In the Age of Breast Augmentation, Breast Reconstruction Provides an Opportunity to Augment the Breast

Background: Augmentation mammoplasty remains the most common cosmetic surgery procedure performed. The objective of this article is to evaluate the impact of augmented volume of the reconstructed breast in patients that undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy and patients previously augmented who undergo mastectomy with tissue expander/implant-based reconstruction. Methods: Patients undergoing skin-sparing mastectomy, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and mastectomy after previous augmentation followed by tissue expander/implant-based reconstruction between June 2011 and April 2015 by 2 surgeons at the same institution were included. Retrospective chart review of the patients identified using these criteria was performed to record patient characteristics, complications, breast volume, implant volume, and percentage change in volume at the time of reconstruction. Percentage change of breast volume was calculated using the formula (implant breast weight)/(breast weight) for skin-sparing and nipple-sparing mastectomy patients and (final breast implant weight − [breast weight + augmentation breast implant weight])/([breast weight + augmentation breast implant]) for patients undergoing mastectomy following previous augmentation. Results: A total of 293 patients were included in the study with 63 patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy, 166 patients who underwent skin-sparing mastectomy, and 64 patients who underwent previous augmentation with subsequent mastectomy. Mean percentage change in breast volume was 66% in the nipple-sparing mastectomy group, 15% for the right breast and 18% for the left breast in the skin-sparing mastectomy group, and 81% for the right breast and 72% for the left breast in the mastectomy following previous augmentation group. Complication rate for nipple-sparing mastectomy was 27%, mastectomy following previous augmentation was 20.3%, and skin-sparing mastectomy group was 18.7%. Conclusion: Patients who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy or mastectomy following previous augmentation have the ability to achieve greater volume in their reconstructed breast via tissue expander/implant-based reconstruction

In the Age of Breast Augmentation, Breast Reconstruction Provides an Opportunity to Augment the Breast

Background: Augmentation mammoplasty remains the most common cosmetic surgery procedure performed. The objective of this article is to evaluate the impact of augmented volume of the reconstructed breast in patients that undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy and patients previously augmented who undergo mastectomy with tissue expander/implant-based reconstruction. Methods: Patients undergoing skin-sparing mastectomy, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and mastectomy after previous augmentation followed by tissue expander/implant-based reconstruction between June 2011 and April 2015 by 2 surgeons at the same institution were included. Retrospective chart review of the patients identified using these criteria was performed to record patient characteristics, complications, breast volume, implant volume, and percentage change in volume at the time of reconstruction. Percentage change of breast volume was calculated using the formula (implant breast weight)/(breast weight) for skin-sparing and nipple-sparing mastectomy patients and (final breast implant weight − [breast weight + augmentation breast implant weight])/([breast weight + augmentation breast implant]) for patients undergoing mastectomy following previous augmentation. Results: A total of 293 patients were included in the study with 63 patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy, 166 patients who underwent skin-sparing mastectomy, and 64 patients who underwent previous augmentation with subsequent mastectomy. Mean percentage change in breast volume was 66% in the nipple-sparing mastectomy group, 15% for the right breast and 18% for the left breast in the skin-sparing mastectomy group, and 81% for the right breast and 72% for the left breast in the mastectomy following previous augmentation group. Complication rate for nipple-sparing mastectomy was 27%, mastectomy following previous augmentation was 20.3%, and skin-sparing mastectomy group was 18.7%. Conclusion: Patients who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy or mastectomy following previous augmentation have the ability to achieve greater volume in their reconstructed breast via tissue expander/implant-based reconstruction

Outcomes in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap and Implant-Based Reconstruction: Does Age Really Matter?

Despite the growing elderly population, there is limited research specific to this demographic concerning breast reconstruction (BR). Lack of evidence-based BR recommendations in older populations may contribute to misconceptions and subsequent underutilization of BR, especially autologous BR. Patients who received either deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap BR or tissue expander/implant (TE/I) BR by a single surgeon between July 2011 and July 2015 were surveyed postoperatively by using the psychometrically validated BREAST-Q questionnaire to determine patient satisfaction. Patients were categorized into younger and older cohorts based on median age (55 years) and further stratified based on the type of reconstruction. Of the 311 patients surveyed, 95 patients responded (31% response rate). Overall, younger patients (\u3c55 years old, n = 42) compared with older patients (≥55 years old, n = 53) had significantly higher satisfaction with their outcome (mean difference [MD] 12.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-23.15; P = 0.034). In the TE/I group (n = 58), younger patients had significantly higher satisfaction with breasts (MD: 14.17; 95% CI: 2.58-25.75; P = .017) and outcome (MD: 18.25; 95% CI: 3.95-32.5; P = .010) with fewer complications (odds ratio [OR]: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.37-7.86; P = .010). In the DIEP flap group (n = 55), there was no significant difference inr any of the satisfaction outcomes between younger and older patients. Younger patients tend to be more satisfied and demonstrate fewer complications with implant-based BR. In contrast, both younger and older patients undergoing abdominally based autologous BR were equally satisfied with comparable outcome

Outcomes in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap and Implant-Based Reconstruction: Does Age Really Matter?

Despite the growing elderly population, there is limited research specific to this demographic concerning breast reconstruction (BR). Lack of evidence-based BR recommendations in older populations may contribute to misconceptions and subsequent underutilization of BR, especially autologous BR. Patients who received either deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap BR or tissue expander/implant (TE/I) BR by a single surgeon between July 2011 and July 2015 were surveyed postoperatively by using the psychometrically validated BREAST-Q questionnaire to determine patient satisfaction. Patients were categorized into younger and older cohorts based on median age (55 years) and further stratified based on the type of reconstruction. Of the 311 patients surveyed, 95 patients responded (31% response rate). Overall, younger patients (\u3c55 years old, n = 42) compared with older patients (≥55 years old, n = 53) had significantly higher satisfaction with their outcome (mean difference [MD] 12.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-23.15; P = 0.034). In the TE/I group (n = 58), younger patients had significantly higher satisfaction with breasts (MD: 14.17; 95% CI: 2.58-25.75; P = .017) and outcome (MD: 18.25; 95% CI: 3.95-32.5; P = .010) with fewer complications (odds ratio [OR]: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.37-7.86; P = .010). In the DIEP flap group (n = 55), there was no significant difference inr any of the satisfaction outcomes between younger and older patients. Younger patients tend to be more satisfied and demonstrate fewer complications with implant-based BR. In contrast, both younger and older patients undergoing abdominally based autologous BR were equally satisfied with comparable outcome

Outcomes of Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy Using Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap After Massive Weight Loss.

BACKGROUND: Because of the correlation between breast cancer and obesity, plastic surgeons may encounter patients requiring reconstructive breast surgery after massive weight loss (MWL). Use of redundant abdominal skin for deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap in these patients is a novel concept whose value has not been adequately studied. OBJECTIVE: Assess the outcomes of the DIEP technique for breast reconstruction in the massive weight loss population. PATIENTS: From 103 breast reconstruction patients having 150 DIEP flap procedures, 9 DIEP flaps were performed in MWL patients. Propensity score matching was used in a 1:2 ratio. Eighteen nonweight loss (NWL) patients were selected for comparison with 9 DIEP flaps performed in 6 MWL patients. MEASUREMENTS: Patients in 2 groups were matched for age and body mass index (BMI). Massive weight loss patients were compared with NWL patients on the basis of immediate versus delayed reconstruction and history of radiation; DIEP flap characteristics, including coupler size, additional venous anastomosis, need for re-exploration, and flap loss; length of hospital stay; abdominal wound healing complication; and hernia or bulging. RESULTS: There was no difference in the incidence of flap failures, bulging, or hernias requiring surgery in the MWL group. Additionally, there was no statistical difference in flap survival, abdominal complications, hospitalization days, operative time, or operative characteristics between the 2 groups. There was a significant positive correlation between immediate wound healing complications and comorbidities (P = 0.041). However, there was no correlation between wound healing complications and weight loss history. LIMITATIONS: Only 6 MWL patients of a single surgeon were studied. CONCLUSIONS: For breast reconstruction after mastectomy, DIEP flaps can be used in MWL and NWL populations with equal flap success and abdominal donor site results. Therefore, cosmetic surgeons performing contouring procedures should consider sparing redundant abdominal tissues in patients requiring breast reconstruction

Vertical Mastectomy Incision in Implant Breast Reconstruction After Skin Sparing Mastectomy: Advantages and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The type of since skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) incision directly impacts the final aesthetic and functional results of reconstruction. Different incisions are used for SSM depending on tumor location, previous biopsy scars, breast weight, and ptosis degree. A vertical scar is less visible to the patient, reminiscent of a mastopexy, and patients may not have the stigma of mastectomy. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates complication rates, patient demographics, patient reported outcomes, and plastic surgeon evaluations to compare vertical incision mastectomy to other incisions. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, a retrospective chart review was performed. A total population of 167 patients that underwent mastectomy with tissue expander reconstruction was separated into vertical incision and nonvertical incision mastectomy groups consisting of 38 and 129 patients, respectively. Patient demographics, complications, tumor margins, staging, breast weight, and breast implant volume were compared. BREASTQ Survey analysis was conducted using patient reported outcomes from the patient\u27s perspective. Aesthetic evaluations of postoperative photos were systematically scored by plastic surgeons to obtain data from the plastic surgeon\u27s perspective. RESULTS: Vertical incision orientation did not increase surgical complication rates or mastectomy skin necrosis (P = 0.142). Vertical incisions did not interfere with obtaining adequate tumor margins (P = 0.907). Vertical incisions did not have a significantly different breast weight or implant volume. There was no statistical difference for patient satisfaction or plastic surgeon aesthetic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of vertical incision does not increase complication rates; does not interfere with tumor margins; and can be applied to all age, BMI, breast weight, and breast implant volume groups

Outcomes of Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy Using Tissue Expander and Implant Reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: Considerable attention has been given to patient-reported outcomes in breast reconstruction. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of postreconstruction change in breast volume on validated patient satisfaction survey scores. METHODS: Patients undergoing skin-sparing mastectomy followed by tissue expander/implant reconstruction between July 2010 and July 2014 by a single surgeon were given postoperative patient-reported satisfaction surveys (BREAST-Q). Retrospective chart review of patients with completed surveys was undertaken to record patient characteristics and compare preoperative breast volume (extrapolated from mastectomy mass) with postoperative implant volume, and percent change in volume was calculated. Regressions were utilized to correlate percent change with satisfaction in each category. RESULTS: A total of 160 patient surveys were included. Sixty-five percent of breasts analyzed had increased volume after reconstruction, whereas 35% had decreased volume. The increased volume group had significantly lower body mass index (P = 0.0001) and was significantly younger (P = 0.009) than the decreased volume group. Patients who experienced increase in breast volume reported statistically greater satisfaction with breasts (P = 0.019), overall outcome (P = 0.012), sexual well-being (P = 0.002), and information (P = 0.042) compared with the decreased volume group. Moreover, linear regression revealed that as percent change increased, so did satisfaction with outcome (P = 0.02), sexual well-being (P = 0.005), information (P = 0.018), and surgeon (P = 0.036). Notably, there was not a significant difference in complication rate (P = 0.146) or tumor margin (0.914) between the groups. CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction with final implants that are larger in volume than their native breasts have increased patient satisfaction scores in several categories without increase in complication rate or difference in tumor margin. There is a positive linear relationship between percent change and patient satisfaction

The ZEB1 pathway links glioblastoma initiation, invasion and chemoresistance

Glioblastoma remains one of the most lethal types of cancer, and is the most common brain tumour in adults. In particular, tumour recurrence after surgical resection and radiation invariably occurs regardless of aggressive chemotherapy. Here, we provide evidence that the transcription factor ZEB1 (zinc finger E‐box binding homeobox 1) exerts simultaneous influence over invasion, chemoresistance and tumourigenesis in glioblastoma. ZEB1 is preferentially expressed in invasive glioblastoma cells, where the ZEB1‐miR‐200 feedback loop interconnects these processes through the downstream effectors ROBO1, c‐MYB and MGMT. Moreover, ZEB1 expression in glioblastoma patients is predictive of shorter survival and poor Temozolomide response. Our findings indicate that this regulator of epithelial‐mesenchymal transition orchestrates key features of cancer stem cells in malignant glioma and identify ROBO1, OLIG2, CD133 and MGMT as novel targets of the ZEB1 pathway. Thus, ZEB1 is an important candidate molecule for glioblastoma recurrence, a marker of invasive tumour cells and a potential therapeutic target, along with its downstream effectors