Plastic surgeons have been performing operations to improve the aesthetic aspect of the breast for centuries. Throughout ancient times, great controversy produced many theories of how breast cancer occurred and the best treatment. Because of beliefs that closure of mastectomy sites could conceal tumor recurrence, breast reconstruction did not gain wide acceptance until the mid-1900s. Today, plastic surgeons have a variety of techniques to reconstruct the breast. The first autologous muscle flap for breast reconstruction was the latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap, described in 1896 by Iginio Tansini. The introduction of Carl Hartrampf's transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap and Robert J. Allen's deep inferior epigastric perforator flap have also provided excellent reconstructive options. With regard to augmentation, Vincenz Czerny attempted to enhance a woman's breast in 1895 with implantation of a lumbar lipoma. Soon after, surgeons used paraffin injections and polyvinylic alcohol sponge implantation, which yielded disastrous results. In 1961, Thomas Cronin and Frank Gerow promoted the first silicone implant, paving the way for today's silicone and saline prototypes. Although reduction mammaplasty techniques had originated centuries earlier than mastopexy methods, the advancements of both have largely paralleled one another. In 1949, the Wise pattern was introduced to preoperatively plan safer and predictable outcomes in breast reductions. Efforts to minimize scars were achieved with Claude Lassus' introduction and Madeleine Lejour's subsequent modification of the vertical scar mammaplasty. In hopes of fostering an understanding of current post-mastectomy procedures and instilling passion for innovating future techniques, we provide a near-complete, surgically focused historical account of the primary contributors to breast reconstruction.

No abstract

When approached with a rapidly growing ulcerated lesion that does not respond to operative therapy, the possibility of PG should be entertained and a high-dose corticosteroid regimen and/or immunomodulator therapy implemented.

Background Autologous fat grafting is a helpful supplement to facelift surgery that helps to combat age-related volume loss of facial structures. Despite the widespread prevalence of combined facelift and fat-grafting, significant procedural variation exists between providers. Objectives The primary purpose of this systematic review was to study the efficacy and complication rates of facelift with lipofilling compared with facelift alone. Methods A systematic review of the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases as completed was undertaken to identify all clinical reports of fat grafting combined with facelift surgery based on the following key terms: (“fat grafting” OR “lipotransfer” OR “lipofilling” OR “fat transfer”) AND (“facelift” OR “rhytidectomy” OR “SMASectomy” OR “facial rejuvenation”). Data on techniques, outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction were collected. Results The systematic review was performed in April 2017. In total, 248 articles were identified for review. After application of exclusion criteria, 15 primary studies were included in this review. Various facelift techniques were reported, including deep-plane or sub–superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) facelift, SMAS facelift, modified minimal access cranial suspension lift, component facelift, midface lift, SMAS plication, SMAS-stacking/SMASectomy, and SMASectomy. The most common locations of fat graft injection included the nasolabial folds, tear troughs, temporal regions, midface/cheek/malar eminence, marionette groove, lips, and ear lobes. The addition of fat grafting to facelift surgery resulted in significant improvements in facial volume and aesthetic assessments. Conclusions Combined facelift and fat grafting is a safe and efficacious means to simultaneously address age-related ptosis and volume loss. Further research is required to validate and improve existing treatment modalities. Level of Evidence: 3

Summary: Gynecomastia is a graded condition characterized by enlargement of the male breast that affects a significant proportion of the male population. A plethora of varying surgical approaches currently exists in the literature; thus this comprehensive review sought to analyze surgical practice patterns and trends as they pertain to gynecomastia grade and severity. The current literature was queried utilizing the PubMed and MEDLINE databases—based on predefined parameters and individual review, 17 studies were ultimately included. Key data points included gynecomastia grade, surgical intervention, rate of complication, including hematoma, seroma, infection, and necrosis, and drain use. Two-sample t test was utilized for further analysis. A total of 1112 patients underwent surgical treatment for gynecomastia. Skin-sparing mastectomy with or without liposuction was the most frequently used procedure followed by mastectomy with skin reduction. Major complication rates ranged from 0% to 33%, with hematoma formation being most common (5.8%) followed seroma (2.4%). There was a higher rate of hematoma/seroma formation among authors who routinely utilized drain placement (9.78% versus 8.36%; P = 0.0051); however, this is likely attributable to the large discrepancy in percentage of grade III patients found in each group (50.23% versus 4.36%; P = 0.0000). As a wide variety of surgical techniques exist for the treatment of gynecomastia, an individualized approach based upon gynecomastia grade and patient preference may assist the surgeon in providing optimal outcomes. This senior author’s preferred method for treatment of gynecomastia is illustrated in the included algorithm.