Crowdsourced Assessment of Aesthetic Outcomes after Breast Reconstruction

Aesthetic Evaluation and Validation: Umbilicus Reconstruction after DIEP Flap

BACKGROUND

 The most common method for autologous breast reconstruction is the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. The umbilicus can be managed in various ways, including re-inset, neoumbilicus, and umbilectomy without reconstruction. This study evaluated the aesthetic differences in umbilicus reconstruction choice and variation in patients' postoperative satisfaction with their abdomen.

METHODS

 A retrospective review of 1,019 patients treated with DIEP flap breast reconstruction between August 2009 and January 2022 was conducted. Patients were stratified by management of the umbilicus: preservation and re-inset of the native umbilicus, umbilectomy with delayed reconstruction, and umbilectomy with no reconstruction. A crowdsourced survey was created to assess the aesthetic preference of each photograph using a Likert scale.

RESULTS

 There were 1,063 responses to the umbilicus preference crowd source survey. Patients who had delayed umbilicus reconstruction after umbilectomy were rated to be significantly more attractive (4.397 ± 1.697) than both preservation of the native umbilicus (4.176 ± 1.669) and lack of the umbilicus (3.994 ± 1.733; p < 0.001 and <0.001, respectively). In an analysis of the BREAST-Q scores, delayed reconstruction patients had a similar change across measures when compared to the re-inset group. The delayed group had a significantly higher change in overall satisfaction and well-being with abdomen when compared with the no reconstruction group (p = 0.006 and 0.027, respectively).

CONCLUSION

 This study demonstrates that umbilectomy with delayed reconstruction yields a significantly higher aesthetic rating and comparable patient satisfaction when compared to re-inset of the umbilicus.

Head-to-Head Analysis of Vertical vs Horizontal Incision Patterns in Breast Reconstruction: Surgical Outcomes and Aesthetic Implications

BACKGROUND

Modern aesthetically optimized breast reconstruction requires collaboration between the patient, breast surgeon, and plastic surgeon. To optimize both surgical outcome and aesthetic results, incision patterns must be carefully planned.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine whether vertical or horizontal orientation of mastectomy incision was preferred in the general population and to analyze corresponding complication profiles.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing bilateral mastectomy followed by autologous breast reconstruction utilizing either vertical or horizontal incision from January 2011 to November 2022. Postoperative complications of the 2 incision patterns were analyzed. Additionally, crowdsourcing was utilized to assess aesthetic implications of horizontal and vertical incision patterns on postoperative pictures of completed breast reconstruction. Survey rater demographics were also analyzed to assess differences in scoring based on voter characteristics.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in postoperative breast complications between patients with horizontal or vertical incisions when considering wound, infection, seroma, hematoma, fat necrosis, or overall complications (P > .05). Crowdsourcing showed that, regardless of voter demographics, vertical incisions were preferred over horizontal incisions (P < .001). Additionally, voters who knew someone who had undergone breast reconstruction were more likely to rate all incision patterns higher than other voters (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there are no significant differences in complication profiles between vertical and horizontal incisions in autologous breast reconstruction patients, vertical incision patterns are preferred aesthetically by the general population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Application of free serratus anterior muscle-fascial composite tissue flap and facial lipofilling in repairing progressive hemifacial atrophy

INTRODUCTION

Progressive hemifacial atrophy (PHA) is a nonnegligible disease, and its treatment currently lacks consensus. We aim to conduct an analysis of PHA patients to summarize the postoperative effect. Moreover, we introduced the free serratus anterior muscle-fascial composite tissue flap as a safe and novelty surgical procedure for moderate-severe PHA.

METHODS

This clinical study included four patients who received a free serratus anterior muscle-fascial composite tissue flap and 19 patients who received Coleman fat transplantation. Preoperative (preoperative photograph and imageological examination) and postoperative (postoperative photograph, complications, therapeutic effect, and satisfaction) assessments were performed for all PHA patients. Body Image Concern Inventory (BICI), Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS) were performed preoperatively and postoperatively.

RESULTS

All the cases were cured with a good appearance with two kinds of operations. Free serratus anterior muscle-fascial composite tissue flap could correct face defects in one surgery and achieve good long time and short-time postoperative satisfaction in moderate-severe PHA. Fat transplantation could also enhance appearance in numerous operations for mild-moderate PHA. The volume of free-fat grafts decreased obviously after implantation in many cases. So, many patients (42.11%) accepted a series of operations to achieve satisfied postoperative effect. BICI, SAS, SDS score decreased a year later in all patients.

CONCLUSION

Free serratus anterior muscle-fascial composite tissue flap transplantation is an effective and safe treatment for moderate to severe PHA.

Visual Perception of Breast Free Flap Size Is Influenced by Radiation Changes of Surrounding Tissue

BACKGROUND

 Microsurgical reconstruction for bilateral mastectomy defects after unilateral radiation often results in asymmetry, despite both flap tissues never being radiated.

METHODS

 Photos of 16 patients who received prior radiation to one breast and underwent bilateral abdominal free flap reconstruction were taken postoperatively. Layperson and expert assessment were attained via online crowdsourcing and a panel of attending surgeons and senior residents. Stratification by interflap weight differences was done for subanalysis.

RESULTS

 A total of 399 laypersons responded, with the majority (57.3%) reporting that the radiated breast appeared smaller than the nonradiated breast. When the photos were stratified by interflap weight differences, the photos with the radiated side flap weight over 3% more than nonradiated side were significantly more likely to be perceived by laypersons as the same size (odds ratio [OR] = 2.7; p < 0.001) and of similar aesthetic (OR = 1.9; p < 0.001) when compared with photos with same-sized flaps. Of the expert responses (n = 16), the radiated side was perceived as smaller 72.3% of the time and the nonradiated side appeared more aesthetic 52.7% of the time. Contrary to layperson responses, the experts tend to report the radiated side as smaller despite varying flap weight. Interestingly, expert raters were significantly more likely to rate the flaps of equal aesthetics when the radiated side has a flap larger by 3% or more (OR = 3.6; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

 Higher aesthetic scores were noted when larger flaps were inset to the radiated envelope by both laypersons and experts, suggesting potential technical refinement in reconstructive outcomes.

Measuring Outcomes in Aesthetic Surgery by Board-Certified Plastic Surgeons

SUMMARY

Aesthetic surgery is a visual specialty in which plastic surgeons and patients work together to enhance or restore facial and body harmony. The field of aesthetic surgery is advanced through descriptive technical procedures and outcomes research. With increasing competition in cosmetic medicine, aesthetic surgery stands to benefit from an evidence-based approach to document the high standards of care from board-certified plastic surgeons. In this article, the authors highlight challenges, current objective and subjective outcomes, and a path forward.

Evaluation of an assessment scale for aesthetic outcome in breast reconstructions based on digital photos in both 2D and 3D format

The aesthetic outcome is crucial in a breast reconstruction. Our aim was to evaluate the intra- and interrater reliability of an aesthetic outcome assessment scale with digital photos of breast reconstructions in two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) format. Thirty-three women with delayed breast reconstructions, consecutively participating in a five-year follow-up between November 2019 and June 2021, were included in the study. Of these, 14 were reconstructed with an expander prosthesis (EP) and 19 with a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. Photos of the breasts were assessed in 2D and 3D format by expert, layman and patient panels. Data were analysed with the weighted kappa (wk) statistics. The intrarater agreements were moderate to substantial, with wk between 0.66 and 0.73 for the panels. Within the panels, the interrater agreements were 0.46-0.62. Moderate agreements were found between the matched 2D and 3D format photos (wk 0.62-0.66). The patient panel graded scar appearance worse in 3D compared with 2D format. In all panels, there was a tendency towards DIEP flap reconstructions receiving higher aesthetic outcome grades compared with EP. Thus, the aesthetic outcome assessment scale demonstrated acceptable agreements between the individual panellists and within the panels. Scars captured in 3D format may provide a greater resemblance to the reality compared with 2D. Implications for clinics remain to be further studied.

A Crowdsourced Evaluation of Facial Averageness and Attractiveness

BACKGROUND

Evolutionary psychologists have demonstrated that humans are attracted to individuals who possess average anatomy for the population.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to prove that a composite of average facial features would be more attractive to raters than the cohort utilized to create the composite.

METHODS

The male and female cohorts each consisted of 41 standardized frontal-view monochrome photographs, with 1 composite image derived from the other 40 real images. Amazon Mechanical Turk, a widely used crowdsourcing platform, was utilized to obtain ratings of images ranging from 1 to 7, with 1 and 7 being least and most attractive, respectively. The strength of the preference for the composite over the real images was assessed by the difference between the mean rating of the composite and real images.

RESULTS

In total, 870 and 876 respondents were recruited to rate the male and female cohorts, respectively. For the male and female cohorts, the composite image was rated significantly higher than the rest of the cohort overall and across all ages, genders, and countries of residence (all P < 0.0001). For both cohorts, the strength of the preference was significantly higher for European respondents and lower for South American and nonbinary respondents (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals that average facial anatomy is perceived as most attractive across all demographics, a finding that is hoped to serve as a stepping stone for further studies leading to objective cosmetic quantifications and integrating evidence-based medicine into aesthetic surgery.

The Use of Validated Visual Scales in Plastic Surgery: Where Are We Now?

BACKGROUND

The assessment of the human body, whether for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes, is an inherently visual endeavor. Ideally, reproducible, prompt, and cost-effective systems of visual evaluation would exist that can provide validated assessments of the aesthetic endpoints of treatment. One method to accomplish a standardization of the appreciation of visual endpoints is the use of visual scales. The goal of this systematic review is to summarize and evaluate the use of validated visual scales within aesthetic medicine, dermatology, and plastic and reconstructive surgery.

METHODS

A literature search was performed with a defined search strategy and extensive manual screening process. The Medical Outcomes Trust guidelines for visual scales in medicine were used, with special attention paid to each study's validation metrics. The review process identified 44 publications with validation data of sufficient quality from an initial survey of 27,745 articles. All rating scales based on imaging other than standardized clinical photographs were excluded.

RESULTS

The review demonstrates that validated visual assessment in plastic surgery is incomplete. Within specific subfields of aesthetic medicine and dermatology, many of the ( n = 20) facial aging scales were well-validated and demonstrated high reliability. Publications ( n = 8) focused on the evaluation of facial clefts demonstrated heterogeneity in the methods of validation and in overall reliability. Within the areas of breast surgery ( n = 9), body contouring ( n = 2), and scarring ( n = 5), the scales were variable in the methods used and the validation procedures were diverse. Scales using a visual guide tended to have better interrater (kappa = 0.75) and intrarater reliability (kappa = 0.78), regardless of the specific area of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

The fields of aesthetic medicine, and aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgery require assessment of visual states over time and between many observers. For these reasons, the development of validated and reliable methods of visual assessment are critical. Until recently, the use of these tools has been limited by their time-consuming nature and cost.