-
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Sep 2022: Lipofilling is a commonly performed procedure worldwide for breast augmentation and correction of breast contour deformities. In breast reconstruction, fat grafting... (Review)
Review
: Lipofilling is a commonly performed procedure worldwide for breast augmentation and correction of breast contour deformities. In breast reconstruction, fat grafting has been used as a single reconstructive technique, as well as in combination with other procedures. The aim of the present study is to systematically review available studies in the literature describing the combination of implant-based breast reconstruction and fat grafting, focusing on safety, complications rate, surgical sessions needed to reach a satisfying reconstruction, and patient-reported outcomes. : We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) throughout the whole review protocol. A systematic review of the literature up to April 2022 was performed using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Only studies dealing with implant-based breast reconstruction combined with fat grafting were included. : We screened 292 articles by title and abstract. Only 48 articles were assessed for full-text eligibility, and among those, 12 studies were eventually selected. We included a total of 753 breast reconstructions in 585 patients undergoing mastectomy or demolitive breast surgeries other than mastectomy (quadrantectomy, segmentectomy, or lumpectomy) due to breast cancer or genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Overall, the number of complications was 60 (7.9%). The mean volume of fat grafting per breast per session ranged from 59 to 313 mL. The mean number of lipofilling sessions per breast ranged from 1.3 to 3.2. : Hybrid breast reconstruction shows similar short-term complications to standard implant-based reconstruction but with the potential to significantly decrease the risk of long-term complications. Moreover, patient satisfaction was achieved with a reasonably low number of lipofilling sessions (1.7 on average).
Topics: Adipose Tissue; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36143908
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58091232 -
Gland Surgery Aug 2019We review the current literature for validated patient related outcome measures (PROM) in breast augmentation mammoplasty (BAM). Using Medline search between 1966 to... (Review)
Review
We review the current literature for validated patient related outcome measures (PROM) in breast augmentation mammoplasty (BAM). Using Medline search between 1966 to 2018, using the search strategy ("patient reported outcome measure" OR "surveys or questionnaires") AND "breast" AND ("augment" OR "implant") was performed. A manual search with Google Scholar using the search term "Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Bilateral Augmentation Mammaplasty" was also performed. Once the search yielded its results, a further search of bibliographic references within the articles was also performed. The Medline computer search produced 72 results, with a Google Scholar search yielding two results and a bibliographic search of all articles revealing a further single result. Ten studies were included as they used validated PROM. Three articles used the same PROM (Breast-Q) and seven used different PROM, therefore 8 validated PROM were discovered. Bilateral augmentation mammoplasty has been demonstrated to confer an increase in patient reported outcomes in domains of satisfaction with breasts and psychological well-being. There is some decrease in physical well-being following this procedure. Validated PROMs provide objective data relating to different aspects of BAM. Combined with traditional surgeon-based outcome measures and implant registry data, they may provide a more comprehensive insight into the patient journey.
PubMed: 31538068
DOI: 10.21037/gs.2019.03.10 -
Plastic Surgery (Oakville, Ont.) Feb 2017The objective of this study is to analyze the efficacy of local bupivacaine irrigation after augmentation mammoplasty for the control of postoperative pain.
BACKGROUND
The objective of this study is to analyze the efficacy of local bupivacaine irrigation after augmentation mammoplasty for the control of postoperative pain.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted including all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the irrigation of bupivacaine (±ketorolac) versus normal saline or no irrigation for pain control after breast augmentation. The primary outcome was postoperative pain measured by visual analog scale. The study protocol was established a priori according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. A bibliographical search was conducted in September 2015 in the following Cochrane Library databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scielo. The strategy used for the search was ((augmentation AND ("mammoplasty"[MeSH Terms] OR "mammoplasty")) OR (("breast"[MeSH Terms] OR "breast") AND augmentation)) AND (("pain, postoperative"[MeSH Terms])).
RESULTS
Four RCTs with a total of 264 participants were included. Two trials compared bupivacaine alone versus placebo (normal saline or no irrigation) and 3 trials compared bupivacaine plus ketorolac versus placebo. The combined irrigation of bupivacaine and ketorolac showed a clinically significant reduction of pain in the first postoperative hour and on postoperative day 5. The irrigation with bupivacaine compared with placebo significantly reduced pain assessed on postoperative day 4.
CONCLUSION
The irrigation of bupivacaine with or without ketorolac was associated with a reduction of postoperative pain compared with control groups for the first 5 postoperative days. Due to the few number of trials included, these results should be correlated further clinically.
PubMed: 29026810
DOI: 10.1177/2292550317693816 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Wound drains are often used after plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast, in order to reduce potential complications. It is unclear whether there is any... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Wound drains are often used after plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast, in order to reduce potential complications. It is unclear whether there is any evidence to support this practice and we therefore undertook a systematic review of the best evidence available.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the safety and efficacy of the use of wound drains following elective plastic and reconstructive surgery procedures of the breast.
SEARCH METHODS
For the first update of this review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4 March 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to March 3 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations March 3 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to March 3 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to March 4 2015). There were no restrictions on the basis of date or language of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Three review authors undertook independent screening of the search results. All randomised trials (RCTs) that compared the use of a wound drain with no wound drain following plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast (breast augmentation, breast reduction and breast reconstruction) in women were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors undertook independent data extraction of study characteristics, methodological quality and outcomes (e.g. infection, other wound complications, pain, and length of hospital stay). Risk of bias was assessed independently by two review authors. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis.
MAIN RESULTS
Three randomised trials were identified and included in the review out of 190 studies that were initially screened; all evaluated wound drainage after breast reduction surgery. No new trials were identified for this first update. In total there were 306 women in the three trials, and 505 breasts were studied (254 drained, and 251 who were not drained). Apart from a significantly shorter duration of hospital stay for those participants who did not have drains (MD 0.77; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.14), there was no statistically significant impact of the use of drains on outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The limited evidence available shows no significant benefit of using post-operative wound drains in reduction mammoplasty, though hospital stay may be shorter when drains are not used. No data are available for breast augmentation or breast reconstruction, and this requires investigation.
Topics: Drainage; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Mammaplasty; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26487173
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007258.pub3 -
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aug 2021Medical tourism is expanding on a global basis, with patients seeking cosmetic surgery in countries abroad. Little information is known regarding the risks and outcomes... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Medical tourism is expanding on a global basis, with patients seeking cosmetic surgery in countries abroad. Little information is known regarding the risks and outcomes of cosmetic tourism, in particular, for aesthetic breast surgery. The majority of the literature involves retrospective case series with no defined comparator. We aimed to amalgamate the published data to date to ascertain the risks involved and the outcomes of cosmetic tourism for aesthetic breast surgery on a global basis.
METHODS
A systematic review of PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and OVID Medline was conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Keywords such as "medical tourism", "cosmetic tourism", "tourism", "tourist", "surgery", "breast" and "outcomes" were used. Seven hundred and seventy-one titles were screened, and 86 abstracts were reviewed leaving 35 full texts. Twenty-four of these met the inclusion criteria and were used to extract data for this systematic review.
RESULTS
One hundred and seventy-one patients partook in cosmetic tourism for aesthetic breast surgery. Forty-nine percent of patients had an implant-based procedure. Other procedures included: mastopexy (n=4), bilateral breast reduction (n=11) and silicone injections (n=2). Two-hundred and twenty-two complications were recorded, common complications included: wound infection in 39% (n=67), breast abscess/ collection in 12% (n=21), wound dehiscence in 12% (n= 20) and ruptured implant in 8% (n=13). Clavien-Dindo classification of the complications includes 88 (51%) IIIb complications with 103 returns to theatre, 2 class IV complications (ICU stay) and one class V death of a patient. Explantation occurred in 39% (n=32) of implant-based augmentation patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Aesthetic breast surgery tourism is popular within the cosmetic tourism industry. However, with infective complications (39%) and return to theatre rates (51%) significantly higher than expected, it is clear that having these procedures abroad significantly increases the risks involved. The high complication rate not only impacts individual patients, but also the home country healthcare systems. Professional bodies for cosmetic surgery in each country must highlight and educate patients how to lower this risk if they do choose to have cosmetic surgery abroad. In this current era of an intra-pandemic world where health care is already stretched, the burden from cosmetic tourism complications must be minimised.
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 .
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Esthetics; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Medical Tourism; Retrospective Studies; Surgery, Plastic; Tourism; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33876284
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-021-02251-1 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... Nov 2015Economic, cultural, and regulatory phenomena may explain recent popularization of implant-based augmentation in Asia; but the collective Eastern experience remains...
BACKGROUND
Economic, cultural, and regulatory phenomena may explain recent popularization of implant-based augmentation in Asia; but the collective Eastern experience remains limited. Asian surgeons and their patients rely on evidence-based medicine that originates elsewhere and may not be entirely relevant. Distinct anatomic and cultural features of Asian women warrant a tailored approach to breast augmentation. We explore the Asian experience with a thorough exploration of the recent literature.
METHODS
A literature search was performed for articles written after 2000, of Asian women who underwent augmentation mammoplasty using MEDLINE, Embase, and Pubmed Databases. Technique and outcomes data were summarized.
RESULTS
Twelve articles reported outcomes of 2089 women. Korea contributed most series (English language, 7), followed by China (3), Taiwan (1), and Japan (1). Silicone implants were used in 82.1% of women studied, and almost exclusively after 2009. More round (68.9%) than anatomic implants (31.1%) were placed. Non-inframammary (axillary, areolar, and umbilical) incisions were used in 96.9% of cases. Nearly all implants were positioned below the muscle or fascia; subglandular placement accounted for 1.1% of cases. Implant/nipple malposition (1.3%), capsular contracture (1.9%), hematoma (0.6%), and infection (0.2%) rates were reported in most series. Undesirable scarring was the most frequent complication (7.3%), but was reported only in 4 of 12 series.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies of Asian women undergoing augmentation mammoplasty are limited, often with ill-defined outcomes and inadequate follow-up. As experience accumulates, an expanding literature relevant to Asian women will provide evidence-based guidelines that improve outcomes and patient satisfaction, and foster innovation.
PubMed: 26893980
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000528 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Apr 2013To evaluate whether the stage distribution among women diagnosed as having breast cancer differs between those who have received breast implants for cosmetic purposes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate whether the stage distribution among women diagnosed as having breast cancer differs between those who have received breast implants for cosmetic purposes and those with no implants and to evaluate whether cosmetic breast augmentation before the detection of breast cancer is a predictor of post-diagnosis survival.
DESIGN
Systematic review of observational studies with two meta-analyses.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic search of the literature published before September 2012 conducted in Medline, Embase, Global health, CINAHL, IPAB, and PsycINFO.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligible publications were those that included women diagnosed as having breast cancer and who had had augmentation mammaplasty for cosmetic purposes.
RESULTS
The overall odds ratio of the first meta-analysis based on 12 studies was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.60; P=0.058; I(2)=35.6%) for a non-localized stage of breast cancer at diagnosis comparing women with implants who had breast cancer and women without implants who had breast cancer. The second meta-analysis, based on five studies, evaluated the relation between cosmetic breast implantation and survival. This meta-analysis showed reduced survival after breast cancer among women who had implants compared with those who did not (overall hazard ratio for breast cancer specific mortality 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.75).
CONCLUSIONS
The research published to date suggests that cosmetic breast augmentation adversely affects the survival of women who are subsequently diagnosed as having breast cancer. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as some studies included in the meta-analysis on survival did not adjust for potential confounders. Further investigations are warranted regarding diagnosis and prognosis of breast cancer among women with breast implants.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Breast Implantation; Breast Implants; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Surgery, Plastic; Survival Rate
PubMed: 23637132
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f2399 -
Tidsskrift For Den Norske Laegeforening... Feb 2010Rikshospitalet (The National Hospital) treats all transsexual patients in Norway. 50-70 patients are referred annually for assessment and about 20 of these are diagnosed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Rikshospitalet (The National Hospital) treats all transsexual patients in Norway. 50-70 patients are referred annually for assessment and about 20 of these are diagnosed as transsexual. Approximately 15 confirmed transsexuals, who have received hormone treatment, are referred to sex reassignment surgery per year. This article describes diagnosis and treatment of transsexualism with an emphasis on surgery.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The article is based on a non-systematic review of the literature and our own clinical experience.
RESULTS
Patients are evaluated for sex reassignment surgery after at least one year of psychiatric evaluation and an additional year of endocrine treatment. Male-to-female patients are evaluated for breast augmentation if hormone therapy has given unsatisfactory results. Thereafter, genital surgery can be performed, i.e. the testis and corpus cavernosum are removed and a neovagina and neoclitoris are constructed. Female-to-male patients have the possibility to undergo breast reduction, hysterectomy, salpingoophorectomy and construction of a neopenis. If the patient responds well to male hormones, the clitoris can be straightened and reconstructed as a small neopenis with an erectile function (metaidoioplasty). Alternatively, phalloplasty is performed using the local groin flap or a microvascular free flap.
INTERPRETATION
Sex reassignment surgery mainly consists of operations on breasts and genitalia.
Topics: Breast Implants; Diagnosis, Differential; Female; Humans; Male; Mammaplasty; Patient Satisfaction; Penis; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Transsexualism; Treatment Outcome; Vagina
PubMed: 20220861
DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.08.0670 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Despite multi-modal analgesic techniques, acute postoperative pain remains an unmet health need, with up to three quarters of people undergoing surgery reporting... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite multi-modal analgesic techniques, acute postoperative pain remains an unmet health need, with up to three quarters of people undergoing surgery reporting significant pain. Liposomal bupivacaine is an analgesic consisting of bupivacaine hydrochloride encapsulated within multiple, non-concentric lipid bi-layers offering a novel method of sustained-release analgesia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain.
SEARCH METHODS
On 13 January 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, ISI Web of Science and reference lists of retrieved articles. We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched clinical trials databases for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials in people aged 18 years or over undergoing elective surgery, at any surgical site, were included if they compared liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site with placebo or other type of analgesia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed data analysis using standard statistical techniques as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, using Review Manager 5.3. We planned to perform a meta-analysis and produce a 'Summary of findings' table for each comparison however there were insufficient data to ensure a clinically meaningful answer. As such we have produced two 'Summary of findings' tables in a narrative format. Where possible we assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified nine studies (10 reports, 1377 participants) that met inclusion criteria. Four Phase II dose-escalating/de-escalating trials, designed to evaluate and demonstrate efficacy and safety, presented pooled data that we could not use. Of the remaining five parallel-arm studies (965 participants), two were placebo controlled and three used bupivacaine hydrochloride local anaesthetic infiltration as a control. Using the Cochrane tool, we judged most studies to be at unclear risk of bias overall; however, two studies were at high risk of selective reporting bias and four studies were at high risk of bias due to size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm).Three studies (551 participants) reported the primary outcome cumulative pain intensity over 72 hours following surgery. Compared to placebo, liposomal bupivacaine was associated with a lower cumulative pain score between the end of the operation (0 hours) and 72 hours (one study, very low quality). Compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, two studies showed no difference for this outcome (very low quality evidence), however due to differences in the surgical population and surgical procedure (breast augmentation versus knee arthroplasty) we did not perform a meta-analysis.No serious adverse events were reported to be associated with the use of liposomal bupivacaine and none of the five studies reported withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events (moderate quality evidence).One study reported a lower mean pain score at 12 hours associated with liposomal bupivacaine compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, but not at 24, 48 or 72 hours postoperatively (very low quality evidence).Two studies (382 participants) reported a longer time to first postoperative opioid dose compared to placebo (low quality evidence).Two studies (325 participants) reported the total postoperative opioid consumption over the first 72 hours: one study reported a lower cumulative opioid consumption for liposomal bupivacaine compared to placebo (very low quality evidence); one study reported no difference compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride (very low quality evidence).Three studies (492 participants) reported the percentage of participants not requiring postoperative opioids over initial 72 hours following surgery. One of the two studies comparing liposomal bupivacaine to placebo demonstrated a higher number of participants receiving liposomal bupivacaine did not require postoperative opioids (very low quality evidence). The other two studies, one versus placebo and one versus bupivacaine hydrochloride, found no difference in opioid requirement (very low quality evidence). Due to significant heterogeneity between the studies (I = 92%) we did not pool the results.All the included studies reported adverse events within 30 days of surgery, with nausea, constipation and vomiting being the most common. Of the five parallel-arm studies, none performed or reported health economic assessments or patient-reported outcomes other than pain.Using GRADE, the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. The major limitation was the sparseness of data for outcomes of interest. In addition, a number of studies had a high risk of bias resulting in further downgrading.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Liposomal bupivacaine at the surgical site does appear to reduce postoperative pain compared to placebo, however, at present the limited evidence does not demonstrate superiority to bupivacaine hydrochloride. There were no reported drug-related serious adverse events and no study withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events. Overall due to the low quality and volume of evidence our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and the true effect may be substantially different from our estimate.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Bupivacaine; Humans; Liposomes; Mammaplasty; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28146271
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011419.pub2 -
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2023Silicone implants or tissue expanders placed under the pectoralis major (PM) muscle are often used for breast reconstruction. However, the disruption of PM insertions,... (Review)
Review
Silicone implants or tissue expanders placed under the pectoralis major (PM) muscle are often used for breast reconstruction. However, the disruption of PM insertions, which is often an inevitable part of the surgical procedure, is known to cause PM morbidity and, subsequently, problems with the use of the ipsilateral arm. In this systematic review, we present current knowledge regarding the effect of submuscular silicone-based breast reconstruction on the function of PM and the ipsilateral arm. A search of the relevant English literature was performed through PubMed and ten eligible studies were identified. Articles reporting breast augmentation were accepted as the techniques of implant insertion are similar to reconstruction. Questionnaires reporting the status of the arm, analysis of the range of motion of the shoulder with 3-D video, isometric or isokinetic dynamometry, ultrasound shear-wave elastography, volumetric MRI, electromyography and light and electron microscopy of the PM fibers were used for the assessment of PM and arm status. The insertion of implants under the PM, especially when combined with dissection of some of its insertions, seems to be associated with measurable abnormal microscopic, imaging, and dynamometric findings. However, the intact part of the muscle and possibly other nearby muscular structures are able to compensate for the lost part of PM. Thus, the insertion of implants fully or partially under the PM seems to have no or little effect on the function of the ipsilateral upper limb in daily life.
Topics: Pectoralis Muscles; Silicones; Mammaplasty; Prostheses and Implants; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Breast Implants
PubMed: 37652471
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13289