Background Implant-based reconstruction is currently the most common postmastectomy breast reconstruction modality with over 86,000 procedures performed in 2017. Although various methods for reconstruction techniques have been described, partial subpectoral implant placement with or without acellular dermal matrix coverage remains the most popular approach. Recently, prepectoral implant placement has gained increased recognition as a method that avoids some of the potential morbidities of submuscular implant placement. Currently, few studies have examined the outcomes of performing this approach. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral direct to implant (DTI) immediate breast reconstruction. Methods Data from a prospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing prepectoral DTI immediate breast reconstructions at our institution from February 2016 to November 2017 were collected. The incidence of complications such as mastectomy skin flap necrosis, seroma, hematoma, infection, implant loss, and unexpected reoperation were recorded and compared with a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent subpectoral DTI immediate breast reconstruction from May 2014 to July 2015. Results One hundred twelve prepectoral DTI immediate breast reconstructions were performed on 62 patients. Four breasts (4.4%) were diagnosed with infection. There were 8 breasts (7.1%) that suffered from mastectomy skin flap necrosis (5 partial thickness necrosis, 3 full thickness necrosis). There was 1 implant loss related to full thickness necrosis that required salvage with autologous tissue reconstruction. Prepectoral breast reconstruction had less esthetic revisions and comparable complications when compared with the historical subpectoral cohort. Conclusions When compared with the subpectoral DTI approach, prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction grants favorable complication rates and improved esthetic outcomes. Prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction is a safe modality that should be considered in any patient who is a candidate for immediate breast reconstruction.

Background Capsular contracture is a common complication of breast augmentation surgery and many techniques to prevent and treat it have been suggested with inconsistent or variably effective results. Objectives The aim of this paper was to describe a protocol for treating established capsular contracture after breast augmentation with a low recurrence rate. Methods From January 2009 to December 2012, 79 previous bilateral breast augmentation patients presented for treatment of established capsular contracture. There were 135 breasts with capsular contracture: 56 were bilateral and 23 were unilateral. Ten patients opted for no treatment; 2 patients opted for implant removal. Twenty-four were treated with the ICES (implant exchange, capsulectomy, and possible exchange of site) protocol and 43 were treated with the SPICES (Strattice placement in the reconstructive position, implant exchange, capsulectomy, and possible exchange of site) protocol. Results The 24 patients treated with the ICES protocol had a recurrent capsular contracture rate of 15%. The 43 patients treated with the SPICES protocol had a 2.7% recurrent capsular contracture incidence and an 2.7% complication rate. Conclusions Capsular contracture after breast augmentation, whether primary or recurrent, can be successfully treated with the SPICES protocol. Level of Evidence: 4

Background:Complication rates following immediate breast reconstruction range from 4% to 60%. Mastectomy skin flap necrosis (MSFN) is often the sentinel event leading to secondary complications.Methods:All patients undergoing immediate reconstruction were enrolled. Upon mastectomy completion, the surgeon visually interpreted the skin flaps, performed laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography (LAIGA), and intervened if needed. Patients were followed for 90 days, documenting skin necrosis, infection, seroma, hematoma, implant loss, and reoperation.Results:There were 126 patients who had 206 immediate breast reconstructions. The complication rate was 22.3%. The incidence of MSFN was 14.1%. The reoperation rate was 8.7%. There was 1 necrosis-related implant loss. Postoperative surveys were completed on 193 breasts: 137 had visual and LAIGA interpretation of well or adequately perfused, resulting in 5.8% rate of necrosis, 2 reoperations, and no implant losses. Twenty breasts had visual and LAIGA interpretation of marginal or poor perfusion. Sixteen of these underwent intervention. The necrosis rate in this group was 35% with no implant losses. A third group with 26 breasts had adequate visual interpretation with marginal or poor perfusion on LAIGA. Ten breasts had no intervention, and 16 received intervention. The overall necrosis rate in this group was 42.3%, with 4 reoperations for necrosis and 1 implant loss.Conclusions:LAIGA can more accurately predict complications from MSFN than surgeon assessment alone. When surgeon decision making is supplemented with LAIGA, it reduces the incidence of MSFN, infection, implant loss, and overall unexpected reoperation rate. LAIGA is a valuable adjunct for intraoperative decision making.

Currently, there is no consensus on the definition of infection after implant-based IBR. We propose that the definition should include the administration of antibiotics beyond the surgeon's standard perioperative period with or without the presence of localized clinical signs of infection (erythema, pain, increased temperature, etc). A universal definition of postoperative infection after implant-based IBR that accurately captures the incidence of infection will allow better comparisons between future studies.

No abstract