Search

BACKGROUND: In 2020, reduction mammoplasties and mastopexies comprised 34.2% of all breast surgeries performed by plastic surgeons. Various approaches for the skin incision of these procedures have been described. The vertical pattern has become an increasingly popular option due to its lower scar burden. However, it is prone to dog-ear formation along the caudal aspect of the incision. Herein, we describe 5 technical steps to eliminate the dog-ear in patients undergoing vertical mammoplasties. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent vertical breast reduction and mastopexy between the years 2008 and 2020 performed by the senior author. The 5 steps employed in eliminating the dog-ear are delineated and depicted pictorially. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients and 89 breasts were operated upon. A majority of 66.6% were Caucasian, 33.3% were African American, and 1 patient was of Hispanic descent. The mean age was 53.2 years (19-73 years), and average BMI was 31.5 kg/m(2) (21.3-42.7 kg/m(2)). The average resection weights for reduction and mastopexy patients were 479 grams (100-1500 grams) and 58.1 grams (18-100 grams), respectively. Mean follow-up was 10.5 months (1-35 months). Only one patient developed a dog-ear (1.7%) in bilateral breasts (2.2%); however, the patient did not request a revision. Our revision rate over 13 years remained at 0%. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing these 5 technical steps reduces the risk of dog-ear deformity and thereby diminishes the overall need for revisional surgery in patients undergoing short scar vertical mammoplasties.

BACKGROUND: Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous (LDM) pedicled flaps are a well-established method for breast reconstruction in women with inadequate soft tissue coverage following mastectomy for breast cancer. The robust nature of the latissimus blood supply can accommodate immediate implant placement to increase breast volume; however, a known risk factor with this technique is implant malposition. By utilizing an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in subpectoral implant-based LDM reconstruction, it is hypothesized that patients will experience a lower incidence of implant malposition. This 13-year retrospective review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of breast reconstruction using this technique. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted to identify all patients who underwent breast reconstruction following mastectomy with a LDM flap, subpectoral implant, and an ADM from 2007 to 2020 by a single surgeon at a single institution. Demographic and clinical data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients (LDM flaps, N = 51) were identified. Mean participant age was 50.25 ± 9.67 years and mean body mass index (BMI) was 30.85 ± 6.15 kg/m(2). Comorbidities included hypertension (40.0%), diabetes mellitus (17.5%), and current smoking (25.0%). Mean follow-up was 31.52 ± 29.51 months. The most common complication was seroma formation (9.8%). No patients experienced implant malposition or flap necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a LDM flap and an ADM in implant-based breast reconstruction are each well described in the literature. This 13-year series supports the efficacy of these techniques utilized in combination to provide an aesthetic result while mitigating implant malposition during breast reconstruction of oncologic patients.

1. How common are penile amputations, and how are they treated? 2. What key anatomic structures are involved? 3. What are some technical pearls for a successful replantation? 4. What are common complications, and how can they be prevented/treated?

Objective: The increase in demand for gluteal fat grafting seen in recent years in the United States has not been met with an equal gain in knowledge of the perils of this anatomic territory. The purpose of this study was to identify anatomic landmarks that can be readily used by surgeons to identify the takeoff of the superior and inferior gluteal veins. Method: Six fresh cadaveric gluteal specimens were dissected at the University of Louisville anatomy laboratory. A question mark incision was made for exposure, followed by identification of the sciatic nerve in the proximal thigh. This was traced retrograde to the sciatic forearm. The piriformis muscle was identified dividing the foreman into superior and inferior portions, which corresponded to the takeoff of the superior and inferior gluteal vessels, respectively. The distance of the gluteal vessels from the one-third point of a line from the mid-sacrum to the greater trochanter was measured. Result: Our cadaveric dissection series demonstrated that the superior and inferior gluteal veins were on average 3.28 cm (2-5.9 cm) and 1.25 cm (0-3.5 cm) away from the point one third the distance from the mid-sacral border to the greater trochanter. Conclusion: The mid-sacrum and the trochanter of the femur are the anatomic landmarks used to identify the large gluteal vein trunks. Understanding the location and trajectory of these deep gluteal structures with use of readily identifiable landmarks may assist surgeons in avoiding inadvertent injection of fat to these veins during fat grafting.