Delphi Consensus Recommendations: Intraoperative Technique and Postoperative Management of Patients with Natrelle 410 Implants

Outcome analysis and assessment of the lower pole expansion following breast augmentation with ergonomic implants: Optimizing results with patient selection based on 5-year data

BACKGROUND

Silicone implants have gone through adaptations to improve esthetic outcomes. With the progress of technology, including gel rheology, different properties have been introduced. Ergonomic style implants (ESI) feature enhanced rheological properties and provide a shaped contour with a round base.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated outcomes for ESI in breast augmentation concerning lower pole stretching (LPS) and implant stability and describes an algorithm to assist in decision-making.

METHODS

A total of 148 patients (296 breasts) underwent breast augmentation with ESI; this procedure was indicated in patients with good skin quality and <6 cm between the nipple-areola complex and the inframammary fold.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 29.6 years (range: 19-39), and 93 patients (62.8%) underwent primary breast augmentation with demi/full projection (average volume of 245 cc [175-375 cc]). Axillary incision and subfascial pocket were indicated in 115 (77.7%) and 72 (48%) cases, respectively. Average LPS values were 32.2% (24.91 mm) and 10.86% (9.42 mm) at up to 10 days and 10 days to 12 months postprocedure, respectively. Patients were followed for a mean of 29.9 ± 26.4 months (range: 6-66). Complication rates per breast and per patient were 5% and 10%, respectively, and included subcutaneous banding in the axilla (1.6%), implant displacement (1.2%), and wound dehiscence (0.8%). No cases of infection, seroma, or rippling complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The present decision-making algorithm summarizes the process involved in breast augmentation using ESI and is intended to help standardize decisions. With correct planning, long-lasting outcomes can be achieved due to favorable interactions between ESI and the patient's tissues.

Defining Quality Indicators for Breast Device Surgery: Using Registries for Global Benchmarking

Breast device registries monitor devices encompassing breast implants, tissue expanders and dermal matrices, and the quality of care and patient outcomes for breast device surgery. Defining a standard set of quality indicators and risk adjustment factors will enable consistency and adjustment for case-mix in benchmarking quality of care across breast implant registries. This study aimed to develop a set of quality indicators to enable assessment and reporting of quality of care for breast device surgery which can be applied globally.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was undertaken, and potential quality indicators were identified. Consensus on the final list of quality indicators was obtained using a modified Delphi approach. This process involved a series of online surveys, and teleconferences over 6 months. The Delphi panel included participants from various countries and representation from surgical specialty groups including breast and general surgeons, plastic and reconstructive surgeons, cosmetic surgeons, a breast-care nurse, a consumer, a devices regulator (Therapeutic Goods Administration), and a biostatistician. A total of 12 candidate indicators were proposed: Intraoperative antibiotic wash, intraoperative antiseptic wash, preoperative antibiotics, nipple shields, surgical plane, volume of implant, funnels, immediate versus delayed reconstruction, time to revision, reoperation due to complications, patient satisfaction, and volume of activity.

RESULTS

Three of the 12 proposed indicators were endorsed by the panel: preoperative intravenous antibiotics, reoperation due to complication, and patient reported outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

The 3 endorsed quality indicator measures will enable breast device registries to standardize benchmarking of care internationally for patients undergoing breast device surgery.

Breast Implant Selection: Consensus Recommendations Using a Modified Delphi Method

Background:

Geographical differences in breast implant selection approaches exist, and clinical data to guide the process are limited. Developing knowledge of implant-related risk factors further complicates the process. This analysis aimed to establish expert consensus on considerations for breast implant selection in Australia and New Zealand based on practice patterns in those countries.

Methods:

A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus from experts in breast augmentation surgery in Australia and New Zealand. Panelists anonymously completed an initial questionnaire on current considerations in implant selection, discussed a summary of their responses in a live meeting, and completed a final consensus survey based on their live recommendations.

Results:

Seven panelists completed the final consensus survey. Consensus recommendations included ensuring consideration of proper surgical technique (pocket formation, positioning of implant) and patient tissue and anatomical characteristics, weighing relative expected results of various surface textures, sizes, and degrees of cohesivity, and careful contemplation of the migration risk.

Conclusions:

This modified Delphi exercise provided consensus recommendations on the key factors involved in implant selection from the perspective of plastic surgeons with practices in Australia and New Zealand. A primary recommendation was that the choice of implant for each patient should be individualized to patient tissue and anatomical characteristics.

Physical Properties of Silicone Gel Breast Implants

BACKGROUND

Surgical applications using breast implants are individualized operations to fill and shape the breast. Physical properties beyond shape, size, and surface texture are important considerations during implant selection.

OBJECTIVES

Compare form stability, gel material properties, and shell thickness of textured shaped, textured round, and smooth round breast implants from 4 manufacturers: Allergan, Mentor, Sientra, and Establishment Labs, through bench testing.

METHODS

Using a mandrel height gauge, form stability was measured by retention of dimensions on device movement from a horizontal to vertical supported orientation. Dynamic response of the gel material (gel cohesivity, resistance to gel deformation, energy absorption) was measured using a synchronized target laser following application of graded negative pressure. Shell thickness was measured using digital thickness gauge calipers.

RESULTS

Form stability, gel material properties, and shell thickness differed across breast implants. Of textured shaped devices, Allergan Natrelle 410 exhibited greater form stability than Mentor MemoryShape and Sientra Shaped implants. Allergan Inspira round implants containing TruForm 3 gel had greater form stability, higher gel cohesivity, greater resistance to gel deformation, and lower energy absorption than those containing TruForm 2 gel and in turn, implants containing TruForm 1 gel. Shell thickness was greater for textured vs smooth devices, and differed across styles.

CONCLUSIONS

Gel cohesivity, resistance to gel deformation, and energy absorption are directly related to form stability, which in turn determines shape retention. These characteristics provide information to aid surgeons choosing an implant based on surgical application, patient tissue characteristics, and desired outcome.

Chest wall reconstruction following axillary breast augmentation and desmoid tumor resection using capsular flaps and a form-stable silicone implant: A case report, diagnosis and surgical technique

•

Desmoid tumors (DT) are a rare benign lesion, and chest desmoid tumors are much less frequent. A rare case of chest DT is presented and discussed.

•

Chest DT following breast augmentation is very rare and few cases have been described; all have been related to the inframammary approach and located in the implant capsule. The authors describe a chest DT following subfascial axillary breast augmentation and subsequent surgical management and chest wall reconstruction.

•

The case illustrates some aspects that may be useful for thoracic and plastic surgeons and may be used as guidance for surgical management.

Introduction

Chest desmoid tumors (CDT) are rare lesions characterized by fibroblastic proliferation from the connective tissue. Although CDT have been studied previously, no cases following subfascial transaxillary breast augmentation (TBA) have been described.

Presentation of case

The authors describe a case of CDT in a 28-year-old woman one year after TBA, which presented as a painful and progressive mass in the lower-inner right breast quadrant. MRI showed a soft-tissue tumor (6 × 3 × 4 cm) that affected the region of the right anterior costal margin, without signs of structural costal invasion. Patient was treated surgically, exposing the right costal-sternal region through an inframammary approach and resecting the CDT. The remaining capsular flap was mobilized into the defect and a form-stable silicone implant was utilized to cover the chest wall defect and achieve an adequate breast contour. The patient is currently in 5th year after chest reconstruction, with satisfactory results. Neither the tumor or the symptoms recurred.

Discussion

CDT is an uncommon evolution following TBA. Although it is a rare disease, thoracic and plastic surgeons must be alert to avoid misdiagnosis. Defect reconstruction is necessary, mobilizing the capsular flaps and replacing the implants in order to obtain a satisfactory outcome.

Conclusion

Knowledge of this rare post-operative evolution is crucial, and early surgical intervention is warranted in order to avoid more aggressive treatment. This case report provides general knowledge of CDT, and may be used as guidance for early diagnosis and treatment.

Rosacea treatment update: recommendations from the global ROSacea COnsensus (ROSCO) panel

BACKGROUND

Rosacea is currently treated according to subtypes. As this does not adequately address the spectrum of clinical presentation (phenotypes), it has implications for patient management. The ROSacea COnsensus panel was established to address this issue.

OBJECTIVES

To incorporate current best treatment evidence with clinical experience from an international expert panel and establish consensus to improve outcomes for patients with rosacea.

METHODS

Seventeen dermatologists and three ophthalmologists reached consensus on critical aspects of rosacea treatment and management using a modified Delphi approach. The panel voted on statements using the responses 'strongly disagree', 'disagree', 'agree' or 'strongly agree'. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% 'agree' or 'strongly agree'. All voting was electronic and blinded.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on phenotype-based treatments for signs and symptoms presenting in individuals with rosacea. First-line treatments were identified for individual major features of transient and persistent erythema, inflammatory papules/pustules, telangiectasia and phyma, underpinned by general skincare measures. Multiple features in an individual patient can be simultaneously treated with multiple agents. If treatment is inadequate given appropriate duration, another first-line option or the addition of another first-line agent should be considered. Maintenance treatment depends on treatment modality and patient preferences. Ophthalmological referral for all but the mildest ocular features should be considered. Lid hygiene and artificial tears in addition to medications are used to treat ocular rosacea.

CONCLUSIONS

Rosacea diagnosis and treatment should be based on clinical presentation. Consensus was achieved to support this approach for rosacea treatment strategies.

Five-Year Outcomes of Breast Augmentation with Form-Stable Implants: Periareolar vs Transaxillary

BACKGROUND

Form-stable 410 implants have the potential advantage of maintaining their anatomic form thanks to the cohesiveness of the gel. Furthermore, Biocell texturing appears to maximize adhesion and to allow for implant immobility.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the rate of reoperations for transaxillary and periareolar approaches for breast augmentation.

METHODS

This retrospective study consisted of 373 patients with a 5-year follow up. Patient demographics, self-perception and esteem, surgical technique, and implant characteristics were documented. The reasons for reoperation for both approaches were reviewed.

RESULTS

Transaxillary breast augmentation was used in 302 patients (81%) and periareolar breast augmentation in 71 patients (19%). In the axillary group, 210 had subfascial placement (69.5%), and 92 patients had submuscular placement (30.5%). In the nipple-areolar complex group, 50 were subfascial (70.4%), and 21 were submuscular (29.6%). The reoperation rate for the patients operated on during this time and followed for 5 years was 11% (8 patients) for the nipple-areolar complex approach and 8.3% (25 patients) in the axillary group. Capsular contracture grade III or IV were the main causes for reoperation for any technique (4.2% nipple-areolar complex vs 3.3% axillary). Other reasons were implant rupture, seroma, infection, implant malrotation, implant malposition, and rippling.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of reoperations was similar to those described in the literature for this type of implant. There were no statistically significant differences between the various techniques, although the reoperation rate was significantly higher when a periareolar subfascial technique was used.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Therapeutic.