Endoscopic Bilateral Nipple-sparing Mastectomy via a Single Axillary Incision with Immediate Pre-pectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction.

Oncoplastic breast surgery, with its focus on improving cosmetic outcomes while maintaining oncological safety, has fundamentally transformed the landscape of breast cancer surgical treatment, giving rise to an array of techniques for breast reconstruction. Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) has emerged as a cornerstone in managing early breast cancer. Aligned with the principles of minimally invasive surgery, recent years have witnessed the widespread integration of endoscopic approaches in breast surgery, encompassing procedures like endoscopic breast-conserving surgery (E-BCS) and endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM), among others. Capitalizing on the advantages of inconspicuous and shorter incisions, improved visibility, and the avoidance of radiation therapy, the popularity of E-NSM with IBBR is on the rise. However, conventional E-NSM with IBBR often requires two or more incisions, which can result in suboptimal cosmetic outcomes and even prosthesis loss.This paper presents a comprehensive account of the intricate surgical procedures involved in endoscopic bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. The insights shared are drawn from the collective experience of our institution. Notable benefits associated with the described surgical approach encompass enhanced cosmetic outcomes, improved postoperative quality of life, and enhanced physiological functions attributable to the application of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction through a single incision.

BIA-ALCL and BIA-SCC: Updates on Clinical Features and Genetic Mutations for Latest Recommendations.

Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and Breast Implant-Associated Squamous Cell Carcinoma (BIA-SCC) are emerging neoplastic complications related to breast implants. While BIA-ALCL is often linked to macrotextured implants, current evidence does not suggest an implant-type association for BIA-SCC. Chronic inflammation and genetics have been hypothesized as key pathogenetic players, although for both conditions, the exact mechanisms and specific risks related to breast implants are yet to be established. While the genetic alterations in BIA-SCC are still unknown, JAK-STAT pathway activation has been outlined as a dominant signature of BIA-ALCL. Recent genetic investigation has uncovered various molecular players, including MEK-ERK, PI3K/AKT, CDK4-6, and PDL1. The clinical presentation of BIA-ALCL and BIA-SCC overlaps, including most commonly late seroma and breast swelling, warranting ultrasound and cytological examinations, which are the first recommended steps as part of the diagnostic work-up. While the role of mammography is still limited, MRI and CT-PET are recommended according to the clinical presentation and for disease staging. To date, the mainstay of treatment for BIA-ALCL and BIA-SCC is implant removal with en-bloc capsulectomy. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy have also been used for advanced-stage BIA-ALCL and BIA-SCC. In-depth characterization of the tumor genetics is key for the development of novel therapeutic strategies, especially for advanced stage BIA-ALCL and BIA-SCC, which show a more aggressive course and poor prognosis.

Autologous fat transplantation prior to permanent expander implant breast reconstruction enhances the outcome after two years: a randomized controlled trial.

Radiotherapy is important in breast cancer treatment. A side effect of the treatment is fibrosis that decreases the possibility for a successful breast reconstruction with expanders and with high patient satisfaction with the result. The most common option for mastectomized, irradiated women wishing for a breast reconstruction is autologous tissue transplantation. However, some patients are not suitable for flap surgery. Fifty mastectomized and irradiated women were included in a randomized controlled trial. They underwent breast reconstruction with expanders and were allocated 1:1 to either receive pre-treatment with autologous fat transplantation (AFT) or not. Primary outcomes were frequency of reoperations and complications. Secondary outcomes were number of days in hospital, number of outpatient visits to surgeon or nurse and patient reported outcome as reported with Breast Q. Follow-up time was 2 years. Fifty-two per cent of the intervention group and 68% of the controls underwent reoperations (p = 0.611). Thirty-two per cent of the intervention group and 52% of the controls had complications (p = 0.347). The median number of consultations with the nurse was four in the intervention group and six in the control group (p = 0.002). The AFT patients were significantly more satisfied with their breasts and psychosocial well-being after 2 years. They also had higher increase in satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being when comparing baseline with 2 years postoperatively. This randomized controlled trial indicates benefits of AFT prior to breast reconstruction with expanders, especially on patient reported outcome even if the study sample is small.

Unnecessary Explantation of IDEAL IMPLANT Structured Saline Breast Implants Prompted byRadiologic Misdiagnosis of Rupture.

ABSTRACT: The unique dual-lumen and baffle design of the IDEAL IMPLANT Structured Saline breast implant gives it specific advantages over both silicone gel-filled and the original saline-filled implants. This internal baffle structure also gives it an appearance on various radiologic imaging studies that may be misinterpreted as a rupture because of similarities to the well-known radiologic appearance of a ruptured silicone gel implant. Patients may present with various misinterpreted imaging studies, highlighting the need for plastic surgeons and radiologists to be familiar with the normal appearance of the intact IDEAL IMPLANT and be able to distinguish it from a ruptured IDEAL IMPLANT. The radiology findings must be correlated with the clinical findings, or an intact IDEAL IMPLANT misdiagnosed as ruptured, may cause unnecessary patient worry, and may prompt unnecessary surgery for removal or replacement.

Immediate Breast Reconstruction With Latissimus Dorsi Myocutaneous Flap and Silicone Implant Followed by Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: About 30% to 50% of women with breast cancer undergo mastectomy, and approximately 50% of them will receive adjuvant radiotherapy (ART). This study evaluates the medium- and long-term impact of ART after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with latissimus dorsi myocutaneous (LDM) flap and silicone implants. METHODS: Clinical, surgical, and oncological data were retrospectively collected and analyzed based on the medical records of 176 patients who had undergone IBR with LDM flap and silicone implants. RESULTS: The data showed that 7.4% of patients had a history of previous radiotherapy, 56.3% received ART, 31.8% developed capsular contracture with a mean follow-up of 58.1 months, and 14.2% of surgeries were categorized as procedures with a prolonged operating time, lasting above 1 SD of the observed mean. Those who experienced prolonged operating time (odds ratio, 4.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-12.93; P = 0.003) and those who received ART (odds ratio, 7.38; 95% confidence interval, 3.18-17.10; P < 0.001) were more likely to develop capsular contracture. Thirty-two patients (18%) underwent capsulectomy with implant replacement, and 7 patients (4%) had the implant removed. The mean time between IBR and reoperation was 29.1 months. Patients who received ART were 2.84 times more likely to experience reconstruction failure or undergo implant-related reoperation ( P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that IBR with LDM flap and silicone implant followed by ART is a safe procedure, resulting in low rates of reconstruction failure. However, ART increased the likelihood of capsular contracture development and implant-related reoperation, having a negative effect on reconstructed breasts.

Patient factors associated with cancer worry post-breast reconstruction: A cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: The BREAST-Q Breast Cancer module is a patient-reported outcome measure for women with breast cancer diagnosis. Our research team developed and validated a novel BREAST-Q scale for this module that measures quality of life outcomes specific to cancer worry. The aim of this study was to investigate patient related breast reconstruction factors that are associated with worse scores on the new BREAST-Q Cancer Worry Scale. METHODS: Women with a history of breast cancer treated with mastectomy and reconstruction, aged ≥18 years, and English-speaking were recruited through the Love Research Army between October and November 2019. Participants completed demographic and clinical questions alongside the BREAST-Q Cancer Worry Scale. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to identify participant characteristics associated with cancer worry scores. RESULTS: Among the 554 potential respondents, 538 (97.1%) completed the Cancer Worry Scale. The average patient age was 58.4 (+9.8) years. Cancer Worry scores were normally distributed with a mean of 46.4 (+17.2). Cancer Worry scores were significantly associated (p < 0.01) with younger age, history of radiation therapy, complications associated with breast surgery since diagnosis, use of textured breast implants, and shorter duration since surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis provides evidence of patient characteristics that may be associated with cancer worry following postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

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.

Screening the Implant-Augmented Breast with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Is Tomosynthesis Necessary for Non-implant-Displaced Views?

OBJECTIVE: To determine cancer visualization utility and radiation dose for non-implant-displaced (ID) views using standard protocol with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vs alternative protocol with 2D only when screening women with implant augmentation. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified women with implants who underwent screening DBT examinations that had abnormal findings from July 28, 2014, to December 31, 2021. Three fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently reviewed examinations retrospectively to determine if the initially identified abnormalities could be visualized on standard protocol (DBT with synthesized 2D (S2D) for ID and non-ID views) and alternate protocol (DBT with S2D for ID and only the S2D images for non-ID views). Estimated exam average glandular dose (AGD) and associations between cancer visualization with patient and implant characteristics for both protocols were evaluated. RESULTS: The study included 195 patients (mean age 55 years ± 10) with 223 abnormal findings. Subsequent biopsy was performed for 86 abnormalities: 59 (69%) benign, 8 (9%) high risk, and 19 (22%) malignant. There was no significant difference in malignancy visualization rate between standard (19/223, 8.5%) and alternate (18/223, 8.1%) protocols (P = .92), but inclusion of the DBT for non-ID views found one additional malignancy. Total examination AGD using standard protocol (21.9 mGy ± 5.0) was significantly higher than it would be for estimated alternate protocol (12.6 mGy ± 5.0, P <.001). This remained true when stratified by breast thickness: 6.0-7.9 cm, 8.0-9.9 cm, >10.0 cm (all P <.001). CONCLUSION: The inclusion of DBT for non-ID views did not significantly increase the cancer visualization rate but did significantly increase overall examination AGD.

Augmentation mastopexy using the "double inner bra technique" (DIB) in post-bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Augmentation mastopexy has a 20-fold higher complication rate than primary augmentation. Performing augmentation mastopexy in post-bariatric patients poses an additional challenge owing to the reduced quality of the soft skin tissue. Therefore, it is technically complex and also fraught with complications. Implant dislocation, recurrent ptosis, wound healing problems with exposed implants, and the threat of implant loss are complications that must be prevented. METHODS: We present a case series study on our technique for stabilizing breast implants using the double inner bra technique (DIB) in which a laterobasal myofascial flap and an inferiorly based dermoglandular flap form a double inner bra for implant stabilization and protection. RESULTS: Thirty-seven cases were operated on using this technique from December 2020 to June 2023. No hematomas (0%), seromas (0%), infections (0%), and implant losses (0%) were recorded. Moreover, none of the patients had implant malposition (0%). With regard to recurrent ptosis mammae or waterfall deformity, 7 cases (2.6%) showed early ptosis within the first 3 months, and the number of ptosis decreased over time. Furthermore, 5 (1.81%) patients showed ptosis mammae after 6-12 months. Implant defect or rupture has not yet occurred (0%). CONCLUSION: The DIB is an easy-to-learn and versatile technique. It has low complication rates and can be used to achieve esthetically satisfactory mid- to long-term results.

Self-reported systemic symptoms among women with breast implants.

Around 2,500 women receive a breast augmentation with silicone-based implants yearly in Denmark. A number of these women report various uncharacteristic systemic symptoms, which they attribute to the breast implants, including impaired cognition, joint pain, etc. This condition has been termed "breast implant illness" and is currently not a recognised diagnosis. The correlation between the patient's self-reported symptoms and breast implants has not been established and there is limited evidence that surgery has any effect. In this review, the current literature on the topic has been reviewed.

[Key Points of Examination after Breast Augmentation and Our Clinic's Algorithm of Immediate Reconstruction Using Silicone Implant for Breast Cancer Patient after Breast Augmentation].

Recently, the cases of breast augmentation for cosmetic purposes are rapidly increasing, there are more opportunities to examine for patient with breast augmentation history than before. In some cases, breast cancer screening is difficult due to the effects of breast augmentation. At our clinic, even in cases diagnosed with breast cancer after breast augmentation, we actively perform immediate breast reconstruction using silicone implant. However, it is necessary to consider the condition and type of breast augmentation at the time of diagnosis and also treatment. We will share our algorithm for immediate breast reconstruction using silicone implant for breast cancer after augmentation mammaplasty.

Women in Plastic Surgery Innovation: A 10-Year Review of Gender Representation in Mammary Device Patents.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to pioneer in evaluating women's representation in plastic surgery innovations, focusing on mammary prosthesis devices' inventorship. Despite growing gender parity in the field, women's involvement in innovation remains underexplored. This is especially crucial, as the predominant recipients of these innovative technologies are women, urging a necessity for broader female engagement in pioneering surgical advancements. METHOD: Patents under the "A61F2/12: Mammary prostheses and implants" classification between the dates January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020, were identified using Google Patents Advanced. Inclusion criteria included patents (not designs) in English and applications (not grants), with no litigation limitations. Data collected included ID, title, assignee (categorized as industry, academic, private, individual), inventors, and dates (priority, filing, and publication). Sex of inventors was identified with the literature validated gender API, with manual resolution of unresolved genders or with ga_accuracy scores of less than 75%. Data were analyzed using 2-tailed Student t tests, χ2 analysis, and Pearson correlation coefficient (significance set at P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Of the more than 130,000 plastic surgery patents in English identified between the 10-year period, 1355 were classified as A61F2/12. A total of 374 unique patents were included for analysis (841 duplicates were removed, and 140 patents were excluded because of non-English character author names). There was a significant increase in patents over the decade (from 15 in 2011 to 88 in 2020, R2 = 0.74, P < 0.05), with a decrease in number of inventors per patent (R2 = 0.12, P < 0.05). Of the 1102 total inventors, 138 were female (11.2%), with a 4-fold increase in representation over the decade (R2 = 0.58, P < 0.05), including increase in patents filed with a woman first inventor (0%-14.8%). Women were equally likely to be first 3 inventors versus middle to last inventors (12.8% vs 11.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Over a decade, mammary device innovations rose significantly. Although women inventors' representation improved, it remains disproportionate compared with women in residency/practice. Hence, interventions should aim to align inventor representation with training ratios, through institutional optimization, reducing gender segmentation, and enhancing funding opportunities.

Disparities in Breast Reconstruction: An Analysis of Treatment Choices.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction methods vary based on factors such as medical history, breast size, and personal preferences. However, disparities in healthcare exist, and the role race plays in accessing to different reconstruction methods is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the influence of race and/or ethnicity on the type of breast reconstruction chosen. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Magee Women's Hospital database, including patients who underwent breast cancer surgery from 2011 to 2022. Multivariate analysis examined race, reconstruction, and reconstruction type (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The database included 13,260 women with breast cancer; of whom 1763 underwent breast reconstruction. We found that 91.8% of patients were White, 6.8% Black, and 1.24% were of other races (Asian, Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, unknown). Reconstruction types were 46.8% implant, 30.1% autologous, and 18.7% combined. Among Black patients, autologous 36.3%, implant 32.2%, and combined 26.4%. In White patients, autologous 29.5%, implant 48%, and combined 18.2%. Among other races, autologous 36.3%, implant 40.9%, and combined 22.7%. In patients who underwent breast reconstruction, 85.2% underwent unilateral and 14.7% of patients underwent bilateral. Among the patients who had bilateral reconstruction, 92.3% were White, 6.1% were Black, and 1.5% were of other ethnicities. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed differences in breast reconstruction methods. Autologous reconstruction was more common among Black patients, and implant-based reconstruction was more common among Whites and other races. Further research is needed to understand the cause of these variations.

Out-of-Pocket Costs and Payments in Autologous and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Nationwide Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many factors influence a patient's decision to undergo autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction, including medical, social, and financial considerations. This study aims to investigate differences in out-of-pocket and total spending for patients undergoing autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan Commercial Databases were queried to extract all patients who underwent inpatient autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction from 2017 to 2021. Financial variables included gross payments to the provider (facility and/or physician) and out-of-pocket costs (total of coinsurance, deductible, and copayments). Univariate regressions assessed differences between autologous and implant-based reconstruction procedures. Mixed-effects linear regression was used to analyze parametric contributions to total gross and out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: The sample identified 2079 autologous breast reconstruction and 1475 implant-based breast reconstruction episodes. Median out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for autologous reconstruction than implant-based reconstruction ($597 vs $250, P < 0.001) as were total payments ($63,667 vs $31,472, P < 0.001). Type of insurance plan and region contributed to variable out-of-pocket costs (P < 0.001). Regression analysis revealed that autologous reconstruction contributes significantly to increasing out-of-pocket costs (B = $597, P = 0.025) and increasing total costs (B = $74,507, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The US national data demonstrate that autologous breast reconstruction has higher out-of-pocket costs and higher gross payments than implant-based reconstruction. More study is needed to determine the extent to which these financial differences affect patient decision-making.

Association of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With Postoperative Outcomes in Immediate Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by total mastectomy and immediate reconstruction has become an important strategy in the treatment of breast cancer. Although the safety of subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with NACT has been extensively evaluated, the safety in prepectoral reconstruction has not been clearly elucidated. We aimed to evaluate the association of NACT with immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent total mastectomy and immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction between May and December 2021 was conducted. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: those receiving NACT and those not receiving it. Postoperative complication rates were compared between the 2 groups. The independent association between NACT and the complication profiles was evaluated. Propensity score matching was also conducted. RESULTS: We analyzed 343 cases, including 85 who received NACT treatment and 258 who did not. Compared with the non-NACT group, the NACT group was younger, had a higher body mass index, and a higher rate of adjuvant radiotherapy. There were no differences in the rates of overall complications or type of complication between the 2 groups. In the multivariable logistic analyses, NACT did not show a significant association with the development of adverse outcomes. Similar results were observed in propensity score matching analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that receiving NACT may not have a significant detrimental effect on the postoperative outcomes of immediate prepectoral prosthetic reconstructions. Conducting prepectoral implant-based reconstruction in the setting of NACT might be safe and provide acceptable outcomes.

A Comparative Analysis of Implant-sparing Plan Versus Conventional Plans Utilizing Helical Tomotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To compare implant sparing irradiation with conventional radiotherapy (RT) using helical (H) and TomoDirect (TD) techniques in breast cancer patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The dosimetric parameters of 40 patients with retropectoral implants receiving 50.4 Gy delivered in 28 fractions were analyzed. Three plans were created: H plan using conventional planning target volume (PTV) that included the chest wall, skin, and implant; TD plan using conventional PTV; and Hs plan using implant-sparing PTV. The H, TD, and Hs plans were compared for PTV doses, organ-at-risk (OAR) doses, and treatment times. RESULTS: Dose distribution in the Hs plan was less homogeneous and uniform than that in the H and TD plans. The TD plan had lower lung, heart, contralateral breast, spinal cord, liver, and esophagus doses than the Hs plan. Compared to the Hs plan, the H plan had lower lung volume receiving 5Gy (V5) (39.1±3.9 vs. 41.2±3.9 Gy; p<0.001), higher V20 (12.3±1.3 vs. 11.5±2.6 Gy; p=0.02), and higher V30 (7.5±1.6 vs. 4.4±1.7 Gy; p<0.001). H plan outperformed Hs plan in heart dosimetric parameters except V20. The Hs plan had significantly lower mean implant doses (43.4±2.1 Gy) than the H plan (51.4±0.5 Gy; p<0.001) and the TD plan (51.9±0.6 Gy; p<0.001). Implementing an implant sparing technique for silicone dose reduction decreases lung doses. CONCLUSION: Conventional H and TD plans outperform the implant sparing helical plan dosimetrically. Because capsular contracture during RT is unpredictable, long-term clinical outcomes are required to determine whether silicon should be spared.