Jacobson, Steven R.

Background Single-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction can offer several potential benefits. Subpectoral DTI reconstruction can present with animation deformity and pectoralis muscle spasm. To potentially avoid these complications, surgeons have attempted prepectoral placement for DTI; however, the benefits of this approach are mostly unknown. We evaluated the outcomes of DTI between prepectoral and subpectoral placement. Methods This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent immediate DTI breast reconstruction (prepectoral vs subpectoral) between 2011 and 2018. Demographics, clinical characteristics, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q) were compared. Results Thirty-three patients (55 breasts) underwent prepectoral DTI, and 42 patients (69 breasts) underwent subpectoral DTI. Demographics were similar among groups. The number of breasts with preoperative ptosis lower than grade 2 was not significantly different between groups (29.1% vs 26.1%; P = 0.699). Median follow-up was 20.3 and 21 months in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Average mastectomy weight was 300 g (180–425 g) and 355 g (203–500 g). Average implant size was 410 cc (330–465 cc) and 425 cc (315–534 cc) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Alloderm was used in all reconstructions. Total numbers of complications were 4 (7.2%) and 8 (11.6%) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively (P = 0.227). BREAST-Q demonstrated mean patient satisfaction was high and similar among groups (75 and 73.9, P = 0.211). Conclusions Based on these results, we believe prepectoral DTI is safe, reliable, and a promising reconstructive option for selected patients, with equivalent results to other reconstructive options. Our present treatment recommendations are for patients who wish to maintain the same breast size and have minimal or no breast ptosis.

Abstract Abstract 4908 Insulin resistance can be a major problem in patients with diabetes mellitus. Although multiple reasons can result in this problem, one of the rare causes is localized insulin induced cutaneous amyloidosis. Lack of recognition of this may result in fatal hypoglycemia if a higher dose of insulin is given at a different site. A 43-year-old female diagnosed with diabetes mellitus in 1986 after acute pancreatitis secondary to hypertriglyceridemia presented to our hospital in December of 2008 with a 2 year history of low grade fever of 99-100F. This was associated with chills and fatigue. Over the same time period she had noticed anterior abdominal wall nodularity, particularly at sites where she has been injecting her insulin. Her insulin requirement had also increased from a total of 60 units of NPH in a day to 170 units per day. Because of the subcutaneous nodularity at the site of injection a decision was made to switch the site of the insulin which resulted in lower blood glucose level and subsequently significant decrease in her insulin requirement to 120 units a day. This suggested poor absorption from the infiltrated site. At our clinic laboratory data showed normal white count of 5.4 × 10(9)/L with normal differential, normal hemoglobin of 12.9 g/dL with an ESR of 11 mm/hour, creatinine of 0.8 mg/dL and C-reactive protein of less than 3. As part of the work up for fever of unknown origin a CT-scan of the abdomen was obtained which showed infiltrative lesion in the anterior abdominal subcutaneous tissue with few calcifications Fig 1 & 2. Biopsy of the anterior abdominal wall nodular infiltrate was performed. Tissue cultures came out negative for infection. The biopsy showed eosinophilic material positive with Congo red staining and showing apple green birefringence when viewed under polarized light. Immunohistochemical staining showed this to be negative for AA, AL, or TTR amyloidosis. Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC MS/MS) detected peptides representing apolipoprotein E, apolipoprotein A-IV, SAP and Insulin. The amyloid deposits stained positive with anti-insulin. The presence of peptides from insulin and immunohistochemical reactivity with an anti-insulin antibody indicated that the amyloid deposits were caused by insulin injection at this site. Work up for systemic amyloidosis including serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation was negative for a monoclonal protein. Quantitative immunoglobulins were within normal range. Her 24-hour urine protein was 65 mg within normal range. Her serum free light chains were unremarkable. Echocardiogram did not show any evidence of infiltrative cardiomyopathy. This was therefore consistent with localized insulin induced cutaneous amyloidosis. The recommendation was to change the insulin type and to rotate the insulin injection site. Because of occasional hemorrhage and pain the long term plan will be to surgically remove the amyloid deposits. Insulin mediated iatrogenic localized amyloidosis has been described previously in the literature at the sites of insulin injection in patients with diabetes. This is a rare complication of insulin therapy and must be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients with insulin resistance to prevent fatal hypoglycemia. Fig 1. Amyloid infiltration in subcutaneous tissue of upper abdomen at insulin injection site Fig 1. Amyloid infiltration in subcutaneous tissue of upper abdomen at insulin injection site Fig 2. Amyloid infiltration in subcutaneous tissue of lower abdomen at insulin injection site Fig 2. Amyloid infiltration in subcutaneous tissue of lower abdomen at insulin injection site Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Surgical-site infection after implant-based breast reconstruction adversely affects surgical outcomes and increases health care costs. This 11-year case-control study examines risk factors specific for surgical-site infection after immediate tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods: The authors performed a retrospective review to identify all consecutive patients with breast implant infections between 2006 and 2016. Patients who developed surgical-site infection after immediate tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction were included. Surgical-site infection was defined using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria; specifically, infections requiring hospital admission, intravenous antibiotics, or surgical intervention were included. The authors matched a control patient to each infection case by patient age and date of surgery. Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and perioperative surgical variables were examined. Univariate and multivariable conditional logistic regression models were constructed. Results: A total of 270 breasts in 252 patients were evaluated. On multivariate analysis, patients with a higher body mass index (OR, 1.1 per 1 body mass index point increase; 95 percent CI, 1.0 to 1.2; p = 0.02), hypertension (OR, 6.5; 95 percent CI, 1.9 to 22.3; p = 0.002), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR, 2.6; 95 percent CI, 1.0 to 6.3; p = 0.04), axillary lymph node dissection (OR, 7.1; 95 percent CI, 1.7 to 29.2; p = 0.006), seroma formation (OR, 15.34; 95 percent CI, 3.7 to 62.5; p = 0.0001), and wound healing complications (OR, 23.91; 95 percent CI, 6.1 to 93.4; p < 0.0001) were significantly associated with surgical-site infection. Conclusions: Women with obesity, women with hypertension, and those treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy are at increased risk of surgical-site infection. Further risks are also associated with postoperative seroma and wound complications. This may help patient selection and counseling, adjusted based on risk factors regarding complications of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Background and objectives: Differences in patient anatomy and physiology exist between young and older patients undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Breast cancer has been described as being more aggressive, more likely to receive radiation, contralateral mastectomy, as well as bilateral reconstruction in young patients. Our purpose is to report long-term experience on two-staged implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) in young females, with complication sub-analysis based on obesity and adjuvant radiation. Materials and Methods: Retrospective chart review of all consecutive young patients who underwent two-staged IBR at our institution, between 2000 and 2016, was performed. Patients between 15 and 40 years old with least 1-year follow-up were included. Univariate logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were created. Results: Overall 594 breasts met our inclusion criteria. The mean age was 34 years, and the median follow-up was 29.6 months. Final IBR was achieved in 98% of breasts. Overall, 12% of breasts had complications, leading to explantations of 5% of the devices. Adjuvant radiation was followed by higher rates of total device explantations (p = 0.003), while obese patients had higher rates of total complications (p < 0.001). For each point increase in BMI, the odds of developing complications increased 8.1% (p < 0.001); the cutoff BMI to predict higher complications was 24.81 kg/m2. Conclusions: This population demonstrates high successful IBR completion and low explantation rates. These data suggest that obese women and those with planned adjuvant radiation deserve special counseling about their higher risk of complications.

Background: Two-staged implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is the most common breast reconstructive modality. Recently, technological and surgical advances have encouraged surgeons to revisit prepectoral IBR. Data comparing prepectoral against subpectoral IBR in women under the age of 40 are lacking. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients under the age of 40 years old, who underwent immediate 2-staged IBR at our institution, was performed. Patient’s demographics, clinical characteristics, operative details, and early surgical outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction were compared. Data with values of P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Between 2012 and 2016, 100 patients (187 breasts) who underwent prepectoral and 69 patients (124 breasts) who underwent subpectoral IBR were included. Median follow-up was 17.9 and 17.5 months in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Total number of complications including both stages of reconstruction was 20 (10.7%) and 19 (15.3%) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively (P = 0.227). Specific complications, including hematoma, seroma, skin flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, and breast infections, were not significantly different among groups. Ten (5.4%) devices, including implants and tissue expander, required explantation in the prepectoral group and 8 (6.5%) in the subpectoral group (P = 0.683). Explantation was most commonly due to infection (n = 14), and all of them occurred during the first stage (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Early complications and implant explantation rates are comparable among prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction in women under 40 years old. Based on these results, we believe that prepectoral IBR is a safe, reliable, and promising reconstructive option.

Background: Two-stage subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common method for breast reconstruction. Recent advances in surgical techniques and technology have made prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction feasible. There are limited data on outcomes after prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction and postmastectomy radiation therapy. Methods: A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing immediate two-stage prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with postmastectomy radiation therapy was performed. Outcomes of irradiated breasts were compared with nonirradiated breasts in bilateral cases. Results: Ninety-three cases of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction in 54 women who underwent immediate two-stage reconstruction (39 bilateral and 15 unilateral) and unilateral postmastectomy radiation therapy were identified. Mean follow-up was 19 months from mastectomy and tissue expander reconstruction and 9 months from implant placement. Crude complication rates in irradiated versus nonirradiated sides were as follows: surgical-site infection, 18.5 percent versus 7.7 percent; seroma, 5.6 percent versus 5.1 percent; mastectomy skin flap necrosis, 1.9 percent versus 2.6 percent; wound dehiscence, 1.9 percent versus 7.7 percent; capsular contracture, 1.9 percent versus 0 percent; hematoma, 1.9 percent versus 2.6 percent; and extrusion, 1.9 percent versus 0 percent. On univariate analysis, there were no risk factors associated with any complication, including radiation therapy, surgical-site infection, unplanned readmissions, and unplanned return to the operating room. To date, reconstruction has been completed in 96 percent of patients, with successful implant-based breast reconstruction in 81 breasts (45 irradiated breasts and 36 nonirradiated breasts). Conclusions: Early data of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction in patients with postmastectomy radiation therapy show promising results. Postmastectomy radiation therapy should not be an absolute contraindication to prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.