Purpose The oncoplastic reduction approach is a popular option for women with breast cancer and macromastia. Although the benefits of this approach are numerous, data on the need for secondary surgeries are limited. We evaluated the need for all secondary surgeries after oncoplastic reduction in an attempt to understand the incidence and indications. Methods All patients with breast cancer who underwent an oncoplastic breast reduction at the time of the tumor resection were queried from a prospectively maintained database from 1998 to 2020 (n = 547) at a single institution. Secondary surgical procedures were defined as any unplanned return to the operating room. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed, and secondary surgeries were classified and evaluated. The timing and rates of secondary surgery were evaluated and compared with clinical variables. Results There were 547 patients included in this series with a mean age of 55 years and body mass index of 33.5. Mean duration of follow-up was 3.8 years. One hundred and seventeen (21%) patients underwent 235 secondary surgeries, with an average of 1.4 operations until stable reconstruction was obtained. The reason for the secondary surgery was involved margins (7.5%), major complications (8.6%), aesthetic improvement (13.3%), and completion mastectomy (5.3%). Age 65 years and younger age was associated with any subsequent procedure (P = 0.023) and revision for cosmesis (P = 0.006). Patients with body mass index greater than 35 had increased secondary surgeries for operative complications (P = 0.026). Conclusions Secondary surgeries after oncoplastic breast reduction procedures are common. Management of margins and complications, such as hematoma and infection, are early indications, with aesthetic improvement, wound healing complications, fat necrosis, and recurrence being late reasons. The most common reason for reoperation is aesthetic improvement, especially in younger patients. Attention to surgical technique and patient selection will help minimize secondary surgeries for the nononcological reasons.

Aesthetic concern is one of the main driving forces behind the popularity of the oncoplastic approach to breast conservation therapy. Oncoplastic options at the time of lumpectomy include volume replacement techniques such as flaps and volume displacement techniques such as the oncoplastic reduction. These techniques can be employed to ensure preservation of breast shape and contour, size and symmetry, inframammary fold position, and position of the nipple-areola complex. The importance of aesthetic outcomes is not only to improve overall patient satisfaction but also to minimize the need for revisional surgeries for shape and symmetry. The purpose of this review is to discuss ways to optimize the aesthetic result and to review the evidence behind aesthetic outcomes.

Background Aesthetic surgery is a core component of plastic and reconstructive surgery. In 2014, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education established aesthetic surgery minimums for plastic surgery residents in training. Although many plastic surgery graduates successfully enter practice as an attending plastic surgeon after completion of plastic surgery training, others choose subspecialization. Aesthetic surgery fellowships offer further instruction in surgical and nonsurgical aesthetic procedures in addition to a unique opportunity for mentorship. The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery currently endorses 25 aesthetic fellowships. However, the literature regarding fellowship specifics is lacking. Objectives This study aimed to better define the current aesthetic surgery fellowships programs regarding operative experience, fellowship autonomy, program strengths, didactic learning, research experience/opportunities, compensation, and geographic region. Methods This study was performed by Emory University, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Atlanta, Georgia. In February 2019, an anonymous survey was sent via e-mail to all American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery–endorsed aesthetic fellowship program directors. Three weeks later, a reminder e-mail was sent. No incentives were provided for survey completion. Results A 40% survey response rate was achieved (10/25). Aesthetic surgery fellowships are diverse in exposure, number of procedures, and training environment. In all programs, the fellow functioned as the first assistant in most cases. The percentages of face, breast, and total body procedures varied greatly among fellowships, as well as fellow involvement in critical portions of a case. Nearly all fellowships (9/10) offered a fellow's clinic. Didactic learning and research are components of all programs. Conclusion This study provides an overview of the current state of plastic surgery aesthetic fellowships in the United States, serving as the first of its kind.

Background: Patients occasionally need completion mastectomy (CM) following oncoplastic reduction for various reasons necessitating definitive reconstructive techniques. The purpose of this study was to evaluate those patients who required CM following oncoplastic reduction and evaluate indications, technique, and outcomes. Methods: Patients who underwent a completion mastectomy at some time point following the oncoplastic reduction were identified. Factors that influenced CM and additional reconstruction were analyzed. All statistical analysis was conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0 (IBM Corp.). Results: A total of 29 patients (5.3%) underwent CM during the study period with an average follow-up of 3 years since the original procedure. The most common reasons were positive margins (20/29, 69.0%) and recurrence (8/29, 27.6%). Twenty-two had reconstructive procedures (75.9%) and seven did not (24.1%). The patients who underwent CM and reconstruction were significantly younger (49.2 years) than those who had no reconstruction (64.3 years, P = 0.004). The most common type of reconstruction was transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM)/deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap (12/22, 54.5%), followed by latissimus (6/22, 27.3%) and tissue expander (3/22, 13.6%). The complication rate in the CM group was 24% (N = 7/29), which included two seromas (6.9%), followed by infection, fat necrosis, mastectomy skin necrosis, and donor site necrosis (3.4% each). Conclusions: Completion mastectomy is indicated typically for positive margins or recurrence. Reconstruction is performed more frequently in younger patients, with the TRAM/DIEP flap and latissimus dorsi reconstruction being the most common technique.

Summary: Ischemic complications following postmastectomy breast reconstruction are not uncommon and can lead to reconstructive failure, especially with implant reconstruction. The authors propose a simple local flap for management of such complications. This flap is easily raised from the upper abdomen or lateral chest as a medially or laterally based fasciocutaneous flap, and the donor site is hidden in the inframammary or lateral mammary fold. The authors present a case series of these “fold flaps” that were used to manage complications following implant-based breast reconstruction. All patients between 2007 and 2021 who underwent a fold flap for breast reconstruction salvage were queried from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic variables, clinical factors, and surgical details were analyzed. Outcomes assessed included complications, appropriate wound healing, and reconstructive salvage. Fourteen patients underwent thoracoepigastric or thoracoabdominal fold flaps following breast reconstruction for soft-tissue coverage with an underlying prosthesis. The mean age was 54 years, mean body mass index was 30 kg/m2, and mean follow-up duration was 18.5 months. Fold flap indications included mastectomy skin flap necrosis (n = 9), infection (n = 4), and chronic seroma (n = 1). Eleven reconstructions (79%) were salvaged and three (21%) required eventual prosthesis explantation secondary to infection or delayed wound healing. Fold flaps are a reliable option for managing ischemic complications following postmastectomy breast reconstruction. The benefits include improved soft-tissue coverage with a high salvage rate. These flaps are simple to raise, and their donor site is concealed within the folds. Furthermore, they provide a reliable early option to manage complications and potentially prevent reconstructive failure. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.