Background: The incidence of nipple-sparing mastectomy is rising, but no single incision type has been proven to be superior. This study systematically evaluated the rate and efficacy of various nipple-sparing mastectomy incision locations, focusing on nipple-areola complex necrosis and reconstructive method. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines identifying studies on nipple-sparing mastectomy where incision type was described. Pooled descriptive statistics meta-analysis of overall (nipple-areola complex) necrosis rate and nipple-areola complex necrosis by incision type was performed. Results: Fifty-one studies (9975 nipple-sparing mastectomies) were included. Thirty-two incision variations were identified and categorized into one of six groups: inframammary fold, radial, periareolar, mastopexy/prior scar/reduction, endoscopic, and other. The most common incision types were inframammary fold [3634 nipple-sparing mastectomies (37.8 percent)] and radial [3575 nipple-sparing mastectomies (37.2 percent)]. Meta-analysis revealed an overall partial nipple-areola complex necrosis rate of 4.62 percent (95 percent CI, 3.14 to 6.37 percent) and a total nipple-areola complex necrosis rate of 2.49 percent (95 percent CI, 1.87 to 3.21 percent). Information on overall nipple-areola complex necrosis rate by incision type was available for 30 of 51 studies (4645 nipple-sparing mastectomies). Periareolar incision had the highest nipple-areola complex necrosis rate (18.10 percent). Endoscopic and mastopexy/prior scar/reduction incisions had the lowest rates of necrosis at 4.90 percent and 5.79 percent, respectively, followed by the inframammary fold incision (6.82 percent). The rate of single-stage implant reconstruction increased during this period. Conclusions: For nipple-sparing mastectomy, the periareolar incision maintains the highest necrosis rate because of disruption of the nipple-areola complex blood supply. The inframammary fold incision has become the most popular incision, demonstrating an acceptable complication profile.

Background: The medial sural artery perforator flap offers thin, pliable tissue with a relatively long pedicle and low donor-site morbidity. This study explores the characteristics and uses of the medial sural artery perforator flap along with postoperative outcomes and complications. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify all cases of medial sural artery perforator flap reconstruction. Descriptive and meta-analyses were performed on pooled outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression identified factors associated with increased complication rates. Results: Thirty-five studies encompassing 526 medial sural artery perforator flaps were included for analysis. The most common reasons for surgery were oncologic (47.6 percent) and traumatic injuries (31.8 percent). The oral cavity was the most common recipient location (45.5 percent). Average flap dimensions were 6.0 ± 2.3 cm × 9.8 ± 3.6 cm, with an average pedicle length of 10.1 ± 6.6 cm. Meta-analysis revealed an overall complication rate of 14.3 percent (Q value = 22.16; p = 0.877; I 2= −39.9). Use of chimeric medial sural artery perforator flaps was associated with significantly higher rates of complications (OR, 3.92; p = 0.039; 95 percent CI, 1.10 to 13.89). The majority of flap donor sites were closed primarily (68 percent) versus 32 percent that were covered with split-thickness skin grafts. A flap width greater than 5.75 cm had an odds ratio of 5.3 (95 percent CI, 1.3 to 21.8; p = 0.014) of having a donor-site complication if closed primarily. Conclusions: The medial sural artery perforator flap offers thin, pliable tissue with a relatively long pedicle and has minimal donor-site morbidity when the donor site is managed appropriately. As such, it should be considered a workhorse flap for both head and neck and extremity reconstruction.

Background: Marko Godina, in his landmark paper in 1986, established the principle of early flap coverage for reconstruction of traumatic lower extremity injuries. The aim of this study was to determine how timing influences outcomes in lower extremity traumatic free flap reconstruction based on Godina’s original findings. Methods: A retrospective review identified 358 soft-tissue free flaps from 1979 to 2016 for below knee trauma performed within 1 year of injury. Patients were stratified based on timing of coverage: 3 days or less (early), 4 to 90 days (delayed), and more than 90 days (late). The delayed group was further divided into two groups: 4 to 9 days and 10 to 90 days. Flap outcomes were examined based on timing of reconstruction. Results: Flaps performed within 3 days after injury compared with between 4 to 90 days had decreased risk of major complications (OR, 0.40, p = 0.04). A receiver operating curve demonstrated day 10 to be the optimal day for predicting flap success. Flaps performed less than or equal to 3 days versus 4 to 9 days had no differences in any flap outcomes. In contrast, flaps performed within 4 to 9 days of injury compared to within 10 to 90 days were associated with significantly lower total flap failure rates (relative risk, 0.29, p = 0.025) and major complications (relative risk, 0.37, p = 0.002). Conclusions: Early free flap reconstruction performed within 3 days of injury had superior outcomes compared with the delayed (4 to 90 day) group, consistent with Godina’s original findings. However, as an update to his paradigm, this ideal early period of reconstruction can be safely extended to within 10 days of injury without an adverse effect on outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.