No abstract

No abstract

Nipple reconstructions are prone to a variable and unpredictable degree of flattening, which in some cases lead to secondary reconstruction. The use of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) augmentation may be appropriate in cases with very thin dermis that are particularly prone to flattening or in revision cases where the first procedure has already failed. The authors present a series of 13 nipple reconstructions in ten cases. Average projection at 12 months was 51% in primary cases and 46% in secondary revision cases. This represents a better than expected long term result in a difficult cohort of patients.

Central round block reconstruction of large defects after WLE is a safe technique with good aesthetic outcomes. Contralateral symmetrising surgery is not usually required.

Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most commonly used procedure to reconstruct the breast after mastectomy. The advantages and disadvantages of subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement remain a matter of debate. This study compares the need for secondary aesthetic procedures between prepectoral and subpectoral IBR. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent subpectoral or prepectoral IBR between 2015 and 2018 under a single surgeon at a tertiary breast unit. The primary endpoint was the number of secondary procedures performed to improve the aesthetic outcome. Secondary endpoints included the number of secondary procedures during the first year. Results: A total of 271 one-stage IBRs were performed (subpectoral, n = 128 in 74 patients; prepectoral, n = 143 in 84 patients). Overall, more patients required secondary procedures in the subpectoral group (36.5% versus 19%; P = 0.014), although through longer follow-up. The most common procedures were pocket revision and implant exchange [11.7% versus 3.5% (P = 0.010); 11.7% versus 4.2% (P = 0.021)], whereas fat grafting was similar between the two groups (46% versus 40.5%; P = 0.777). When adjusted for follow-up time, there was no significant difference in the number of secondary procedures undertaken in the subpectoral versus the prepectoral group (21% versus 16%, respectively; P = 0.288) at 1 year. Conclusions: The requirement for secondary procedures at 1 year was not different between groups. The need for fat grafting was not increased following prepectoral IBR. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.