Search

Implant malposition has been reported to be a common reason for revision surgery after implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). With the recent increase in the use of smooth implants due to concerns for breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma with textured implants, we compared and reported the rates of malposition in prepectoral IBR and identified risk factors. A retrospective review of patients who underwent prepectoral IBR with Natrelle® (Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) implants at our institution between January 2014 and May 2020 was performed. Clinical characteristics, implant types, and the rate of malposition, defined as implant flipping or rotation, were recorded. Univariate and multivariable time-to-event analyses using the Cox proportional-hazards model were performed to identify predictors of malposition. Three hundred seventy-five patients (660 breasts) were included. Four hundred forty-one (66.8%) breasts had smooth round implants whereas 219 (33.2%) had textured anatomical devices. Malposition requiring either a manual correction or surgical intervention occurred in 26 (5.9%) smooth round implants versus 3 (1.4%) textured anatomical. Multivariable analysis showed that having a smooth round implant (aHR: 7.19, 95% CI: [2.04 - 25.4]) and an increase in implant volume (aHR: 1.003, 95% CI: [1.001 - 1.006]) were associated with having a malposition requiring intervention. Among smooth round implants; INSPIRA® Cohesive implants were more likely to result in a malposition requiring intervention (p0.0001) compared to other smooth round implants. Overall, malposition requiring intervention occurred in 5.9% of smooth round implants and 1.4% of textured anatomical implants. Statistical analysis demonstrates that smooth round implants and an increase in implant volume both are associated with a malposition requiring intervention.

Background Medical and surgical fields continue to be marred by gender disparities. The “leaky pipeline” effect, representing a gradual decline in female representation along the academic ladder, has been well documented in plastic surgery. However, gender differences in abstract presentation at national plastic surgery meetings and subsequent publications remains elusive. Methods We reviewed abstracts presented at the 2014 and 2015 annual meetings of the American Association of Plastic Surgeons (AAPS); American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), and the Plastic Surgery Research Council (PSRC). Several abstract characteristics including the names of the first and last authors were extracted. Genderize.io and Google search were used to identify the authors’ gender. Results We identified 1174 abstracts presented at the three identified meetings. Females comprised 29% of the presenters and 16% of abstract senior authors (ASAs). No gender differences were identified between the meetings, type of presentation (oral versus poster), and year of presentation. The only difference was in the subspecialty of the abstracts. Successful conversion to full-text articles was similar for male and female presenters (68% versus 62%, P = 0.065) but higher for male ASAs (68% versus 59%, P = 0.01). When an author change occurred, female presenters and ASAs were more likely to be replaced by males (P Conclusion Gender differences continue to be evident in academic plastic surgery with women constituting a minority of both presenters and senior authors on abstracts presented at national plastic surgery meetings. Future work should assess whether flexible and supportive work policies can foster greater female representation in academic plastic surgery.

Background Free nipple grafting indications in breast reduction surgery are outdated. Safety of inferior pedicle technique for large resections and long pedicles has not been clearly defined. We evaluated patients who underwent inferior pedicle reduction mammoplasty to define the safety constraints of the inferior pedicle. Methods A retrospective review of patients who underwent inferior pedicle reduction mammoplasty due to symptomatic macromastia at Mayo Clinic over a six-year period was conducted. Patients with prior breast surgeries were excluded. Demographics, breast measurements, and surgical outcomes were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess for predictors of necrosis. Results Overall, 288 patients (576 breasts) underwent inferior pedicle breast reduction from 2014 to 2019. The mean sternal notch-to-nipple (SN N) distance was 31.5 cm (standard deviation[SD]:4.2; range[r]:16–48), and the mean nipple-to-inframammary fold (N-IMF) distance was 14.8 cm (SD:4.0; r:7.5–27). The mean resection weight was 699.6 g (SD:310.4; r:125–2,385). The median follow-up was 3.9 months (interquartile range[IQR]:2.8–9.0). The overall skin or nipple areolar complex necrosis rate was 2.1%; the overall complication rate was 14.8%. On multivariate analysis, overall necrosis was not found to be associated with the N-IMF distance (adjusted odds ratio[aOR]:1.05, 95%-CI 0.88–1.16). Resection weight was statistically associated with an increased risk of overall necrosis (aOR:1.003, 95%-CI 1.001–1.005), adjusting for N-IMF and SN N distances. Conclusion Inferior pedicle breast reduction offers low risk of necrosis and can be safely performed in patients regardless of the N-IMF distance. No association was found between N-IMF distance and overall necrosis in our cohort, including lengths >15 cm. However, large resections could increase the risk of necrosis.

Summary Background Publication of research in highly regarded journals is a laborious journey that requires a considerable amount of effort and time. The objective of this article is to obtain insight into the time required for articles to be accepted and published in the top six plastic surgery journals and to study the effects of article characteristics on their publication time. Methods A comprehensive review of all articles published by six scientific plastic surgery journals during a one-year period (2018) was performed. Time taken from submission to acceptance, online, and in-print publication was abstracted and analyzed. Results A total of 1141 articles were reviewed. The median total time (TT) from submission to in-print publication was 10.3 months (IQR 8–12.6), with a median time of 4.6 months (3–6.8) from submission to acceptance and 5.4 months (4.2–6.3) from acceptance to publication. TT varied among journals, ranging from 7.2 months for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery to 16.1 months for Microsurgery. The articles were available online after a median of 21 days from their acceptance date. When comparing our results to publication times in 2005, most journals showed a decrease in their total publication time. Conclusion Our study highlights the time taken for publication and the differences between plastic surgery journals and study characteristics. Most journals have demonstrated a quicker turnaround time during the last 13 years. Online publication has greatly decreased the time between acceptance and in-print publication. We advocate for improving certain areas of this timeline, but this improvement should not be at the expense of review quality.

This video demonstrates a technique for using a pedicled gracilis muscle flap to repair rectovaginal fistula.We present the case of a 48-year-old woman diagnosed with rectal cancer 2 years earlier. She underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by ultralow anterior resection. Six weeks after surgery, a fistula was identified at the anastomotic site. Preoperative planning with urogynecology, plastic surgery, and colon and rectal surgery teams deemed a pedicled gracilis muscle flap to be the best approach for this patient due to the rich blood supply and the patient's prior history of pelvic irradiation. The gracilis muscle is suitable due to the proximity of its vascular pedicle to the perineum, length, and minimal functional donor-site morbidity. We discuss techniques used to interpose a gracilis muscle flap between the rectum and vagina to repair a rectovaginal fistula.Using the gracilis muscle is a viable option for repairing rectovaginal fistulas, especially in the setting of prior pelvic radiation. A multispecialty approach may be beneficial in complex cases to determine the optimal approach for repair.