Background:Traditionally, tissue expanders (TEs) for breast reconstruction have been placed beneath the pectoralis major muscle with or without acellular dermal matrix. More recently, full acellular dermal matrix coverage has been described for prepectoral TE placement. Our study aims to explore differences in clinical and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes for prepectoral versus subpectoral TE breast reconstruction.Methods:We identified patients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction with prepectoral or subpectoral TE placement between 2011 and 2015 and completed QOL surveys. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain and QOL scores. Secondary outcomes were clinical outcomes. We used Wilcoxon rank-sum test, chi-square test, and linear regression to compare outcomes. Postoperative follow-up for each patient was at least 60 days, except that of pain scores, which were at least 30 days. Mean age was 49 ± 10 years.Results:Twenty-six prepectoral TE patients and 109 subpectoral TE patients met inclusion criteria. Pain scores were significantly lower at 12 hours, 1 day, 7 days, and 30 days postoperatively for the prepectoral group, compared with the subpectoral group, even after adjusting for confounding variables [PO12H: Sub-Pectoral (SP) median (interquartile range), 7 (5–8), Pre-Pectoral (PP), 5 (2.5–7.5), P value = 0.004; PO1D: SP, 5 (4–6), PP 3 (2–4), P value = < 0.001; PO7D: SP, 2 (0–4), PP, 0 (0–2), P value = 0.004; PO30D: SP, 0 (0–2), PP, 0 (0–0), P value = 0.039)]. Breast-Q scores were not significantly different between study groups. RAND-36 Physical Health scores were lower among prepectoral TE patients.Conclusions:Prepectoral TE breast reconstruction presents an opportunity to improve upon current reconstructive methods and does result in significantly lower pain scores. The associated risks have yet to be fully described and are important considerations, as these prepectoral patients had lower physical health outcome scores.

Background Plastic surgery plays an essential role in the treatment of gender dysphoria. International standards of care currently consider genital and chest surgeries to be medically necessary. Ancillary procedures such as facial surgery, chondrolaryngoplasty, hair restoration/removal, and body contouring are considered cosmetic surgeries except in individual circumstances. Objective The authors sought to assess the frequency of coverage provision for ancillary transition-related surgeries through a cross-sectional analysis of US insurance policies. Methods The authors selected insurance companies based on state enrollment data and market share. Policies were identified through web-based search and telephone interviews. A list of eligible procedures was compiled and grouped into 5 categories: body masculinization, body feminization, facial procedures, hair restoration/removal, and chondrolaryngoplasty. Medical necessity criteria from publicly accessible policies were then abstracted. Results Sixty-one insurance companies held an established policy. One-third of these policies offered favorable coverage for at least 1 ancillary procedure. Chondrolaryngoplasty was the most covered category (26%, n = 16), whereas body masculinization was the least covered (8%, n = 5). Almost two-thirds of the companies with favorable policies listed coverage criteria. We identified 4 recurring requirements: age, hormone therapy, continuous living in a congruent gender role, and referral from a mental health professional. Conclusions There is a low prevalence of US insurance coverage for ancillary gender surgeries and wide variability in coverage criteria. Reevaluation of ancillary transition-related procedures from cosmetic to medically necessary based on clinical judgement or establishment of defined coverage criteria may augment coverage and better address the needs of transgender patients.

Introduction Facial transplantation represents one of the most complicated scenarios in craniofacial surgery because of skeletal, aesthetic, and dental discrepancies between donor and recipient. However, standard off-the-shelf vendor computer-assisted surgery systems may not provide custom features to mitigate the increased complexity of this particular procedure. We propose to develop a computer-assisted surgery solution customized for preoperative planning, intraoperative navigation including cutting guides, and dynamic, instantaneous feedback of cephalometric measurements/angles as needed for facial transplantation. Methods We developed the Computer-Assisted Planning and Execution (CAPE) workstation to assist with planning and execution of facial transplantation. Preoperative maxillofacial computed tomography (CT) scans were obtained on 4 size-mismatched miniature swine encompassing 2 live face-jaw-teeth transplants. The system was tested in a laboratory setting using plastic models of mismatched swine, after which the system was used in 2 live swine transplants. Postoperative CT imaging was obtained and compared with the preoperative plan and intraoperative measures from the CAPE workstation for both transplants. Results Plastic model tests familiarized the team with the CAPE workstation and identified several defects in the workflow. Live swine surgeries demonstrated utility of the CAPE system in the operating room, showing submillimeter registration error of 0.6 ± 0.24 mm and promising qualitative comparisons between intraoperative data and postoperative CT imaging. Conclusions The initial development of the CAPE workstation demonstrated integration of computer planning and intraoperative navigation for facial transplantation are possible with submillimeter accuracy. This approach can potentially improve preoperative planning, allowing ideal donor-recipient matching despite significant size mismatch, and accurate surgical execution.