immunological Response: A BIAL 2.20 Study Subanalysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Reduction of postoperative stress is a modern tenet in surgical oncology with the aim of reducing early postoperative lymphopenia. Our prospective study evaluated post-operative immune response at baseline and postoperative day (POD) 1 and 2 after direct-to-implant pre-pectoral (PP) breast reconstruction with titanium-coated polypropylene mesh versus subpectoral (SP) breast reconstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January and December 2020, 37 patients were randomized between PP (n=17) or SP (n=16) reconstruction. Baseline and operative data were analyzed. Postoperative pain assessment using numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and a full blood count with lymphocyte subsets were collected before surgery, and on POD1 and POD2. Data were evaluated by two-way analysis of variance test. RESULTS: Baseline data did not demonstrate any statistical difference. Inter-group analysis did not provide any statistically significant difference in leukocytes, total lymphocytes, and lymphocytes subsets among SP and PP reconstruction groups (p>0.05). However, compared to specificity, the PP group experienced shorter operative time, with a mean difference 30.19 min, lower blood loss (p=0.017), lower rate of postoperative anemia (p=0.039), and a more favorable profile in inter-group pain analysis (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: PP reconstruction with titanium-coated polypropylene mesh does not increase immunological impairment in the early postoperative period when compared with SP reconstruction and provides lower postoperative pain, reduction of operative time, and lower rate of postoperative anemia.