Abdominal skin hypesthesia may occur after abdominoplasty. The purpose of this study was to find out (1) which sensibility modalities are decreased and (2) which areas of the abdominal wall are affected, so that patients can be warned preoperatively about this condition. Forty patients were divided in two groups of 20 patients each. In the control group, patients had no previous abdominal incisions. The sensibility evaluation of patients from the experimental group was made from 12 to 60 months after abdominoplasty, with an average of 31.5 months. These patients were divided into two groups of 10 patients each, a short-term follow-up group (12 to 30 months postoperatively) and a long-term follow-up group (31 to 60 months postoperatively). The abdominal skin was divided into 12 areas; nine were above the abdominoplasty incision and three were below it. Sensibility to superficial touch, superficial pain, and hot and cold modalities was recorded as positive in all areas by a variable number of patients of the experimental group. However, in area 8 (hypogastric area), a statistically significant number of patients had decreased sensibility in all sensibility modalities (Fisher's test and t test). Patients in the experimental group also showed decreased sensibility to hot and cold temperature in area 11 (pubic area). Sensibility to pressure decreased significantly in all areas of the abdomen when compared with the control group (t test). When patients of the short-term follow-up group were compared with those of the long-term follow-up group, there was no statistically significant difference for all modalities of sensibility in the areas studied, except for area 5. In this area it was found that long-term follow-up patients recovered sensibility to cold and hot temperatures. These findings help plastic surgeons to orient their patients about possible risk of exposure to injuries in the areas with decreased sensibility after abdominoplasty. Most importantly, as these patients have decreased sensibility to pressure and hot temperature in a more extensive area of the abdomen, they are exposed to a higher risk of burn injury.

Summary: The association of anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) to breast implants (breast implant-associated ALCL) has brought back the discussion on the clinical safety of the use of silicone implants. A 63-year-old woman came to our institution in early 2015, reporting a gluteal augmentation with silicone implants in 2006 and a recent increasing volume and distortion of the left buttock. Radiologic imaging showed a large amount of fluid collection around the implant. The left side implant was removed and the capsule was left intact, presupposing a future reimplantation. The fluid collected was positive for Staphylococcus aureus. Three years later, she presented again with a new seroma on the explanted side and was submitted to total capsulectomy and fluid drainage, and the material was submitted to laboratory examination. Culture results were negative. Pathologic preparation and sections of the capsule and lumps showed large cells characterized by horseshoe-shaped nuclei. Immunohistochemistry was positive for CD30/CD4 and negative for anaplastic lymphoma kinase, confirming the presence of ALCL, then associated with gluteal implant, an event not described in literature. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography and bone marrow biopsy were performed, and neither showed any other sites involved. The same disease in a new location introduces important discussions about the understanding of this abnormality and poses certain risks and safety issues to clinical scenarios to be discussed. Regardless of whether it is a breast implant-associated ALCL or a gluteal implant-associated ALCL, now we are probably facing an implant augmentation–associated disease and a new international alert should be addressed to the scientific community. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.