Anatomical considerations to prevent facial nerve injury

Injury to the facial nerve during a face lift is a relatively rare but serious complication. A large body of literature has been dedicated toward bettering the understanding of the anatomical course of the facial nerve and the relative danger zones. Most of these prior reports, however, have focused on identifying the location of facial nerve branches based on their trajectory mostly in two dimensions and rarely in three dimensions. Unfortunately, the exact location of the facial nerve relative to palpable or visible facial landmarks is quite variable. Although the precise location of facial nerve branches is variable, its relationship to soft-tissue planes is relatively constant. The focus of this report is to improve understanding of facial soft-tissue anatomy so that safe planes of dissection during surgical undermining may be identified for each branch of the facial nerve. Certain anatomical locations more prone to injury and high-risk patient parameters are further emphasized to help minimize the risk of facial nerve injury during rhytidectomy

Implant-based immediate breast reconstruction in the previously augmented patient

Background: Millions of women have undergone augmentation mammaplasty with implants and breast cancer continuing to be the most common non-cutaneous malignancy in female patients. Reconstructive surgeons will inevitably encounter breast cancer patients with prior augmentation. Implant-based techniques represent the most common form of breast reconstruction overall and remains a common option among those who were previously augmented. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate outcomes of implant-based reconstruction in previously augmented women. Methods: A retrospective review from September 2004 to December 2009 was performed. 38 women (63 breasts) with a history of prior augmentation (PA) who underwent implant-based reconstruction were identified and compared to a non-prior augmented (NPA) control group (77 patients; 138 breasts). Normative data, augmentation details, reconstruction method, complication rates, and revision rates were evaluated. Results: The total complication rate was significantly different between the two groups with 18 complications (28.6%) occurring in 9 PA breasts and 20 complications (14.5%) in 19 NPA breasts (p-value 0.037). When analyzed by specific complication subtypes, capsular contracture was the only complication that bordered significance between the two cohorts (p-value 0.057). Complication rates were otherwise similar regardless of augmentation or reconstruction type. Conclusion: Implant-based reconstruction is a safe option for previously augmented patients that is able to provide outcomes similar to non-augmented patients. Results are not affected by the location of previous implants or the implant-based reconstruction method. There may be a higher incidence of capsular contracture in the previously augmented patient that warrants further investigation and preoperative discussion. (C) 2015 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved