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.)

Introduction: Reducing donor site morbidity after deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap harvest relies mainly upon maintaining integrity of the anterior rectus sheath fascia. The purpose of this study is to describe our minimally-invasive technique for robotic DIEP flap harvest., Methods: A retrospective review of four patients undergoing seven robotic-assisted DIEP flaps from 2019 to 2020 was conducted. Average patient age and BMI were 52 years (range: 45-60 years) and 26.7 kg/m 2 (range: 20.6-32.4 kg/m 2 ), respectively. Average follow-up was 6.31 months (range: 5.73-7.27 months). Robotic flap harvest was performed with intramuscular perforator dissection in standard fashion, followed by the transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) approach to DIEP pedicle harvest using the da Vinci Xi robot. Data was collected on demographic information, perioperative characteristics. Primary outcomes included successful flap harvest as well as donor site morbidity (e.g., abdominal bulge, hernia, bowel obstruction, etc.)., Results: All four patients underwent bilateral abdominally-based free flap reconstruction. Three patients received bilateral robotic DIEP flaps, and one patient underwent unilateral robotic DIEP flap reconstruction. The da Vinci Xi robot was used in all cases. Average flap weight and pedicle length were 522 g (range: 110-809 g) and 11.2 cm (range: 10-12 cm), respectively. There were no flap failures, and no patient experienced abdominal wall donor site morbidity on physical exam., Conclusion: While further studies are needed to validate its use, this report represents the largest series of robotic DIEP flap harvests to date and is a valuable addition to the literature., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Hematoma after non-oncologic breast surgery is a common concern requiring expeditious treatment. The purpose of this study is to perform an evidence-based review of perioperative factors that may contribute to hematoma in non-oncologic breast procedures., Methods: A comprehensive literature review was performed of non-oncologic breast procedures: breast augmentation, single-stage augmentation-mastopexy, mastopexy, and reduction. In total, 28 studies highlighting incidence and potential risk factors for hematoma were included; overall level of evidence was established regarding each perioperative factor examined and hematoma rate., Results: The hematoma rate in breast augmentation ranges from 0.2 to 5.7%. There is inconclusive evidence to support an association between pocket choice or incision location and hematoma rate (Level III) and no evidence of an association between implant type and hematoma (Level V). Single-stage augmentation-mastopexy may have a lower hematoma rate than augmentation alone (Level II). Hematoma may increase the risk of capsular contracture (Level III). In breast reduction, the hematoma rate ranges from 1.0 to 9.3%. Evidence of an association between incision choice and hematoma rate is inconclusive (Level III). Use of epinephrine-containing solution, pedicle choice, and resection weight do not appear to affect hematoma rate (Level V, II, and II, respectively). The use of postoperative drains and ketorolac do not affect the incidence of hematoma (Level I and III, respectively). Intraoperative hypotension may increase the risk of hematoma after breast reduction (Level III)., Conclusions: Breast hematomas are not uncommon complications. Current literature lacks ample evidence for risk factors for hematoma after non-oncologic breast procedures, warranting further, high-powered investigations., Level of Evidence Iii: 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 ., (© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.)

Background:  Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks have been shown to significantly reduce pain and narcotic consumption following major abdominal surgeries. This study investigates the literature on their use in microsurgical breast reconstruction., Patients and Methods:  A systematic review of TAP blocks in autologous breast reconstruction was performed., Results:  Across 10 included studies, 174 patients (5 studies) received an intraoperative TAP block injection, 185 patients (4 studies) received a TAP catheter for intermittent postoperative analgesia, and 325 patients served as controls for a total of 684 included patients. The majority of TAP block delivery techniques were ultrasound guided (7/10 studies). Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) was the most commonly used analgesic (4 studies and139 patients) followed by conventional bupivacaine (3 studies and 105 patients). Eight studies found a significant reduction in oral, intravenous, and/or total morphine requirements in the TAP group when either the daily average and/or total inpatient consumption was compared with the control. Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for patients undergoing single intraoperative TAP block injection with any analgesic as compared with standard narcotic-based protocols (mean difference= -0.95 days; 95% CI: -1.72 to -0.17 days; p  = 0.02). Looking at TAP blocks specifically with LB, there was a mean decrease of 0.83 days as compared with the control, which was not statistically significant (95% CI: -1.90 to 0.25 days; p  = 0.13)., Conclusion:  While the current data support the use of TAP blocks in autologous breast reconstruction, additional studies with more standardized protocols should be performed to determine the most optimal practice., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

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.

Introduction: Breast augmentation is the most common aesthetic surgery performed in the United States (US) annually. Analysis of Google Trends (GT) data may give plastic surgeons useful information regarding worldwide, national, and regional interest for breast augmentation and other commonly performed aesthetic surgeries., Methods: Data were collected using GT for breast augmentation and associated search terms from January 2004 to May 2017. Case volume was obtained from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) annual reports for the calendar year 2005-2016., Results: Trend analysis showed that total search term volume for breast augmentation and breast implants gradually decreased worldwide and in the US over the study period while the search term boob job slowly increased. Univariate linear regression demonstrated a statistically significant positive correlation between average annual Google search volume of "breast augmentation" and the annual volume of breast augmentations performed in the US according to ASPS data (R 2  = 0.44, p = 0.018). There was no significant correlation between national volume of breast augmentations performed and search volume using the terms "breast implants" or "boob job" over time (p = 0.84 and p = 0.07, respectively). In addition, there appears to be country specific variation in interest based on time of year and peaks in interest following specific policies., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first and only analysis of GT data in the plastic surgery literature to date. To that end, this study highlights this large and potentially powerful data set for plastic surgeons both in the US and around the world., Level of Evidence V: 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 .