Soft tissue defects in the buttock area are often related to decubitus ulcers, which are usually small to medium-large size and can be regularly treated with local flaps. However, when the defects have bigger size, such as those involving the whole gluteal region, the coverage can become more challenging, since this specific area needs both a good resistance to pressure and an acceptable functional result. The most common solution for similar cases is the use of multiple local flaps, or, in extreme situations, a free flap. In particular, local flaps based on perforator vessels are, in selected cases, a consolidated alternative to free flap allowing an efficient reconstruction of soft tissue defects using adjacent similar tissues, providing the benefit of "like with like" coverage. Here we present a case of a large mycosis fungoides nidus of the gluteal region measuring 25 cm × 18 cm reconstructed using two large perforator flaps adjacent to the defect combined with a remote one for coverage of the donor site. The cranial flap was designed based on a perforator arising from the superior gluteal artery and transferred into the defect by means of a V-Y advancement, while the two caudal propeller flaps in the posterior thigh were both based on perforators of the profunda femoris artery and rotated 180 , respectively. To obtain a tension-free cover of the donor site defect we applied the concept of "sequential" propeller flaps. Post-operative course was uneventful and the patient was ambulatory with assistive devices after 1 week. At 6 months follow-up, wounds were completely healed without complications and a good functional result was obtained. This report showed the great coverage potential of multiple perforator-based local flaps when properly combined allowing primary closure of the donor site. In particular, we managed to reconstruct a total gluteal defect using just ipsilateral side tissue, reducing morbidity, and obtaining a stable result.

More than 40 years have passed since the description of the first “free abdominoplasty flap” for breast reconstruction by Holmström. In the meantime, surgical advances and technological innovations have resulted in the widespread adoption of autologous breast reconstruction to recreate the female breast after mastectomy. While concepts and techniques are continuing to evolve, maintaining an overview is challenging. This article provides a review of current trends and recent innovations in autologous breast reconstruction.

Chin augmentation has persistently been a popular procedure over the past decades. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, approximately 16,500 procedures were performed in 2019. 1 The first description of chin augmentation was reported in 1934 by Aufricht, 2 who used the osteocartilaginous hump obtained from a combined rhinoplasty. In 1942, Hofer 3 introduced horizontal osteotomy performed through an external incision. Later, Trauner and Obwegeser 4 described an intraoral approach. The use of alloplastic material (silicone) as implantable material for chin augmentation was first reported in the early 1950s by Brown et al. 5 Osteotomies and implant augmentations became the most used techniques. In recent years, noninvasive procedures including injectable fillers have gained popularity and become largely used. Interest in Background: Chin augmentation has maintained a high level of popularity among patients and facial plastic surgeons. Several procedures exist to enhance the appearance of a small chin. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review to determine outcomes and complications associated with the different techniques described. Methods: MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were screened using a search algorithm. The techniques were classified, and related outcomes and complications tabulated and analyzed. Results: A total of 54 studies on primary chin augmentation published from 1977 to 2020 met inclusion criteria, representing 4897 treated patients. Six main surgical techniques were identified: chin augmentation with implants (silicone, Gore-Tex, Mersilene, Prolene, Medpor, Proplast, hard tissue replacement, porous block hydroxyapatite, or acrylic; n = 3344), osteotomy (n = 885), autologous grafts (fat, bone, derma, or cartilage; n = 398), fillers (hyaluronic acid, hydroxyapatite, or biphasic polymer; n = 233), local tissue rearrangements (n = 32), and a combination of implant placement and osteotomy (n = 5). All techniques provided consistently satisfactory cosmetic outcomes. The overall complication rate of the most represented groups was 15.7% for implants and 19.7% for osteotomy, including 2.4% and 16.4% cases of transient mental nerve-related injuries, respectively. Conclusions: All described chin augmentation techniques achieved good outcomes with high patient satisfaction. Thorough knowledge of each technique is essential to minimize each procedure's specific complications. Caution is generally needed to avoid nerve injuries and potential overcorrection or undercorrection.