Prosthetic breast reconstruction is the most common method of reconstruction offered to women following mastectomy. Prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently reemerged as an alternative technique to the partial and total muscle coverage methods. Though this technique has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in the recent published literature, many surgeons have been hesitant to adopt it out of fear of incurring the same complications associated with subcutaneous reconstructions of the past. However, recent advancements in plastic surgery including the use of acellular dermal matrices, autologous fat grafting, and improved breast implants and improved mastectomy techniques have enabled plastic surgeons to revisit the prepectoral space. In this review, the authors describe the evolution of prosthetic-based breast reconstruction from subcutaneous to prepectoral and review outcomes.

Nerve conduits are becoming increasingly popular for the repair of peripheral nerve injuries. Their ease of application and lack of donor site morbidity make them an attractive option for nerve repair in many situations. Today, there are many different conduits to choose in different sizes and materials, giving the reconstructive surgeon many options for any given clinical problem. However, to properly utilize these unique reconstructive tools, the peripheral nerve surgeon must be familiar not only with their standard indications but also with their functional limitations. In this review, the authors identify the common applications of nerve conduits, expected results, and shortcomings of current techniques. Furthermore, future directions for nerve conduit use are identified.

Background The effect of body mass index (BMI) on complication rates in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is not well established. The purpose of this study was to compare complication rates between different BMI groups in subpectoral and prepectoral reconstruction. Methods A single-surgeon, 4-year, retrospective review was performed of consecutive prosthetic breast reconstructions. During this time, the senior author's practice shifted from a subpectoral to prepectoral technique. Patients were stratified into BMI subgroups (<25, 25–35, and >35 kg/m2) and complication rates were analyzed. A survey was administered to blinded medical personnel and patients comparing esthetic results. Results Implant-based reconstructions were performed in 195 patients (103 subpectoral and 92 prepectoral). No significant difference in major complication rate was observed between techniques. Among patients with BMI greater than 35 kg/m2, implant exposure occurred at a significantly higher rate in the prepectoral group (P = 0.04). In patients with BMI greater than 25 kg/m2, minor asymmetry was more prevalent with prepectoral reconstruction (12.3% vs 0%; P = 0.02). Regardless of technique, the odds of reoperation increased by 7% per point increase in BMI, although this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.07; odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.99–1.15). A total of 66 survey responses were received. Physicians rated esthetic results more positively than patients did. Patients with a BMI of less than 25 kg/m2 were rated better than other BMI groups in nearly all categories. The position of submuscular reconstruction was rated significantly better than prepectoral. Conclusions There is a trend toward higher complication rates in prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction with increasing BMI. Nonetheless, the technique appears to be safe, with comparable clinical and cosmetic results.

No abstract

No abstract