Although success rate of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction has greatly improved, complications still occasionally occur. Perfusion-related complications (PRCs) (ie, fat necrosis and partial flap necrosis) are the most frequent concern, affecting aesthetic final result of the reconstructed breast. The aim of our study was to retrospectively investigate 287 consecutive DIEP flap breast reconstructions to investigate predictive and protective factors for PRCs.From May 2004 to February 2012, 287 DIEP flap breast reconstructions were performed on 270 patients; 247 unilateral flaps, including Holm vascular zones I to III, were retrospectively selected and analyzed. Tobacco use, mean blood pressure over the first postoperative 48 hours, superficial epigastric vein drainage, medial/lateral row perforator, nulliparity, crystalloid versus combined crystalloid/colloid intravenous fluid infusion therapy, and learning curve were evaluated by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.Perfusion-related complications occurred 32 (12.9%) times, 79 (31.9%) patients were smokers, 48 (19.4%) showed postoperative mean blood pressure less than 75 mm Hg, 29 (11.7%) were nulliparous, and 173 (70%) had superficial epigastric vein drainage. Selected perforators were 110 (44.5%) from lateral row, 137 (55.5%) from medial row; 91 (36.8%) received crystalloid fluid infusion, whereas 156 (63.2%) combined crystalloid/colloid fluid infusion. From univariate analysis emerged significance of nulliparity, perforator row and intravenous fluid infusion for PRC. Nevertheless, multivariate model confirmed only nulliparity as a significant risk factor (P = 0.029), although variable correlations to other predictors were found: both medial row perforator and combined crystalloid/colloid fluid infusion potentially decrease the PRC risk of 11.6% and 27.6%, respectively. Learning curve did not show significant decrease of PRC risk over time.Our study first proved nulliparity as a statistically significant predictor for PRCs in DIEP flap breast reconstruction, possibly due to different superficial abdominal perfusion between pluriparous and nulliparous women, with potential weaker pattern of perforators and smaller angiosomes in the latter. The choice of medial row perforators and combined crystalloid/colloid fluid infusion might reduce PRC risk.

Background Laboratory and clinical research on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is rapidly evolving. Changes in standard of care and insights into best practice were recently presented at the 3 rd World Consensus Conference on BIA-ALCL. Objectives The aim of this manuscript is to provide practice recommendations from a consensus of experts, supplemented with a literature review regarding epidemiology, etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, socio-psychological aspects and international authority guidance. Methods A literature search of all manuscripts between 1997 and August 2021 for the above areas of BIA-ALCL was conducted using the PubMed database. Manuscripts in different languages, on non-human subjects, and/or discussing conditions separate from BIA-ALCL were excluded. The study was conducted using the Delphi process gathering 18 expert panelists, and employing email-based questionnaires to record the level of agreement with each statement, by applying a 5-point Likert Scale. Median response, interquartile range and comments were used to accept, reject or revise each statement. Results The literature search initially yielded 764 manuscripts out of which 405 were discarded. From the remaining 359, only 218 were included in the review and used to prepare 36 statements subdivided into 5 sections. After one round, panelists agreed on all criteria. Conclusions BIA-ALCL is uncommon and still largely underreported. Mandatory implant registries and actions by regulatory authorities are needed to better understand disease epidemiology and address initial lymphomagenesis and progression. Deviation from current diagnosis and treatment protocols can lead to disease recurrence, and research on breast implant risk factors provide insight to etiology.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first report in which fat transfer was used to achieve immediate latissimus dorsi flap volume augmentation as an alternative for total autologous reconstruction, avoiding implant-related complications.

Therapeutic, V.

The aim of this study is to present our experience on the use of various recipient sites for deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction and compare them by means of objective data. Two hundred fifty six DIEP flap breast reconstructions, performed between March 2004 and May 2011, were retrospectively analyzed. Only unilateral reconstructions were included in the study and divided into three groups depending on the recipient site choice: internal mammary vessels (IMV) (n = 52), thoracodorsal vessels (TDV) (n = 109), and circumflex scapular vessels (CSV) (n = 95). Clinical records of each patient were reviewed to acquire relevant data such as operative time, postoperative complications, and use of a second vein anastomosis. CSV group showed a statistically significant lower operative time (4.92 ± 0.54 hours) compared to TDV (5.67 ± 1.01 hours) and IMV groups (6.75 ± 1.09 hours) (P < 0.001). Second vein anastomosis was performed in 84 cases (88.1%) of CSV, in 85 cases (77.9%) of TDV, and in 18 cases (35.1%) of IMV groups (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed among groups regarding risk factors and complications (P > 0.05). The axillary vessels seem to be the ideal recipient site because of reduced operative time and increased possibility to perform a second vein anastomosis. Among them, CSV can be safely used due to following advantages: easy dissection, larger vessel caliber, and optimal flap insetting. Moreover, their location does not expose them completely to radiotherapy consequences.

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Correlation among age, clinical, and aesthetic outcomes in implant-based and autologous breast reconstructions was investigated. Between 2004 and 2014, a retrospective study was performed on patients who underwent reconstruction following mastectomy. Patients were divided in group A (< 50 years), group B (≥ 50-59 years), group C (≥ 60-69 years), and group D (≥ 70 years). Demographics, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and length of stay were assessed using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis analysis considering ≤ 0.05 as significant. Pre- and postoperative photographs were taken to grade aesthetic results by patients and blinded plastic surgery team. A total of 993 patients underwent 1,251 breast reconstructions, of which 356 (28.5%) were implant-based, 402 (32.1%) pedicled-flap, 445 (35.6%) free-flap, and 48 (3.8%) fat-graft reconstructions. There were 316 (25.2%) complications, of which 124 (34.8%) in implant-based, 74 (18.4%) in pedicled-flap, 111 (24.9%) in free-flap, and 2 (4.2%) in fat-graft reconstructions. Mean length of stay was 5.4 days without significant difference between age groups ( = 0.357). The incidence of overall complications was not significantly related to age, ASA class, smoking history, and previous radiotherapy. Body mass index was a significant predictor ( = 0.001), but odds ratio (OR: 1.2) demonstrated only a minimal increase in risk. Implant-based reconstruction was associated with a higher risk for complications compared with the other ones (OR: 2.5, = 0.001). Patient and surgeon aesthetic surveys demonstrated an overall positive opinion in all age groups for each reconstructive option. Advanced age should not be considered a risk factor for breast reconstruction, while implant-based technique was associated with a higher risk for complications compared with autologous that may provide older women with greater benefits.