Background: Recent advances in mastectomy and reconstruction have allowed for an evolution in implant-based breast reconstruction to a muscle-sparing, prepectoral approach. Advantages of this technique may include reductions in postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, less narcotic usage, and improved aesthetic outcomes. Postoperative complication rates are described as comparable to subpectoral techniques; however, little comparative data exist to adequately assess prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement. Methods: To address this knowledge gap, we performed a single institution retrospective review of 186 (83 prepectoral, 103 subpectoral) consecutive immediate breast reconstructions. All cases were tracked for a minimum of 2 years between 2016 and 2021. Results: Prepectoral patients demonstrated an overall higher seroma rate (P = 0.001), with all other postoperative complications being comparable. Prepectoral patients tolerated higher intraoperative tissue expander fill volumes (P < 0.001), shorter hospital stays (P = 0.007), fewer clinic visits for tissue expansion (P < 0.001), and experienced less animation deformity (P = 0.005). Both groups demonstrated similar pain scores (P = 0.65) and needs for narcotics (P = 0.8) as well as comparable scores of capsular contracture (P = 0.791). Conclusions: Our comparative analysis of consecutive immediate implant-based breast reconstructions finds prepectoral reconstruction to be safe and effective. Compared with subpectoral reconstruction, the prepectoral approach may offer quicker tissue expansion, less postoperative office visits, less need for muscle relaxants, and a shorter hospital stay with a comparable complication profile.

No abstract

Background: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery expands the indications for breast conservation. When performed using modified mastopexy/breast reduction techniques, the optimal timing of the contralateral symmetrizing mastopexy/breast reduction remains unclear. This study examined the effect of the timing of symmetrizing mastopexy/breast reduction on oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery outcomes. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of all patients who underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery using mastopexy/breast reduction techniques at a single center from 2010 to 2016. Patients who received synchronous (immediate) contralateral breast symmetrizing mastopexy were compared with those who underwent a delayed symmetrizing mastopexy procedure. Demographic, treatment, and outcome data were collected. Descriptive statistics were used and multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the various relationships. Results: There were 429 patients (713 breasts) included in the study; of these, 284 patients (568 breasts) underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery involving mastopexy/breast reduction techniques and immediate symmetrizing mastopexy, and 145 patients underwent delayed contralateral symmetrizing mastopexy. The overall complication rate was similar between the immediate and delayed groups (25.4 percent versus 26.9 percent, respectively; p = 0.82), as was the major complication rate (10.6 percent versus 6.2 percent; p = 0.16). Complications resulted in a delay in adjuvant therapy in 18 patients (4.2 percent); in two patients (0.7 percent), this delay resulted from a complication in the contralateral symmetrizing mastopexy breast. Immediate contralateral symmetrizing mastopexy was not associated with increased risk of complications per breast (p = 0.82) or delay to adjuvant therapy (p = 0.6). Conclusion: Contralateral mastopexy/breast reduction for symmetry can be performed at the time of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in carefully selected patients without significantly increasing the risk of complications or delay to adjuvant radiation therapy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

No abstract

No abstract

Studies on the treatment of nonsyndromic craniosynostosis demonstrate decreasing morbidity and mortality; however, complication rates still range from 5% to 14%. Here, the authors present their last 10 years' experience treatment of nonsyndromic single suture craniosynostosis. A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent open surgical treatment of nonsyndromic craniosynostosis over 10 years. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Radiological analysis of intracranial volumes was performed using Amira software. The authors' technique for treatment of sagittal synostosis was the Foreshortening and Lateral Expansion of the Cranium Activated by Gravity (FLAG) procedure. The authors identified 106 patients with a median age of 0.8 years. Sagittal synostosis was most common (n = 65, 61%). Seventeen percent underwent distraction of the cranial vault; the remainder underwent traditional remodeling procedures. The average operative time was 131 minutes, blood loss was 296 mL (30 mL/kg), and intraoperative transfusion was 332 mL (34 mL/kg). There were 2 postoperative complications. Six patients required an additional major operation years later, most commonly for increased intracranial pressure. The authors separately analyzed 50 patients with sagittal synostosis treated with the FLAG procedure. There were no postoperative complications, and only 4 patients required reoperation. The average operative time for the FLAG procedure was 97.3 minutes. Intracranial volume increased by 191.45 mL (28.3-427.5 mL) with 28% average relative cranial vault expansion (4.5%-93.2%). Surgical correction of craniosynostosis using the FLAG technique is safe and effective with minimal morbidity and long standing results. Treatment should involve a structured approach, which minimizes operative times and decreases complication rates.

Background Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) is most commonly performed using established or modified mastopexy/breast reduction techniques. Although the comparative complication profiles of Wise-pattern mastopexy/breast reduction techniques compared with vertical scar techniques are well understood, outcomes in the setting of OBCS are unknown. Methods A retrospective study was conducted of all patients that underwent OBCS using mastopexy/breast reduction techniques at a single center over a 6-year period. Patients who underwent Wise-pattern techniques were compared with those who underwent vertical scar techniques. Demographic, treatment, and outcomes data were collected. Descriptive statistics were used, and multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between these multiple variables and complications. Results Of 413 eligible patients, 278 patients (67.3%) received a Wise-pattern technique and 135 (32.7%) underwent a vertical scar technique. The overall complication rate was significantly higher in the Wise-pattern than in the vertical scar group (30.6% vs 18.5%, respectively; P = 0.012), as was the major complication rate (11.9% vs 4.4%; P = 0.011) including need for additional surgery for complications (6.8% vs 1.5%; P = 0.029). Complications resulted in a delay to any adjuvant therapy in 20 patients (4.8%); however, the difference between the groups was not significant (6.1% for Wise pattern vs 2.2% for vertical scar; P = 0.098). In a multivariable logistic model, use of a Wise-pattern technique (odds ratio, 0.37 [95% confidence interval, 0.14–0.99]; P = 0.049) was a significant predictor of major complications. Conclusions The Wise-pattern mastopexy/breast reduction OBCS technique was associated with a significantly higher complication and major complication rate than vertical scar techniques. The findings should be considered during choice of surgical technique in oncoplastic breast conservation.

No abstract