Revision Surgery to Improve Cosmesis with Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Effects of Elective Revision after Breast Reconstruction on Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

 There has been increasing emphasis on patient-reported satisfaction as a measure of surgical outcomes. While previous research has investigated factors influencing patient satisfaction following breast reconstruction, there are few studies on how patient satisfaction is impacted by revision procedures. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether elective revisions following breast reconstruction are significantly associated with changes in patient-reported outcomes and quality of life.

METHODS

 A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent immediate autologous or alloplastic breast reconstruction at a single institution from 2015 to 2021. Patients were included if they had completed BREAST-Q preoperatively, post-initial reconstruction, and post-revision procedures. Patients were excluded if they received adjuvant radiation or if they had previously undergone breast reconstruction procedures. The primary outcome measures were BREAST-Q domains. Demographic, clinical, and surgical variables were also analyzed.

RESULTS

 Of the 123 patients included for analysis, 61 underwent autologous breast reconstruction and 62 underwent alloplastic reconstruction. Mean age was 49.31 ± 11.58 years and body mass index (BMI) was 29.55 ± 5.63 kg/m2. Forty-eight patients underwent no revision procedures and 75 patients underwent at least one revision. Between these two groups, there were no differences in age, BMI, complication rates, socioeconomic status, or preoperative BREAST-Q scores. Patients reported significantly higher satisfaction with outcome after their first revision compared with after initial reconstruction alone (p = 0.04). Autologous reconstruction patients who had at least one revision had significantly higher satisfaction with outcome (p = 0.02) and satisfaction with surgeon (p = 0.05) in the 2-year follow-up period compared with patients who had no revisions.

CONCLUSION

 Revision procedures following autologous breast reconstruction are associated with higher patient satisfaction with outcome. Further research should explore specific factors influencing patient decision-making regarding whether to undergo revisions.

Feminizing Gender Affirming Breast Surgery: Procedural Outcomes at a Single Academic Institution

Background

Implant-based breast augmentation is a gold standard procedure for transfeminine patients to create a more feminine-appearing chest. In many cases, ancillary procedures are performed simultaneously to achieve an optimal aesthetic result.

Objectives

To determine the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing feminizing gender-affirming breast surgery in a single academic institution.

Methods

A retrospective electronic chart review of feminizing gender-affirming breast surgery patients at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, from 2017 to 2022 was conducted. Patients' demographics and surgical outcomes were gathered. A survival analysis was performed to obtain the time-to-event complication rate.

Results

Over 5 years, 46 patients (92 breasts) were included. The mean age was 39 years (standard deviation [SD] ±15), and most had an above-normal body mass index (BMI) (58.7%). Thirty (65%) had previous gender-affirming surgeries. The mean implant volume was 289 mL (SD ±95; 140-520). Most implants were placed in a subglandular plane (81%) with an inframammary fold incision (91.3%). All implants used were smooth, round cohesive silicone gel implants. Ancillary procedures were performed in 32 patients (69.57%). Eight patients presented complications (4 major vs 4 minor) in a median postoperative follow-up of 372 vs 392 days; at 1-month follow-up, the probability of a complication having occurred is 2.17% (95% CI: 0%-6.3%) vs 5% (95% CI: 0%-11.5%), and at 1 year, the probability is 10.21% (95% CI: 0%-20.9%) vs 12.5% (95% CI: 0%-23.4%), which remains the same up to 4 years.

Conclusions

Breast augmentation with implants is a safe procedure to achieve feminization of the breast with a low rate of complications.

Level of Evidence 4

Using a Machine Learning Approach to Predict the Need for Elective Revision and Unplanned Surgery after Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Two-stage implant-based reconstruction after mastectomy may require secondary revision procedures to treat complications, correct defects, and improve aesthetic outcomes. Patients should be counseled on the possibility of additional procedures during the initial visit, but the likelihood of requiring another procedure is dependent on many patient- and surgeon-specific factors. This study aims to identify patient-specific factors and surgical techniques associated with higher rates of secondary procedures and offer a machine learning model to compute individualized assessments for preoperative counseling. A training set of 209 patients (406 breasts) who underwent two-stage alloplastic reconstruction was created, with 45.57% of breasts (185 of 406) requiring revisional or unplanned surgery. On multivariate analysis, hypertension, no tobacco use, and textured expander use corresponded to lower odds of additional surgery. In contrast, higher initial tissue expander volume, vertical radial incision, and larger nipple-inframammary fold distance conferred higher odds of additional surgery. The neural network model trained on clinically significant variables achieved the highest collective performance metrics, with ROC AUC of 0.74, sensitivity of 84.2, specificity of 63.6, and accuracy of 62.1. The proposed machine learning model trained on a single surgeon's data offers a precise and reliable tool to assess an individual patient's risk of secondary procedures. Machine learning models enable physicians to tailor surgical planning and empower patients to make informed decisions aligned with their lifestyle and preferences. The utilization of this technology is especially applicable to plastic surgery, where outcomes are subject to a variety of patient-specific factors and surgeon practices, including threshold to perform secondary procedures.

Acute health-related quality of life outcomes and systemic inflammatory markers following contemporary breast cancer surgery

Contemporary breast cancer surgical procedures vary greatly by the amount of tissue removed, anesthesia time, and reconstruction. Despite historical literature comparing the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after lumpectomy and mastectomy, HRQOL data are limited regarding contemporary surgical procedures. Further, biological processes (e.g., inflammation) associated with HRQOL outcomes have not been described. We conducted two studies to examine differences in post-operative physical and mental functioning, pain, fatigue, and systemic inflammatory markers including interleukin (IL)-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and C-reactive protein (CRP) in women with early-stage breast cancer. Study 1 assessed women before and after surgery (n = 27) and Study 2 used a large cross-sectional sample (n = 240) to confirm findings from Study 1 and included a no-surgery comparison group. In Study 1, women who received mastectomy had lower physical functioning than lumpectomy (ps < 0.05), and those who received bilateral mastectomy had worse pain (p < 0.01) and fatigue (p = 0.029) than lumpectomy. Results were replicated in Study 2: mastectomy groups exhibited poorer physical functioning (ps < 0.01) and greater pain (ps < 0.001) than lumpectomy, and bilateral mastectomy was associated with worse fatigue (p < 0.05). Women who received bilateral mastectomy had higher levels of CRP than lumpectomy (p < 0.01) and higher TNF-α than the no-surgery group (p < 0.05). All surgery groups exhibited higher IL-6 than no-surgery (ps < 0.05). More extensive surgery is associated with poorer postoperative HRQOL. As compared to lumpectomy and no-surgery, mastectomy is associated with higher concentrations of systemic inflammatory markers.