Search

Introduction: Total breast reconstruction with autologous fat transfer (AFT) is a relatively new breast reconstruction method. Although AFT was predominantly used to correct postsurgical defects, the surgical skills of a total breast reconstruction with AFT are different and can be facilitated for novices to accelerate their learning process. This study aims to assess the learning curve of plastic surgeons in total breast reconstruction with AFT in the Netherlands., Methods: A mixed-methods study was performed based on the multicenter randomized clinical BREAST trial data. For the qualitative analysis, semistructured interviews were conducted. To test hypotheses derived from the qualitative data, retrospective data analysis was performed using multilevel linear regression analysis of the patients undergoing AFT as a total breast reconstruction method., Results: The interviews revealed that plastic surgeons need to perform the procedure several times to learn and experience the technical details of total breast reconstruction with AFT. Learning and improving this technique works best by scrubbing in with an expert. Before plastic surgeons learn the optimal volume of fat reinjection over time, they tend to inject too little fat and subsequently too much fat over multiple procedures. With more experience, the rigottomy technique becomes more important. Besides technical details, managing patient expectations before starting treatment is paramount. Multilevel linear regression revealed a significant decrease ( P < 0.001) in the number of surgical procedures and the total injected volume ( P = 0.002) to complete a total breast reconstruction with AFT., Conclusions: This is the first study that explores the learning curve involved in using AFT as a total breast reconstruction method. The feeling of when fat transfer is sufficient, and how to release scars for a good result without causing seromas, is best learned by scrubbing in with experienced colleagues during several procedures, interchanged with starting one's own practice., Competing Interests: The authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Autologous fat transfer (AFT) is increasingly used in breast reconstructive surgery. Due to post-surgical changes, in breast imaging after AFT, it can be challenging to differentiate between benign and suspicious findings. This systematic review aimed to present an overview of the literature on breast imaging after AFT-based breast reconstruction. The descriptive radiologic findings focus on different breast imaging modalities (i.e., mammography (MG), ultrasound (US), and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) to provide an overview of the most commonly reported benign and suspicious findings., Results: The literature search yielded 20 studies from 2006-2022 that reported AFT-based breast reconstructions and included the radiologic evaluation of the included breast imaging modalities. Only six of the 20 included studies provided qualitative descriptions of radiologic findings. Fat necrosis was most frequently reported. On MG, fat necrosis was described in a variety of stages such as oil cyst or cytosteatonecrosis with or without calcifications. On US, it was described as a nonvascular hypo- or anechoic mass, and on breast MRI, it was most frequently reported as hypointense homogenous architectural distortion. Additional biopsies to differentiate between benign and malignant findings after AFT-based breast reconstruction were reported in 13 of the 20 studies. Among all included studies in the current review, a total of 34 of 137 biopsies were considered malignant (24.8%)., Conclusion: Qualitative descriptions of the reported radiologic findings after AFT for breast reconstruction were limited. Additional biopsies can be considered to differentiate between benign and suspicious findings. More experience and research are necessary to improve the interpretation of breast imaging after AFT-based breast reconstructions., (© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.)

Background: Quality strategies, interventions, and frameworks have been developed to facilitate a better understanding of healthcare systems. Reporting adverse events is one of these strategies. Gynaecology and obstetrics are one of the specialties with many adverse events. To understand the main causes of medical errors in gynaecology and obstetrics and how they could be prevented, we conducted this systematic review. Methods: This systematic review was performed in compliance with the Prisma 2020 guidelines. We searched several databases for relevant studies (Jan 2010-May 2023). Studies were included if they indicated the presence of any potential risk factor at the hospital level for medical errors or adverse events in gynaecology or obstetrics. Results: We included 26 articles in the quantitative analysis of this review. Most of these ( n = 12) are cross-sectional studies; eight are case-control studies, and six are cohort studies. One of the most frequently reported contributing factors is delay in healthcare. In addition, the availability of products and trained staff, team training, and communication are often reported to contribute to near-misses/maternal deaths. Conclusions: All risk factors that were found in our review imply several categories of contributing factors regarding: (1) delay of care, (2) coordination and management of care, and (3) scarcity of supply, personnel, and knowledge.