Use of the Vertical Profunda Artery Perforator Flap to Capture the Dominant Perforator: A Cadaver Dissection and Imaging Study.

BACKGROUND: While the originally described transverse profunda artery perforator (tPAP) flap is designed to capture the first profunda perforator, our group hypothesized the dominant perforator may not always be captured in this configuration. This study maps the location of dominant profunda perforators using imaging and cadaveric dissections to determine the probability of capturing dominant perforators with the transverse flap design versus the vertical PAP (vPAP) variant. METHODS: Fifty preoperative magnetic resonance angiogram or computed tomographic angiogram scans (100 total extremities) were examined from autologous breast reconstruction patients between 2015 and 2019. Profunda perforator characteristics that were examined included the distance from the pubic tubercle to the infragluteal fold (IGF), the distance of the perforators from the IGF, distance posterior to the gracilis, the diameter of the perforator at fascial exit, and total number of perforators present. Profunda perforator dissection was performed in 18 cadaveric extremities. Analysis included mean distance from pubic tubercle, distance posterior to the gracilis, diameter at fascial exit, and total number of perforators. RESULTS: In imaging analysis, the mean distance from the IGF to the fascial exit of all dominant perforators was 7.04 cm. The mean diameter of the dominant perforator at the fascial exit was 2.61 mm. Twenty-six thighs (26%) demonstrated dominant perforators that exited the fascia greater than 8 cm below the IGF. In cadaver dissections, the mean distance from the pubic tubercle to the fascial exit of all the dominant perforators was 10.17 cm. Nine cadaver specimens (50%) demonstrated perforators that exited the fascia greater than 8 cm below the estimated IGF. CONCLUSION: The dominant perforator can often be missed in the traditional tPAP design. The vPAP incorporates multiple perforators with a long pedicle, excellent vessel diameter, and favorable donor-site.

Subpectoral Implant Repositioning With Partial Capsule Preservation: Treating the Long-Term Complications of Subglandular Breast Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with long-term complications associated with subglandular breast augmentation are being seen in increasing numbers in the Southern California community. Late deformities include a characteristic "slide-down" deformity as well as capsular contracture, implant wrinkling, and nipple-areola complex enlargement. Repositioning the implant to a subpectoral pocket is a recognized revisionary technique to treat this problem; however, technical details of how this is accomplished are lacking in the literature. OBJECTIVES: To review our technique for treating long-term complications associated with subglandular implants using subpectoral repositioning with partial capsule preservation and mastopexy, without the need for an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) or mesh. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing subpectoral repositioning over the course of 6 years was performed. Patient data and long-term outcomes were assessed. A technique is presented utilizing a partial capsulectomy that preserves a portion of the capsule as an ADM/mesh equivalent, ensuring adequate implant coverage and preventing window shading of the pectoralis major muscle. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with subglandular implants and slide-down deformity as well as other associated complications including capsular contracture, implant wrinkling, and enlarged areolas underwent revision surgery with a subpectoral site change. Often, patients presented many years after their initial augmentation (mean 18 years, range 4-38 years). The average patient follow-up was 3.1 years (range 1.0-6.8 years). Two patients required minor revisions with local anesthetic, while another 2 revisions required general anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term deformities associated with subglandular breast augmentation can reliably be corrected by subpectoral repositioning, mastopexy, and utilization of residual breast capsule in the place of an ADM or mesh.

Can It Be Safe and Aesthetic? An Eight-year Retrospective Review of Mastopexy with Concurrent Breast Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: The safety of concurrently performing mastopexy and breast augmentation is controversial, due to the risk of breast tissue and nipple neurovascular compromise and overall potential high complications rates. This article describes a concurrent procedure of augmentation with implants and a "Tailor-Tack" mastopexy that consistently achieves an aesthetically pleasing breast with acceptable complication rates. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of all consecutive breast augmentations performed concurrently with mastopexy using the "Tailor-Tack" technique by the 2 senior authors (M.M. and O.T.) over an 8-year period. Independent variables were patient demographics, surgical approach, implant type, shape, size, duration of follow-up, and complications. Complications were categorized as "early" (ie, first 30 days) or "late" (ie, after 30 days). Potential early complications include hematoma, skin necrosis, infection, and nipple loss. Potential late complications include recurrent breast ptosis, poor shape of the nipple areolar complex, hypertrophic scarring, implant rupture, capsular contracture, decreased nipple sensation, implant extrusion, reoperation, and scar revisions. The key principle of the technique is to place the breast implant in the dual plane first, and then perform the tailor tacking of the skin for the mastopexy second. RESULTS: Fifty-six consecutive patients underwent augmentation and mastopexy over 8 years with this technique. The average age of the studied patients was 41.2 years. The average follow-up time period was 2.1 years (±8.9 months). Fifty-four patients (96.4%) had implants placed through the periareolar approach, 2 patients (3.6%) had implants placed via the inframammary approach. All implants were placed in a dual plane. Fifty-two patients (92.9%) received silicone implants and 4 patients (7.1%) received saline implants. Patient preference determined implant choice. All but 5 patients had textured implants. Average implant size was 277 cm3 (range 120-800 cm3). Ten patients had complications (17.9%). Complications included hypertrophic scarring in 5 (8.9%) patients; poor nipple-areola complex shape in 4 patients (7.1%); implant ruptures in 3 patients (5.4%); capsular contracture in 3 patients (5.4%); and recurrent ptosis in 2 patients (3.6%). There were no reported early complications such as nipple loss, breast skin necrosis, decreased nipple sensation, implant infections, or extrusions. However, 6 patients (10.7%) required return trips to the operating room for revisions, and 1 patient (1.8%) had a nipple areolar complex scar revised in the office, yielding a 12.5% surgical revision rate for the late complications. CONCLUSIONS: It is safe to concurrently perform mastopexy and breast augmentation. In our 8-year review, there were no early catastrophic complications such as skin loss, nipple loss, implant extrusion, or infection. The complications that occurred were the same complications known to occur with the independent performance of mastopexy alone or breast augmentation alone, and they occurred at rates comparable to or less than the national averages for those procedures when they are performed independently. The paramount principle for the success of this technique is to first adjust breast volume and then perform an intraoperatively determined skin resection to fit the new breast volume.