Breast Cancer in the Tissue of the Contralateral Breast Reduction.

Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy among women worldwide, and the increasing number of survivors is due to advances in early diagnosis and treatment efficacy. Consequently, the risk of developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC) among these survivors has become a concern. While surgical intervention with lumpectomy is a widely used primary approach for breast cancer, post-operative breast asymmetry is a potential concern. Many women opt for symmetrizing reduction procedures to improve aesthetic outcomes and quality of life. However, despite careful radiological screening, there is a chance of accidentally finding CBC. To address this, tissue excised during symmetrizing surgery is examined pathologically. In some cases, CBC or in situ lesions have been incidentally discovered in these specimens, prompting a need for a more thorough examination. Resection in pieces and the absence of surgical marking and pathological inking of the margin have made it challenging to precisely identify tumor location and assess tumor size and margin status, hampering adjuvant treatment decisions. A new protocol introduced in July 2022 aims to enhance the precision of CBC diagnosis, allowing for tailored treatment plans, including re-excision, systemic adjuvant therapy, or radiation therapy.

Autologous Breast Reconstruction With a Delay Procedure of the Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap Because of Venous Congestion of the Flap on Pedicle: A Case Series.

The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is one of the most used free flaps for the reconstruction of the breast after a mastectomy. Despite careful selection of the patients and preoperative imaging, difficulties in vascularization of the flap can occur in some cases. Although multiple vascular connections (bipedicled, turbocharged, or stacked) can be made in selected cases, there can still be venous congestion before the flap is transferred.Between 2016 and 2018, 4 cases in our series of 281 patients experienced such problems. Three of 4 patients had undergone preoperative imaging of the perforators by a magnetic resonance angiography or computed tomography angiography, in which a good perforator was seen. All 4 patients had a venous problem of blood circulation in the flap intraoperatively. The flaps were left to rest to decide on its venous status. Without improvement after this period of 20 to 30 minutes, the surgeons decided to withhold the translocation of the flap to the chest wall and sutured the flap back into the donor side. The final anastomosis of the DIEP flap occurred on average 8 days after the prefabrication. The translocation of the DIEP flap to the chest in this second operation went uncomplicated in all cases. Postoperatively, all patients had adequate arterial inflow and venous outflow of the flap. There were no postoperative complications.In case a DIEP flap shows venous problems before translocation, a delay procedure can be applied. In this way, the vascularization of the flap can be improved, and the translocation of the DIEP flap in a second operation can be successfully performed.

Is single-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (SSBR) with an acellular matrix safe?: Strattice™ or Meso Biomatrix® in SSBR.

BACKGROUND: Acellular matrices (AM) might enable a direct single-stage breast reconstruction procedure resulting in an improved efficacy of the reconstruction phase for patients. Safety concerns are an important issue due to a recent study which shows that single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ resulted in more complications versus a two-stage reconstruction. Therefore, the goal of this study is to compare the short- and long-term complications of a single-stage breast reconstruction with the use of two types of AM (Strattice™ and Meso Biomatrix®) versus two-stage breast reconstruction without the use of an AM. METHODS: Cohort study with single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ (n = 28) or Meso BioMatrix® (n = 20) or two-stage breast reconstruction without an AM (n = 36) at the Maastricht Academic Hospital, the Netherlands. All complications, in particular major complications with the need for re-admission to the hospital, re-exploration, and implant explantation, were the primary outcome measures. A 1-year follow-up was achieved for all patients. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of all 52 patients were similar between groups. There was a significantly higher complication rate in the single-stage AM groups with loss of the implant in 40.0% of the breasts from the Meso BioMatrix® group and in 10.7% of the Strattice™ group compared to no implant loss in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort study clearly suggests that the use of a single-stage breast reconstruction is not safe with the use of these AMs. Well-designed prospective studies that guarantee the safety of those matrices should be published before these AMs are used in implant-based surgery.Level of Evidence: Level III, risk / prognostic study.

Delay of adjuvant radiotherapy due to postoperative complications after oncoplastic breast conserving surgery.

BACKGROUND: In the past a mastectomy was the first approach of treating breast cancer. Oncoplastic techniques combined with breast conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy has become an alternative to mastectomy in patients with non-metastasized breast cancer. The aim of this study was to analyse the amount and types of complications occurring after oncoplastic BCS before and after adjuvant radiotherapy and the delay of adjuvant therapy due to the complications. METHOD: A retrospective study based on all patients who received immediate oncoplastic BCS by a plastic surgeon at two medical hospitals in The Netherlands between 2013 and 2015. (n = 150). The performed oncoplastic BCS techniques were the primary outcome measures. In particular major complications with the need for antibiotics or surgical intervention. A one-year follow-up was achieved for all patients. RESULTS: 52% of the 150 included patients received an oncoplastic BCS through the reduction pattern, 35% with a LICAP and 10% with an AICAP. Complications occurred in 37.5% of the patients, 10% of the patients needed treatment with antibiotics and in 6.6% of the patients a revision operation was indicated. 79.6% of all postoperative complications occurred before the start of adjuvant radiotherapy. In 8.2% of the patients the adjuvant radiotherapy had to be delayed due to a complication. CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed overview of the used techniques of oncoplastic BCS and their postoperative complications. Most complications occurred before the start of the adjuvant radiotherapy. Just a small amount caused a delay for the radiotherapy to start.