Search

Background: Hematomas are reported to be the most common immediate complication in patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy, with rates substantially higher than those associated with other types of breast surgery. This study sought to examine the breadth of current literature and provide evidence-based explanations regarding the development of hematomas in chest masculinizing surgery and technical considerations for reducing their incidence., Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify all articles related to gender-affirming mastectomy published through September 2021. Literature search yielded 2,661 articles for screening, of which 20 met inclusion criteria. Themes from the selected articles were compiled to generate consensus statements qualified by associated level of evidence (LOE)., Results: The rate of hematoma following gender-affirming mastectomy is reported in the literature ranging from 0% to 31.2%. The use of more limited, nipple-sparing incisions is associated with a higher hematoma rate than mastectomy with free nipple grafting (Level III). There is no conclusive evidence indicating any relationship between the use of masculinizing hormones and the incidence of hematoma (Level IV). Factors such as body mass index (Level III) and breast size (Level III) were not found to influence hematoma risk, though nicotine use (Level IV) was significantly associated with the incidence of hematoma., Conclusions: Hematoma is a known complication following gender-affirming mastectomy. The use of limited incision approaches has the strongest association with an increased risk of hematoma. There is no evidence indicating an association between hormone use (i.e., testosterone) and hematoma incidence. Future studies are needed to better define factors, interventions, and protocols to reduce the rate of hematoma., Level of Evidence: III., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Understanding the risk factors that contribute to post-mastectomy complications can better inform preoperative discussions. Here, we assess the impact of the 5-Factor Frailty Index Score (mFI-5) in predicting 30-day postoperative complications in patients undergoing mastectomy. A retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) data base was conducted for patients older than 65 undergoing mastectomy between 2010 and 2015. We assessed each patient's Frailty Index Score using the mFI-5. Primary outcomes included wound complications and overall complications. Multivariate logistic and linear regression analyses were used to determine the ability of the mFI-5 to predict postoperative outcomes. A total of 13,783 patients were analyzed. The rate of wound complications was 3.0%, while the rate of overall complications was 6.0%. An mFI-5 score greater than 2 was an independent risk factor for wound complications and overall complications. Overall, patients undergoing mastectomy with an mFI-5 of 2 or greater experienced higher rates of postoperative complications. The mFI-5 is an accessible tool that can be used to risk-stratify patients undergoing mastectomy and can positively contribute to the informed consent and shared decision-making process., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The incidence of nipple-sparing mastectomy is rising, but no single incision type has been proven to be superior. This study systematically evaluated the rate and efficacy of various nipple-sparing mastectomy incision locations, focusing on nipple-areola complex necrosis and reconstructive method., Methods: A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines identifying studies on nipple-sparing mastectomy where incision type was described. Pooled descriptive statistics meta-analysis of overall (nipple-areola complex) necrosis rate and nipple-areola complex necrosis by incision type was performed., Results: Fifty-one studies (9975 nipple-sparing mastectomies) were included. Thirty-two incision variations were identified and categorized into one of six groups: inframammary fold, radial, periareolar, mastopexy/prior scar/reduction, endoscopic, and other. The most common incision types were inframammary fold [3634 nipple-sparing mastectomies (37.8 percent)] and radial [3575 nipple-sparing mastectomies (37.2 percent)]. Meta-analysis revealed an overall partial nipple-areola complex necrosis rate of 4.62 percent (95 percent CI, 3.14 to 6.37 percent) and a total nipple-areola complex necrosis rate of 2.49 percent (95 percent CI, 1.87 to 3.21 percent). Information on overall nipple-areola complex necrosis rate by incision type was available for 30 of 51 studies (4645 nipple-sparing mastectomies). Periareolar incision had the highest nipple-areola complex necrosis rate (18.10 percent). Endoscopic and mastopexy/prior scar/reduction incisions had the lowest rates of necrosis at 4.90 percent and 5.79 percent, respectively, followed by the inframammary fold incision (6.82 percent). The rate of single-stage implant reconstruction increased during this period., Conclusions: For nipple-sparing mastectomy, the periareolar incision maintains the highest necrosis rate because of disruption of the nipple-areola complex blood supply. The inframammary fold incision has become the most popular incision, demonstrating an acceptable complication profile.

Background: As the United States' population diversifies, eliminating disparities in health and healthcare has become increasingly important across all disciplines of medicine, including plastic and reconstructive surgery. This is evidenced by the growing body of literature in recent years focusing on disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. No study to date has evaluated whether this research is progressing appropriately to promote tangible evidence-based interventions to reduce these disparities., Methods: A systematic literature review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed to identify studies focusing on disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. A previously established public health framework for advancing health disparities research was used to inform analysis of the quality and progression of the included studies. This triphasic framework categorizes disparities research as follows: detecting (identifies and measures disparities in vulnerable populations), understanding (establishes determinants of disparities), or reducing (proposes and evaluates interventions for eliminating disparities)., Results: Ninety-five studies were identified between 1979 and 2016, with 61 (64.2%) published after 2010. The majority of studies (51.6%) were retrospective cohort or case-control studies (American Society of Plastic Surgery level III evidence). Fifty-eight (63.7%), 31 (34.1%), and 2 (2.2%) studies provided detecting-, understanding- and reducing-phase disparities research, respectively. Non-plastic and reconstructive surgery journals accounted for 70.5% of all articles and for most higher phase research articles, publishing 83.9% and 100% of second and third phase studies, respectively. Disparity categories investigated included race/ethnicity, age, income, insurance status/type, geography, and education level, with race/ethnicity being the most common (73.7%). The most commonly measured outcome was percent of subpopulation receiving reconstruction (63, 66.3%), followed by reconstruction type (14, 16.7%). Patient-, provider-, system-, and research-level factors were all identified as potential targets for interventions to reduce disparities., Conclusions: Despite a recent increase in literature focusing on postmastectomy breast reconstruction disparities, the majority focuses on identifying vulnerable populations with inadequate progression to second (understanding) and third (reducing) phases. Increasing research funding, availability of language-concordant and culturally concordant educational materials, and advocacy and sociopolitical awareness within the plastic surgery community is necessary to advance research on postmastectomy breast reconstruction and, ultimately, eliminate it.