Current Trends and Controversies in Breast Augmentation:

Antibiotic Implant Irrigation and Deep Infection: A Retrospective Study of 1508 Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction with Implants

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic implant irrigation is increasingly used to prevent deep infection after implant-based breast reconstruction. However, there is limited evidence of the clinical effect. In this study, the authors compare the risk of a deep infection in a Danish population of women who received antibiotic implant irrigation with either gentamicin or vancomycin, or no irrigation.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients undergoing all types of breast reconstruction with implants at Rigshospitalet and Herlev Hospital, Denmark, from 2010 to 2019. Logistic regression was used to compare the risk of deep infection between no irrigation and irrigation with gentamicin or vancomycin, and to account for the difference in risk between patient subgroups and risk factors.

RESULTS

The authors included 1508 patients who received antibiotic irrigation with gentamicin (500 patients), vancomycin (304 patients), or no irrigation (704 patients). The univariable risk analysis showed a significant decreased risk of deep infection using gentamicin irrigation compared with no irrigation (OR, 0.58; P < 0.05). However, when adjusting for risk factors for infection, there was no significant decrease in the risk of infection when using gentamicin (OR, 0.90; P = 0.71) or vancomycin (OR, 1.0; P = 0.99) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found no significant effect of using antibiotic implant irrigation after isolating it from risk factors for deep infection. However, because of the limitations of the study, the authors cannot conclude that there is no effect of antibiotic implant irrigation. There is a need for a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effect, and potential side-effects, of antibiotic implant irrigation.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, II.

Twelve Years and over 2400 Implants Later: Augmentation Mammoplasty Risk Factors Based on a Single Plastic Surgeon's Experience

Background

Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed aesthetic surgery procedures. Yet, few reports in the literature analyze individual surgeon experiences with a unified surgical method on a large group of patients. This study aimed to analyze a single surgeon's complications rate and experience with the Akademikliniken augmentation mammaplasty method from the beginning of his career.

Methods

A retrospective outcome analysis of all patients (n = 1646) who underwent breast augmentation between 2009 and 2021 performed by a single surgeon was conducted. Complications and reoperation rates were evaluated. In addition, correlations with the patient and implant characteristics and insertion-method-related risk factors were analyzed.

Results

In total, 1212 female patients (mean age, 31.47 years) were analyzed. The minimal follow-up for every patient was 6 months (mean follow-up, 18.35 months). The total complication rate was 7.1%, and the most common complication (2.64%) was capsular contracture (Baker scale III/IV). Implant insertion with a funnel significantly lowered the overall risk of complications (P = 0.009). Statistical analysis indicates that the single independent risk factors for primary breast augmentation are patient age younger than 27 years, initial breast size B and C, and tobacco smoking.

Conclusions

This study indicated that capsular contracture and implant rotation are the most common complications of analyzed primary augmentation mammoplasty. It also identifies various risk and protection factors, such as funnel usage, which should be considered by the surgeon when performing this type of procedure.

Robot-Assisted Capsulectomy with Immediate Reimplantation in Breast Reconstruction

SUMMARY

Recent reports have introduced robotic breast surgery for immediate breast reconstruction with an implant. However, relevant reports of robot-assisted breast reconstruction including capsulectomy are limited. Although capsulectomy lowers risk of capsular contracture and thus contributes to better aesthetic outcomes, total capsulectomy may have complications, such as injury to axillary structures or chest wall and overlying skin devascularization. To minimize the risk of injury, the authors used a robotic system with Da Vinci SP, which has freely movable arms and clear, magnified three-dimensional vision, for total capsulectomy. Compared with conventional procedures, robotic surgery has the critical advantage of minimal incision and concealed scars, contributing to positive aesthetic outcomes. This study suggests that robot-assisted capsulectomy is technically feasible and safe for patients undergoing breast reconstruction with immediate reimplantation.

The Incidence and Outcomes of Breast Implants Among 1696 Women over more than 50 Years

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence of women with breast implants in 1964-2017 MATERIALS AND METHODS: All women with breast implants in Olmsted County, MN between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 2017 were identified, and a comprehensive review of individual medical records was performed, adding to a previously identified cohort of women with breast implants in 1964-1991. Incidence rates were calculated and were age- and sex-adjusted to the US white female 2010 population.

RESULTS

In 1992-2017, 948 women with breast implants were identified, totaling 1696 Olmsted County, MN women with breast implants in 1964-2017. Overall incidence was 63.3 (95% CI 60.2-66.4) per 100,000 women, but incidence varied significantly over time. Women in 1964-1991 were more likely to have implants for cosmetic reasons and more likely to have silicone implants compared to the 1992-2017 cohort. The overall standardized mortality ratio was 1.17 (95% CI 0.99-1.38) in 1964-1991 and 0.94 (95% CI 0.66-1.29) in 1992-2017. In 1992-2017, breast reconstruction patients had a significantly elevated risk of implant rupture and implant removal versus breast augmentation patients.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of breast implants among women in Olmsted County, MN has varied drastically over the past five decades, with significant changes in the trends for implant type and reason. The findings of this study may provide further insight regarding how risks associated with implants may vary over time.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Pharmacokinetics of Locally Applied Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Importance

Antibiotic irrigation of breast implants is widely used internationally, but no clinical study has investigated the pharmacokinetics of antibiotic prophylaxis in the breast implant pocket.

Objectives

To evaluate how long locally applied gentamicin, cefazolin, and vancomycin concentrations in the implant pocket remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for the most common bacterial infections and to measure systemic uptake.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study was performed at the Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, between October 25, 2021, and September 22, 2022, among 40 patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction who were part of the ongoing BREAST-AB trial (Prophylactic Treatment of Breast Implants With a Solution of Gentamicin, Vancomycin and Cefazolin Antibiotics for Women Undergoing Breast Reconstructive Surgery: a Randomized Controlled Trial). Patients were randomized to receive locally applied gentamicin, cefazolin, and vancomycin or placebo. Samples were obtained from the surgical breast drain and blood up to 10 days postoperatively.

Exposures

The breast implant and the implant pocket were irrigated with 160 μg/mL of gentamicin, 2000 μg/mL of cefazolin, and 2000 μg/mL of vancomycin in a 200-mL saline solution.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the duration of antibiotic concentrations above the MIC breakpoint for Staphylococcus aureus according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: gentamicin, 4 μg/mL; cefazolin, 2 μg/mL; and vancomycin, 2 μg/mL. Secondary outcomes included the time above the MIC for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other relevant bacteria, as well as systemic uptake.

Results

The study included 40 patients (median age, 44.6 years [IQR, 38.3-51.4 years]; median body mass index, 23.9 [IQR, 21.7-25.9]) with a median number of 3 drain samples (range, 1-10 drain samples) and 2 blood samples (range, 0-6 blood samples). Vancomycin and cefazolin remained above the MIC for S aureus significantly longer than gentamicin (gentamicin, 0.9 days [95% CI, 0.5-1.2 days] for blood samples vs 6.9 days [95% CI, 2.9 to 10.9 days] for vancomycin [P = .02] vs 3.7 days [95% CI, 2.2-5.2 days] for cefazolin [P = .002]). The gentamicin level remained above the MIC for P aeruginosa for 1.3 days (95% CI, 1.0-1.5 days). Only cefazolin was detectable in blood samples, albeit in very low concentrations (median concentration, 0.04 μg/mL [range, 0.007-0.1 μg/mL]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that patients treated with triple-antibiotic implant irrigation during breast reconstruction receive adequate prophylaxis for S aureus and other common implant-associated, gram-positive bacteria. However, the protection against P aeruginosa may be inadequate.

Comparing the efficacy of antimicrobial pocket-irrigation protocols in an in vivo breast implant infection model

BACKGROUND

Breast implant infection and biofilm formation are major concerns in reconstructive and esthetic breast surgery, with significant medical and economic consequences. Staphylococcus is the common pathogen, with rapidly increasing rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). There is no consensus on prevention practices. This study compares the effect of several pocket irrigation and antibiotic prophylaxis regimens on implant colonization and biofilm formation in an established rat model of MRSA-infected silicone breast implants.

METHODS

Silicone discs were inserted in a sub-pectoral pocket in 57 rats (114 implants). Implant infection was induced by injection of free planktonic MRSA into the surgical pocket. Rats were allocated to study groups treated by different antimicrobial protocols: pocket irrigation with vancomycin, povidone-iodine, or saline. Each group was divided into subgroups treated with or without additional peri-operative systemic vancomycin. Implant colonization or overt infection was assessed at post-operative day 14 both clinically and by cultures.

RESULTS

Pocket irrigation with vancomycin prevented contamination in 87% of implants. Irrigation and systemic vancomycin prevented contamination in 100% of implants with no difference between a single preoperative dose and a 48-h regimen. Systemic vancomycin alone or irrigation with povidone-iodine alone resulted in 100% contamination rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In this in vivo model, combination of systemic vancomycin with vancomycin pocket irrigation was the most effective regimen, preventing contamination in 100% of implants. Continuation of post-operative antibiotic treatment showed no added advantage.

Quantification of Breast Volume According to age and BMI: A Three-Dimensional MRI Analysis of 400 Women

OBJECTIVE

Breast size alteration is the most common aesthetic surgical procedure worldwide. This study aimed to assess the correlation between breast volume and BMI or age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The analyses were conducted utilizing 400 patients selected by a retrospective review of the archives at our institution. Epidemiological data and medical history were assessed. Adjusting for the age and BMI of patient from previously described cohorts, we calculated mean breast volumes per side and differences from the upper and lower percentiles to the mean volumes.

RESULTS

The patients had a median BMI of 23.5 (range: 14.7-45.6) and a median age of 51 (range: 24-82). The average total breast volume increased strongly with BMI (r=0.834, p<0.01) and moderately with age (r=0.305, p<0.01). Within a BMI range of 18-24, breast volumes in the 8th and 18th percentile differ on average by about 50 ml. One BMI unit increase in women with breast sizes in the 10th percentile accounts for a breast volume difference of about 30 ml.

CONCLUSION

BMI strongly correlates with breast size. To achieve natural results, preoperative consultation and planning of aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery must recognize BMI as a major determinant of average breast size.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The Role of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Primary and Secondary Implant-Based Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for implant-based breast augmentation (IBBA) is commonplace among many plastic surgeons. However, the current literature lacks evidence-based recommendations to support this practice. Although few studies have demonstrated a reduction in surgical site infection (SSI) and capsular contracture (CC) with antibiotics, these studies were underpowered and poorly designed. The aim of this study was to provide an updated comprehensive analysis of the literature to revisit the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane was performed from January 1989 to January 2022. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving primary and secondary IBBA and use of antibiotic prophylaxis were included. Primary outcomes included SSI and CC. Study quality and risk of bias were evaluated using standardized tools. A meta-analysis was performed for eligible studies. Trial Sequential Analysis was used to assess the need for future RCTs.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies (3 observational and 2 RCTs) with 2383 patients were included in this study. Rates of SSI ranged from 0% to 2.3%, whereas CC ranged from 0% to 53%. Antibiotic prophylaxis showed no benefit for both SSI (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-4.13) and CC (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-45.72). Trial Sequential Analysis demonstrated that further high-quality RCTs are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic prophylaxis for IBBA failed to demonstrate improvements in SSI and CC in this comprehensive review. Current evidence was shown to be of low quality because of heterogeneity and high risk for bias. Further high-quality multicentered RCTs are warranted to fully evaluate the role of antibiotic prophylaxis for IBBA.

Evaluation of Intraoperative Volumetric Assessment of Breast Volume Using 3D Handheld Stereo Photogrammetric Device

Methods for assessing three-dimensional (3D) breast volume are becoming increasingly popular in breast surgery. However, the precision of intraoperative volumetric assessment is still unclear. Until now, only non-validated scanning systems have been used for intraoperative volumetric analyses. This study aimed to assess the feasibility, handling, and accuracy of a commercially available, validated, and portable device for intraoperative 3D volumetric evaluation. All patients who underwent breast surgery from 2020 to 2022 were identified from our institutional database. Intraoperative 3D volumetric assessments of 103 patients were included in this study. Standardized 3D volumetric measurements were obtained 3 months postoperatively to compare the intraoperatively generated volumetric assessment. All of the study participants were women with a mean age of 48.3 ± 14.7 years (range: 20-89). The mean time for intraoperative volumetric assessment was 8.7 ± 2.6 min. The postoperative 3D volumetric assessment, with a mean volume of 507.11 ± 206.29 cc, showed no significant difference from the intraoperative volumetric measurements of 504.24 ± 276.61 cc (p = 0.68). The mean absolute volume difference between the intraoperative simulations and postoperative results was 27.1 cc. Intraoperative 3D volumetric assessment using the VECTRA H2 imaging system seems to be a feasible, reliable, and accurate method for measuring breast volume. Based on this finding, we plan to investigate whether volumetric objective evaluations will help to improve breast symmetry in the future.

Breast Augmentation: A Cross-Sectional Survey of UK and Irish Aesthetic Surgeons

Background

Breast augmentation surgery is the most frequently performed aesthetic surgical procedure within the United Kingdom year on year. However, many variations exist among surgeons regarding various aspects of implant usage and technique.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate current trends and practices in breast augmentation, within the United Kingdom and correlate them to evidence-based literature.

Methods

An electronic survey of 41 questions was sent to 201 surgeons performing breast augmentation within the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. The survey inquired about the surgeons themselves, their practice, implant choice, surgical technique, post-op care, revision surgery, and impact of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma among several other questions.

Results

There were a total of 166 respondents, with 146 completing the survey fully, equaling a response rate of approximately 73%. Overall, there were specific trends in certain aspects such as type of practice, number of augmentations performed per surgeon per year, preferred implant manufacturer, and implant characteristics. That said, there has been a change in other aspects such as implant texture with an increase in the use of smooth implants. The United Kingdom and Ireland concur with certain internationally dominant practice preferences, including the use of inframammary incisions and post-op bra use.

Conclusions

This survey suggests that many aspects of breast augmentation surgery in the United Kingdom are approaching standardization. There are, however, some variations in practice and controversies remaining as expected. It is our belief that further standardizing this very common aesthetic surgical procedure according to evidence-based guidelines will help to improve outcomes for patients.

Incision and Capsular Contracture Risk: Is There a Relationship in Breast Augmentation and Augmentation/Mastopexy?

BACKGROUND

Breast implants can be introduced through a variety of incisions, most commonly an inframammary incision, but also a periareolar incision or an axillary incision. Usually, the implant is inserted through the same incision used in performing an augmentation/mastopexy. Some authors use a separate inframammary incision. Capsular contracture is the most common complication of breast augmentation. One theory holds that it is caused by an infected biofilm, prompting surgeons to minimize implant handling, known as the "no touch" technique. This review was undertaken to investigate the relationship, if any, between the access incision and the risk of capsular contracture.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted to identify publications comparing capsular contracture rates by the access incision.

RESULTS

Ten studies were evaluated. Most were retrospective series. Three were prospective core studies. Some studies reported an increased risk of capsular contracture for a periareolar incision; a similar number did not. One study supported a separate inframammary incision at the time of vertical augmentation/mastopexy.

DISCUSSION

Bacterial studies in the last decade show that the resident bacteria on the skin surface and within breast tissue are similar. Sophisticated microbiological evaluation of breast capsules reveals that the microbiome relates to the patient, as opposed to a specific bacterial profile for capsular contracture. A review of the statistics used in determining an advantage for a separate incision at the time of vertical augmentation/mastopexy reveals that there is no statistically significant risk reduction when using an additional inframammary incision, which adds an unnecessary scar.

CONCLUSIONS

The access incision at the time of breast augmentation or augmentation/mastopexy is unlikely to affect the capsular contracture risk. There is no need to make a separate incision to insert the implant at the time of augmentation/mastopexy, or to isolate the implant from contact with breast parenchyma. Little evidence supports the "no touch" technique. The etiology of capsular contracture remains unknown.

Preventing Soft Tissue Complications in Secondary Aesthetic Breast Surgery Using Indocyanin Green Angiography

BACKGROUND

Secondary cosmetic breast surgery after primary augmentation with implant can be associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Partial/complete nipple areolar complex (NAC) necrosis is particularly feared. In this preliminary study, the authors propose the use of Indocyanine Green (ICG) angiography in order to assess the blood supply of breast tissue after implant removal.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective is to prevent skin and gland necrosis in revision breast surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective comparative analysis of 33 patients undergoing secondary breast surgery between 2018 and 2021 by a single surgeon (M.S.). Breast tissue perfusion was assessed in 16 patients by intraoperative ICG-angiography at the end of implant removal and possible capsulectomy. Non-stained/non-fluorescent areas were judged to be low perfusion areas and were excised with short scar mastopexy.

RESULTS

In the ICG-angiography group, 7 patients (44%) showed an area of poor perfusion along the inferior pole, all of these patients underwent subglandular breast augmentation. Resection of the poor perfusion areas allowed an uneventful postoperative course. In the non ICG-angiography group (17 patients), 5 patients experienced vertical scar dehiscence/necrosis. We found a statistically significant association between non-ICG angiography group and vertical scar dehiscence/necrosis, and also between vertical scar dehiscence/necrosis and subglandular implant placement (P-value = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Safer secondary surgery can be offered to patients undergoing secondary aesthetic breast procedures, especially when the first augmentation surgery is unknown e.g. implant plane, type of pedicle used, the implant is large and subglandular, and capsulectomy is performed.

Prophylactic treatment of breast implants with a solution of gentamicin, vancomycin and cefazolin antibiotics for women undergoing breast reconstructive surgery: protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (The BREAST-AB trial)

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic infection is one of the most severe complications following implant-based breast reconstruction affecting 5%-10% of the women. Currently, many surgeons apply antibiotics locally on the breast implant to reduce the risk of postoperative infection, but no randomised, placebo-controlled trials have tested the treatment's efficacy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The BREAST-AB trial (BREAST-AntiBiotics) is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of local treatment with gentamicin, vancomycin and cefazolin on breast implants in women undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction. The trial drug consists of 80 mg gentamicin, 1 g vancomycin and 1 g cefazolin dissolved in 500 mL of isotonic saline. The placebo solution consists of 500 mL isotonic saline. The trial drug is used to wash the dissected tissue pocket and the breast implant prior to insertion. The primary outcome is all-cause explantation of the breast implant within 180 days after the breast reconstruction surgery. This excludes cases where the implant is replaced with a new permanent implant, for example, for cosmetic reasons. Key long-term outcomes include capsular contracture and quality of life. The trial started on 26 January 2021 and is currently recruiting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee of the Capital Region (H-20056592) on 1 January 2021 and the Danish Medicines Agency (2020070016) on 2 August 2020. The main paper will include the primary and secondary outcomes and will be submitted to an international peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04731025.

Pharmacological Approaches for the Prevention of Breast Implant Capsular Contracture

Capsular contracture is a common complication associated with breast implants following reconstructive or aesthetic surgery in which a tight or constricting scar tissue capsule forms around the implant, often distorting the breast shape and resulting in chronic pain. Capsulectomy (involving full removal of the capsule surrounding the implant) and capsulotomy (where the capsule is released and/or partly removed to create more space for the implant) are the most common surgical procedures used to treat capsular contracture. Various structural modifications of the implant device (including use of textured implants, submuscular placement of the implant, and the use of polyurethane-coated implants) and surgical strategies (including pre-operative skin washing and irrigation of the implant pocket with antibiotics) have been and/or are currently used to help reduce the incidence of capsular contracture. In this article, we review the pharmacological approaches-both commonly practiced in the clinic and experimental-reported in the scientific and clinical literature aimed at either preventing or treating capsular contracture, including (i) pre- and post-operative intravenous administration of drug substances, (ii) systemic (usually oral) administration of drugs before and after surgery, (iii) modification of the implant surface with grafted drug substances, (iv) irrigation of the implant or peri-implant tissue with drugs prior to implantation, and (v) incorporation of drugs into the implant shell or filler prior to surgery followed by drug release in situ after implantation.

Biomechanical Principles of Breast Implants and Current State of Research in Soft Tissue Engineering for Cosmetic Breast Augmentation

Currently there are limited implant-based options for cosmetic breast augmentation, and problems associated with those have been increasingly appreciated, most commonly capsular contracture, which occurs due to a chronic foreign body reaction against non-degradable implant materials such as silicone and polyurethane leading to scar tissue formation, pain, and deformity. The underlying biomechanical concepts with implants create a reciprocal stress-strain relationship with local tissue, whilst acting as a deforming force. This means that with time, as the implant continues to have an effect on surrounding tissue the implant and host's biomechanical properties diverge, making malposition, asymmetry, and other complications more likely. Research directed towards development of alternative therapies based on tissue engineering and regenerative medicine seeks to optimize new tissue formation through modulation of tissue progenitors and facilitating tissue regeneration. Scaffolds can guide the process of new tissue formation by providing both an implant surface and a three-dimensional space that promotes the development of a microenvironment that guides attachment, migration, proliferation, and differentiation of connective tissue progenitors. Important to scaffold design are the architecture, surface chemistry, mechanical properties, and biomaterial used. Scaffolds provide a void in which vascularization, new tissue formation, and remodelling can sequentially occur. They provide a conduit for delivery of the different cell types required for tissue regeneration into a graft site, facilitating their retention and distribution. Whilst recent research from a small number of groups is promising, there are still ongoing challenges to achieving clinical translation. This article summarizes the biomechanical principles of breast implants, how these impact outcomes, and progress in scaffold-guided tissue engineering approaches to cosmetic breast augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Comparing the Antimicrobial Effect of Silver Ion-Coated Silicone and Gentamicin-Irrigated Silicone Sheets from Breast Implant Material

BACKGROUND

Post-operative infection is a significant complication of breast implant surgery that may require extensive use of antibiotics and surgical interventions. Here, we developed a biomaterial coating that is chemically bonded to silicone implants which delivers antimicrobial ions over time.

METHODS

After coating the silicone implants with a "mediator" polymer (γ-PGA), the implants were impregnated with silver (Ag) ions. Antimicrobial effects of these implants were assayed with modified Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method. The silicone disks were transferred to a plate with fresh bacteria. Control was intended to simulate an intra-operative wash.

RESULTS

The Ag-γ-PGA coated silicone demonstrated antimicrobial effects against the most common etiological agents of breast implant infections, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. There was no effect of inhibition of bacterial growth around the control silicone or the silicone coated only with γ-PGA. The zone of inhibition was generally larger around the Ag-γ-PGA coated silicone as compared to the silicone irrigated with gentamicin, and continued antibacterial effect was also observed at 48 hours in the Ag-γ-PGA coated silicone for all bacteria groups with the exception of P. aeruginosa. Gentamicin-irrigated silicone did not inhibit bacterial growth at 48 hours.

CONCLUSION

The observed antibacterial performance of the Ag-γ-PGA coating as compared to simulated intra-operative antibiotic wash is promising and should be further evaluated to develop the next generation of implants with diminished risk for post-operative implant infections.

Hematoma and deep surgical site infection following primary breast augmentation: A retrospective review of 1128 patients

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is one of the most frequently performed cosmetic surgery worldwide. Some of the most severe short-term complications after breast augmentation are hematoma and deep surgical site infection. However, these complications are relatively rare; therefore, large patient populations are required to perform statistical analyses. In this study, we provide a detailed analysis of the complications after primary breast augmentation with an emphasis on deep surgical site infection and hematoma.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of women who underwent primary breast augmentation without the use of pocket irrigation between 2012 and 2019 in a single private clinic. A cumulative hazard function and a multivariate analysis on the risk of hematoma were performed.

RESULTS

We included 1128 patients in the study. Thirty patients (2.7%) developed postoperative hematoma after a median time of 14 h (IQR 5 h-9 days). Six patients (0.5%) contracted a deep surgical site infection after a median time of 14 days (range 4-41 days). Age, BMI, implant volume, or implant placement was not significantly associated with hematoma.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support that the risk of hematoma after primary breast augmentation is highest within the first 24 h after the surgery. This time period should be considered when planning postoperative care for these patients. We did not find an increased rate of deep surgical site infection compared with studies of breast augmentations with pocket irrigation. Further studies and meta-analyses are needed to explore the effect of pocket irrigation and other risk factors.

An anthropometric evaluation of the augmented breast: differences between cis-and transgender women and possible clinical implications

Background

The morphometric results after breast augmentations are generally understood to be clinically different between trans(gender) and cis(gender) women. The objective of this study was to establish these morphometric differences between the augmented breasts of trans and cis women and their implications for preoperative planning and expectation management of trans women.

Methods

A single-center, observational cross-sectional study was conducted. Three-dimensional images (VECTRA) of the chest were taken and used to measure preset morphometric parameters. Subsequently, several proportional morphometric outcome variables were calculated. We compared body, breast, and nipple dimensions and their interdependence between trans and cis women. The main outcome sets were (1) the relative dimensions of the chest, (2) the position of the breasts relative to the chest, (3) and the position of the nipple relative to the breast and nipple size.

Results

A total of 22 transgender and 22 cisgender women were included. The results showed that the breasts of the trans women were positioned more cranial. Furthermore, the nipple-areola complexes (NAC) were significantly smaller and positioned relatively more latero-cranial on the breasts.

Conclusions

Morphological characteristics of augmented breasts differ significantly between trans and cis women. The results of this study identified distinct differences between the augmented breasts of trans and cis women. Because of the apparent differences in results, surgical considerations, expectation management, and shared decision-making should play an even more pronounced role in breast augmentations in trans women.

Level of evidence: Level III, risk/prognostic study.

Surgical Treatment of Capsular Contracture (CC): Literature Review and Outcomes Utilizing Implants in Revisionary Surgery

BACKGROUND

The objective of this clinical review is to provide an overview of the use of breast implants after capsular contracture (CC) surgical treatment, with a focus on type of implants used. Furthermore, our experience in this field is also reviewed.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar databases were reviewed to identify literature related to surgical treatment of capsular contracture and implant replacement. Each article was reviewed by two independent reviewers to ensure all relevant publications were identified. The literature search identified 54 applicable articles. Of these, 26 were found to have a therapeutic level of evidence. The reference lists in each relevant paper were screened manually to include relevant papers not found through the initial search.

RESULTS

Only four articles report the replacement of implants after surgical treatment of capsular contracture. Six articles reported an implant exchange with only smooth silicone gel filled implants. Two reviews advice to use smooth implants in implant replacement.

CONCLUSION

With our expertise in the field and the results of this up-to-date literature review, it can be concluded that implant exchange is recommended in case of breast revision for capsular contracture, and the use of subpectoral smooth silicone gel breast implants is a good option after surgical treatment in patients with primary or recurrence Baker III-IV.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Safety of a Protective Funnel in Primary Breast Augmentation: A Retrospective Analysis of 380 Multicenter Cases in the United States

BACKGROUND

Protective funnel devices are commonly used to deliver implants in primary breast augmentation (BA) yet there is a paucity of evidence-based data describing their safety in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety of protective funnels in primary BA within the first 30 days postoperatively.

METHODS

This multicenter, Level 3 study retrospectively reviewed the surgical records of 380 consecutive patients (760 breasts) who underwent primary BA by 9 board-certified plastic surgeons using the iNPLANT Funnel (Proximate Concepts LLC, Allendale, NJ) for implant delivery between November 2019 and December 2020. Data were collected pertaining to demographics, implant information, surgery details, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 33 years and 76% of patients had a BMI <25 kg/m2. Of this cohort, 11.4% were smokers, 0.8% had diabetes, and 83% were ASA Class 1. All patients received smooth implants with a median volume of 375 cc. A total of 8 (2.1%) complications were reported, including 3 hematomas (0.79%), 1 seroma (0.26%), and 1 superficial infection (0.26%). No patient required explantation. We identified ASA class, BMI, surgery duration, and implant size as potential risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that the use of protective funnels, such as the iNPLANT Funnel, in primary BA is a safe option when these are utilized according to the manufacturer's Instructions for Use. The use of this device led to a low infection rate (0.26%) and a complication rate of (2.1%) consistent with the average reported in the literature (2%-2.5%).1 Implications for clinical practice are encouraging and future research will include a prospective analysis with a larger case series and potentially a control group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Plane Change Vs Capsulotomy: A Comparison of Treatments for Capsular Contraction in Breast Augmentation Using the Subfascial Plane

BACKGROUND

The management of capsular contraction following breast augmentation has numerous, often conflicting potential treatment protocols, each designed to reduce the incidence of further recurrence. The use of the subfascial plane has not been investigated as an alternative to other treatment options.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the outcomes from patients presenting with recurrent capsular contraction after being treated for the first capsule by placement of an implant into the subfascial (SF) plane.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 111 case notes of patients who presented with capsular contraction. 65 had undergone SF augmentation, 17 submuscular (SM) and 29 subglandular (SG) placement of implant at the primary procedure. At a secondary procedure, those with SF implants underwent open capsulotomy and those with SM and SG implants underwent a change in plane to SF.

RESULTS

There is a significant difference in the proportion of patients that developed a capsule following the second surgery between the groups that had undergone capsulotomy (SF = 16.9%) or plane change (SM = 47% and SG = 37.9%, X² (2,111) = 8.6, P =  0.02). When recurrence at the same site was examined, there was also a significant difference between the groups (X² (2111) = 10.7, P < 0.01). A ruptured implant significantly increased the incidence of further capsular contraction when in the SG plane (X² (2,29) = 12.1, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of implant rupture, changing the plane of an implant to a SF position at revision surgery does not reduce the incidence of subsequent capsular contracture compared with open capsulotomy. Open capsulotomy is a reasonable choice following recurrence of capsular contraction following initial SF placement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Evaluating the Necessity of Capsulectomy in Cases of Textured Breast Implant Replacement

BACKGROUND

Capsulectomy has traditionally been recommended as a treatment for capsular contracture after breast augmentation. With the advent of breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), and the Food and Drug Administration's decision to ban Biocell textured devices, this operation has taken on new importance. This review was undertaken to better inform clinical recommendations for women with textured devices.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed using PubMed to identify all the available literature on the subject of capsulectomy and open capsulotomy (the alternative treatment).

RESULTS

Fifty-seven articles on this topic were identified. Capsulectomy was widely recommended for treatment of capsular contracture, although many authors recommended leaving thin capsular tissue behind in the absence of symptoms. En bloc resection was recommended only for women with a diagnosis of BIA-ALCL. No information supported a prophylactic role for capsulectomy in asymptomatic women with textured breast implants who are concerned regarding their future risk of BIA-ALCL. Routine pathologic examination in asymptomatic patients was not supported.

DISCUSSION

Capsulectomy adds substantially to the surgical risk, discomfort, recovery time, and expense. Implant removal or replacement without a simultaneous capsulectomy is atraumatic and poses negligible risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Capsulectomy introduces additional morbidity and is not mandatory for asymptomatic patients. Implant removal or exchange for smooth implants without a capsulectomy may be an acceptable choice for many women who do not demonstrate capsular pathology. However, any symptoms or surgical findings suggesting pathology warrant a capsulectomy. En bloc resections are reserved for patients diagnosed with BIA-ALCL.

Breast Augmentation with Microtextured Anatomical Implants in 653 Women: Indications and Risk of Rotation

BACKGROUND

Anatomical implants provide a wide range of options in terms of implant dimensions for breast augmentation. Nevertheless, many surgeons choose not to use anatomical implants due to the risk of rotation malposition and because their advantages over round implants are not clearly defined.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records was performed on all women who underwent breast augmentation or implant exchange with microtextured anatomical implants from 2012 to 2019 in a single private clinic. The authors focused on the outcomes of a subgroup of women with glandular ptosis and nipple placement below the inframammary fold who underwent breast augmentation with anatomical implants. Furthermore, the incidence and risk factors for implant rotation were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 653 women underwent primary breast augmentation (n = 529) or implant exchange (n = 124) with anatomical implants. The median follow-up period was 2.7 years (interquartile range, 1.6 to 3.9 years). The incidence of implant rotation was 14 (2.6 percent) in the primary augmentation group and four (3.2 percent) in the implant exchange group. Implant rotation was not associated with type of surgery (p = 0.76), implant projection (p = 0.23), or implant height (p = 0.48). The authors successfully used anatomical implants to elevate the nipple in 92.9 percent of the women with glandular ptosis without using a mastopexy.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results indicate that the rotation risk with microtextured implants is similar to that with macrotextured implants. Furthermore, the authors found that high-projection anatomical implants can be used as an alternative to augmentation-mastopexy in women with glandular ptosis.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

An Algorithm for the Management of Explantation Surgery

Creating pleasing breast aesthetics after an explantation can be challenging, especially when performed with a total capsulectomy. The necessity of a capsulectomy for a variety of breast issues is not completely agreed on and can increase adverse events, patient morbidity, and cost of the operation and often impairs the final aesthetic result. In this article, an algorithm for the management of explantation patients provides a framework for treatment of the capsule and the breast to optimize outcomes.

[Minimal Scar Breast Augmentation: Experience with over 500 implants]

INTRODUCTION

In plastic breast surgery minimal scar techniques are usually associated with some advantages in terms of the aesthetics associated with scar formation and scar visibility. They can also bring benefits in terms of healing and recovery time, which is why minimal scar techniques for breast reduction and mastopexy have long been established. Modern implants and new, adapted surgical techniques enable it now to use minimal scar techniques for breast augmentation with similar advantages.

METHOD

252 patients were included in a retrospective study, which underwent a minimal scar breast augmentation via an inframammary approach over a period of two years. The investigations included the location, the size, the shape and any postoperative complications. In addition, all patients were interviewed about their experiences before and one year after the operation using the Breast-Q Questionnaire (Augmentation Module). The focus was on self-esteem (pre- and postoperative) and satisfaction with the outcome of breast augmentation involving the scar.

RESULTS

The assessment of the surgical outcome and the scar were consistently positive. There were no complications with regard to surgical access, the scar or the implant. All patients showed a significant increase in quality of life on the Breast-Q scale from 0-100 (psychological well-being: 44 to 77) and were satisfied with the outcome of breast enlargement (satisfaction with the breasts: 28 to 80; satisfaction with the result: 89 out of 100) involving the scar.

CONCLUSION

Minimal scar breast augmentation requires greater technical effort and operative experience. However, the results are consistently positive and promising, both clinically and psychologically.

Not All Breast Explants Are Equal: Contemporary Strategies in Breast Explantation Surgery

SUMMARY

Breast implant removal and replacement has been a common secondary breast procedure in the long-term maintenance of breast augmentation, but more recently growing concerns about silicone-related systemic illness, breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), and changing perceptions of aesthetic beauty have seen breast implant removal without replacement become increasingly requested by patients. Explantation can be challenging, especially when performed with a total capsulectomy. Currently, there is no evidence regarding whether a partial or total capsulectomy has any effect on BIA-ALCL risk mitigation in patients that have textured implants without disease. Total capsulectomy with incomplete resection of a mass can contribute to hyperprogression of BIA-ALCL and death. There have also been cases of BIA-ALCL diagnosed years after removal of the textured device and "total capsulectomy." Therefore, the common practice of simple prophylactic capsulectomy in a textured implant to mitigate future disease has not been established and at the current time should be discouraged. In addition, aesthetic outcomes can be quite variable, and patients should have appropriate preoperative counseling regarding the indications and contraindications for explantation, associated risks, financial implications, and postoperative appearance. The authors review salient aspects related to the planning and management of breast implant removal.

Breast Implant Utilization Trends in USA versus Europe and the Impact of BIA-ALCL Publications

Background:

The goals of this study were to analyze and compare breast implant preferences between US and European surgeons in terms of size, shape, and surface texturing. Furthermore, we set out to investigate the impact of BIA-ALCL scientific publications on surgeon practice patterns.

Methods:

Breast implant sales data from the USA and Europe dating from June 2013 to September 2018 were provided by one of the world’s leading breast implant manufactures (Mentor Worldwide LLC). Change-point analysis was used to identify when significant changes in sales trends occurred. These changes were compared with dates of government announcements and publications of landmark scientific articles regarding BIA-ALCL.

Results:

Our data demonstrate that US surgeons tend to prefer larger, smooth round implants compared with European surgeons, who prefer smaller, textured round implants. Despite these differences, medium-sized implants were still the most common size used between both regions. Sales trends illustrate an increase in smooth implants and a decrease in textured implants for both regions. Significant changes in trends align with publication dates of announcements and landmark scientific articles.

Conclusions:

We demonstrate definitive differences in implant preferences between the USA and Europe. We encourage physicians to continue their pursuit of publishing because it seems these publications affect medical device selection.

Personal Approach to Optimizing Inframammary Fold Incision for Asian Augmentation Mammoplasty

BACKGROUND

The rates of aesthetic breast augmentation have risen substantially in Asia. Outcomes of various breast augmentation approaches in Asia have not been comprehensively studied. In the past, the inframammary approach to breast augmentation was not popular because of conspicuous scarring. In this article, the authors review academic articles related to the use of an inframammary incision for breast augmentation in Asian women and present our recommendations for the available techniques.

METHODS

A literature search was performed for articles published after 2015 on Asian women with augmentation mammoplasty describing techniques, incision sites, outcomes, and complications. The search was performed using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases. We also included our own technique to demonstrate the outcome of augmentation mammoplasty through inframammary incision.

RESULTS

Eight articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. Evidence indicates that with proper preoperative design and surgical techniques, scarring resulting from the inframammary approach is not inferior to that resulting from the transaxillary approach in Asian patients. Long-term satisfaction with the inframammary approach to breast augmentation is high in Asian patients.Eight articles reported the outcomes of 1168 women receiving breast augmentation. Inframammary incisions were used in 45.29% of patients (529 patients). After the 2015 publication of Zelken's review paper on Asian breast augmentation, the rate of inframammary incisions increased from 3.1% to 45.29%.

CONCLUSIONS

With precise design of the new inframammary fold, accurate wound suture fixation, and postoperative scar care, the inframammary approach to breast augmentation offers optimal operative visualization, reduced pain, fewer complications, and desirable esthetic outcomes even in Asian patients. This study demonstrates that the percentage of inframammary fold approach of Asian esthetic mammoplasty grows rapidly after 2015.

Implant to Fat: A Breast Augmentation Technique Validated by BREAST-Q

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Implant-based breast augmentation is the number one cosmetic procedure performed in the United States. However, it is associated with relatively high revision rates, reaching up to 24% at 4 years. This case series presents our experience in implant explantation with simultaneous breast augmentation using fat.

Anthropometric Aspects in the Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Studies have demonstrated the importance of anthropometric measurements of the breasts, based on linear measurements for the selection of the volume of breast implants, their positioning, and surgical planning.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to evaluate the main changes in anthropometric measurements in breast augmentation.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized clinical study with 74 female candidates for breast augmentation. All the individuals were split into five groups, according to the implant volume. The implants used were of different textures, from three different brands (LifeSil, Politech, and Silimed). The following measures were taken: distance from the nipple to the inframammary fold (N-IMF), inter-nipple-areolar complex distance (N-N), distance from the Sternal notch to the Nipple (SN-N), areola diameter, and breast projection.

RESULTS

The most significant breast anthropometric alteration after mammoplasty was the N-IMF distance; that is, an expansion of the lower pole of the breast, followed by an increase in the areolar diameter. Mostly of measurements showed stability between 3rd and 6th months after the surgery. The projection was the most interesting measure due to presenting two patterns of behavior according to the analysis criteria performed. When comparing the implant projection and the final breast projection, it was observed that the implant profile represented a 27% increase in the final breast projection.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides an essential comparative analysis between anthropometric changes in breast augmentations and serves as a predictive tool in the preoperative evaluation of the patient during surgical planning.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Secondary Composite Breast Augmentation: Concept and Outcomes, Introduction to a Layered Approach

BACKGROUND

Secondary procedures following breast augmentation are often more difficult than primary cases because the soft-tissue envelope changes over time.

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to confirm the utility of a composite technique in breast revisional surgery.

METHODS

This was a 9-year retrospective chart and photographic data study of one surgeon's experience with the combined use of fat and implants in revisional cases. The 148 patients had a follow-up at least 1 year after surgery. Our approach consists of a detailed analysis of the different layers covering the implant and yields a treatment plan addressing all issues involving the secondary breast.

RESULTS

On average, revisional surgery was performed 8.66 years after the first augmentation. The mean age of the patients at revision surgery was 42 years (range, 22.2-70.7 years). The mean fat harvest was 600 mL (range, 100-3000 mL) and the mean volume of fat reinjected was 153 mL (range, 60-400 mL). The mean volume before and after revision was the same (288 mL vs 289 mL). At the original surgery, the breast implants were located in a subpectoral pocket in 78.7% of the patients and, at the revision surgery, in a subglandular pocket in 74.8% of the patients. Within the first 2 years, 13 patients (8.7%) underwent reoperation for additional fat grafting. Among 45 preoperative breast capsular contractures, there were 8 recurrences in the first 3 years resulting in 4 reoperations.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary breast augmentation cannot rely solely on implant exchange. Because the soft-tissue envelope also ages over time, fat grafting is mandatory in the vast majority of secondary cases. A rigorous preoperative analysis enables breast defects to be treated appropriately.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Prospective Study of Saline versus Silicone Gel Implants for Subpectoral Breast Augmentation

Background

Silicone gel implants are regarded as esthetically superior to saline implants, offering a more natural consistency. They are also considered less susceptible to rippling. However, objective measurements and patient-reported outcome studies are lacking. Similarly, minimal data are available quantitating animation deformity.

Methods

A 3-year prospective study was undertaken among 223 women undergoing primary subpectoral breast augmentation using either saline (n = 145) or silicone gel (n = 78) implants. Photographs obtained included frontal views with the patient flexing the pectoral muscles. Images were matched, and vertical differences in nipple position were measured. Breast implants were evaluated using high-resolution ultrasound to detect any ripples or folds at least 3 months after surgery. Outcome surveys were administered. Statistical analysis included the χ² test, point-biserial correlations, and a power analysis.

Results

Respondents reported visible rippling in 18% of women and palpable rippling in 32% of patients, with no significant difference between women treated with saline and silicone gel implants. Ripples were detected on ultrasound scans in 24% of women with saline implants and in 27% of women with silicone gel implants (difference not significant). Ripples were more common in women with lower body mass indices. Fifty percent of patients demonstrated nipple displacement <1 cm on animation. Nipple displacement occurred either up or down with equal frequency and a mean overall nipple displacement of zero.

Conclusions

Saline and silicone breast implants produce similar degrees of rippling, as determined on outcome surveys and ultrasound examination. Animation deformities tend to be minor and well-tolerated.

Why Do We Need Anatomical Implants? the Science and Rationale for Maintaining Their Availability and Use in Breast Surgery

The choice between anatomical and round implants is an important decision in breast augmentation surgery; however, both have their place and the decision between them that should be made on a patient-by-patient basis, taking into account the patient's desires, anatomy, and surgical history. In some individuals, there are clear indications for using either anatomical or round devices, and there is good evidence that aesthetic outcomes are better with anatomical implants in some instances. When both types are an option, anatomical devices may offer increased flexibility and, despite a longer learning curve needed to properly manage them, they are associated with positive long-term outcomes and high levels of patient satisfaction. Concerns about implant rotation can be minimized with proper patient selection and surgical technique, and the overall complication rate may favor anatomical over round devices in appropriate patients. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma is an important issue, and while rare, it must be considered in the context of the entire patient risk profile. Both anatomical and round implants remain key elements of a complete surgical toolbox in breast augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

National Survey of US Plastic Surgeon Experience with Female Genital Mutilation

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a growing problem in the United States, with the past few decades showing a dramatic increase in prevalence. This study aims to understand the plastic surgeon experience with FGM and inform preparedness for this rising problem.

Iatrogenic Symmastia: Causes and Suggested Repair Technique

BACKGROUND

Various theories exist to explain the etiology of iatrogenic symmastia. Subglandular over-dissection of the medial breast pocket over the sternum, disruption of midline sternal fascia, oversized implant base diameter, and over-dissection of the medial pectoralis muscle attachments to the sternum are popular explanations.

OBJECTIVES

The authors hypothesized that the most common risk factor for iatrogenic symmastia is subpectoral breast augmentation.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted including all symmastia patients who underwent surgery from January 2008 to April 2018 by a single surgeon (C.L.M.). ASAPS members were also surveyed regarding the etiology and incidence of symmastia in their practice.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients with symmastia were included in the retrospective chart review. All had previous subpectoral breast augmentation. In the ASAPS survey, 91 plastic surgeons reported seeing an average of 2.2 consults for acquired symmastia over the preceding year; 1.9 of the 2.2 (84.9%) acquired symmastia consults previously underwent subpectoral breast augmentation. Most surgeons attributed these patients' symmastia to over-dissection of the medial pectoralis muscle attachments to the sternum.

CONCLUSIONS

Symmastia is most often caused by pectoralis major sternal dehiscence during subpectoral breast augmentation. In the senior author's experience, all patients with iatrogenic symmastia previously had a submuscular breast augmentation. The ASAPS survey supports multiple causes for symmastia with retromuscular breast augmentation occurring in the majority of patients. Repair of symmastia should include securing Scarpa's fascia to the sternum, reattaching the pectoralis major to the sternum, avoiding another subpectoral implant, and using postoperative modalities to protect the repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Endoscopic Transaxillary Versus Inframammary Approaches for Breast Augmentation Using Shaped Implants: A Matched Case-Control Study

PURPOSE

The incision for breast augmentation can be chosen from the transaxillary, inframammary fold, periareolar, or transumbilical approaches. While the inframammary fold approach is commonly used worldwide, the transaxillary approach is more popular in Asia due to the more conservative location of the scar. In this study, we performed augmentation mammoplasty using anatomically shaped implants via the endoscopic transaxillary and inframammary fold incisions and compared the outcomes.

METHODS

Three hundred sixty-four patients who underwent breast augmentation with shaped implants were enrolled. All were primary and bilateral cases. In total, 728 shaped implants were used. Patients' demographics, incision type, and complications were documented. Complications such as capsular contracture, hematoma, infection, implant malposition, wound problem, and chronic seroma were observed during the average 27 months of follow-up period and analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-five patients underwent augmentation mammoplasty via the inframammary approach, whereas 169 patients underwent the endoscopic transaxillary approach. Implant type and size were matched between the two groups. Complication rates were 1.8% and 2.7% in the inframammary and transaxillary approach, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two approaches in terms of surgical complications (p = 0.593).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the endoscopic transaxillary approach is not inferior to the inframammary approach when shaped implants are used for augmentation mammoplasty. Therefore, the transaxillary approach may be an alternative method when using shaped implants for augmentation mammoplasty, especially for women who wish to avoid a visible scar on the inframammary fold.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Current Trends in Breast Augmentation: Analysis of 2011-2015 Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Tracer Data

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is the most common aesthetic surgery performed in the United States. Despite its popularity, there is no consensus on many aspects of the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

The authors assessed current trends and changes in breast augmentation from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study of 11,756 women who underwent breast augmentation based on the American Board of Plastic Surgery (ABPS) Maintenance of Certification Tracer Database was performed.

RESULTS

There were clearly dominant trends in how ABPS-certified plastic surgeons performed breast augmentations. Most surgeries were performed in freestanding outpatient (47.3%) or office operating room (33.7%). The inframammary fold incision was most popular (75.1%), followed by periareolar (17.8%) and transaxillary approaches (4.1%). Implants were more commonly placed in a submuscular pocket (30.6%) compared with dual plane (26.7%) or subglandular (6.7%). Silicone implants (66.8%) were favored over saline (25.1%), with a statistically significant increase in silicone prostheses from 2011 to 2015. Data were "not applicable" or "other" in the remainder of cases. Administration of both preoperative antibiotics (3.8% in 2011, 98.7% in 2015, P < 0.05) and deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) prophylaxis (3.8% in 2011, 90.6% in 2015, P < 0.05) dramatically increased during the study period. Overall adverse events (7.4%) and reoperation rates (2.2%) were low.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in standard of care for breast augmentation are reflected by the evolving practice patterns of plastic surgeons. This is best evidenced by the dramatic increase in use of antibiotic and DVT prophylaxis from 2011 to 2015.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Modern Primary Breast Augmentation: Best Recommendations for Best Results

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Develop a practical method for preoperative implant size selection. 2. List characteristics and examples of fourth- and fifth-generation silicone implants. 3. Recognize the differences in "profile" designations across implant manufacturers. 4. Recall updated statistics on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma and describe current guidelines on disease diagnosis and treatment. 5. Apply atraumatic and aseptic surgical techniques in primary breast augmentation.

SUMMARY

Modern primary breast augmentation requires an intimate knowledge of the expanding breast implant market, including characteristics of current generation silicone implants and "profile" types. Optimal implant size selection requires balancing patient desires with tissue qualities. Evidence and awareness of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma continue to grow, and patients and surgeons alike should be informed on the most updated facts of the disease entity. Atraumatic surgical technique and aseptic adjuncts are critical in reducing periprosthetic inflammation and contamination, both of which are known instigators of capsular contracture and potentially breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

Long-Term Outcomes in Breast Augmentation in Trans-Women: A 20-Year Experience

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation in trans-women requires special consideration and thorough preoperative planning.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to present our long-term outcome and experience gained over the past 21 years.

METHODS

Trans-women who have undergone breast augmentation since 1995 were reviewed for primary surgery, type of incision, implant site, implant size and shape, and revisions.

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients with a follow-up of 4.6 years (range, 2.0-13.3) were included. In 112 patients (82.4%), the inframammary incision was chosen. Subpectoral implantation was performed in 70 patients (51.5%). Round breast implants (91 patients, 66.9%, P = 0.010) with low projection (103 patients, 75.7%, P < 0.001) were favored. The implant size used during 2011-2016 of 363.3 ± 97.3 cc was significantly increased as compared to the implant size reported during 1995-1999 (mean difference, +142.1 cc, P < 0.001) and 2000-2004 (mean difference, +113.5 cc, P < 0.001). Simultaneously, revision rates dropped significantly over time (52.9% during 1995-1999 as compared to 6.9% during 2011-2016, P < 0.001). Overall, request for larger implants was the most common indication for revision (13 patients, 9.4%) after 6 months (range, 4.0-18.7). At revision, implant volume was 355.4 ± 132.8 cc, showing significant increase of 107.0 ± 48.1 cc as compared to primary implants (+30.0%, P = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

Request for larger breast implants was the most common reason for revision. Depending on the various degrees of breast tissue growth due to hormonal therapy, whenever applicable, we recommend round, low projection implants with a mean size of 360 cc in the prepectoral pocket.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Secondary Breast Augmentation: Is There a Trend for Bigger Implants?

BACKGROUND

Despite novel assessment tools and 3D simulation, patient's desire for implant size change is one of the most common reasons for revision surgery after primary breast augmentation. In this study, we analysed outcomes and predictive indicators for revision surgeries in a cohort of patients operated on by a single surgeon.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent revision augmentation surgery between 2013 and 2017 by the first author were included in this study. Besides review of medical records, subgroups based on the indication for revision surgery were compared and statistically analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients were included in this study. Revision surgery was performed 97.2 months on average after primary augmentation. Eighty-six per cent of patients received larger implants. Indications for revision surgery and associated subgroups were: (1) wish for bigger implants (38%), (2) complication + wish for bigger implants (26%), (3) complication (29%), (4) complication + wish for smaller implants (3%) and (5) wish for smaller implants (3%). Subgroup analysis showed that patients who underwent revision surgery for bigger implants were significantly younger compared to patients who suffered a complication or desired smaller implants. Time to secondary augmentation was significantly shorter in case of wish for size change compared to complications as reason for revision surgery. Implant sizes differed significantly in patients where volume change was the sole indication for surgery compared to revisions performed due to complications.

CONCLUSION

In our cohort of patients, almost all patients who underwent revision surgery after primary breast augmentation received bigger implants. Patients who specifically wished for size change were younger, asked for surgery earlier and received larger volumes compared to patients who underwent revision surgery for other reasons.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Breast imaging for aesthetic surgery: British Society of Breast Radiology (BSBR), Association of Breast Surgery Great Britain & Ireland (ABS), British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS)

This is an overview of the guidelines for breast imaging before and after aesthetic (cosmetic) breast surgery, which includes but is not limited to implants, lipomodelling and mammoplasty procedures. The guidelines are based on a review of the literature and consensus of breast imaging and aesthetic breast surgery specialists. 1. Pre-aesthetic surgery 2. Post-aesthetic surgery If breast imaging or breast assessment is required, it should be performed in a designated breast facility with access to specialist breast imaging and a complete breast multidisciplinary team in accordance with national guidelines and recommendations.

Breast and Body Contouring for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Individuals

Even after long-term hormone therapy, many transwomen still have challenges in the size and shape of their breasts and also of the contour of their trunk areas. Though distinct anthropomorphic differences in skeletal structure exist and pose limitations to an ideal result, considerable improvements can be obtained through breast augmentation and trunk feminization. There are challenges that are unique to the transfeminine chest and trunk, and important considerations for the priority of fat grafting to the buttocks and hips when grafted fat is in short supply.