Explore the vast range of titles available.

Few studies have reported the outcomes of LDF and immediate fat transfer (LIFT) during breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes and complications of LIFT and standard LDF (without immediate fat transfer) for breast reconstruction. We retrospectively reviewed charts from patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction after total mastectomy between 2011 and 2021. We compared intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between groups. One hundred nineteen reconstructions (61.02%) were performed with LIFT, while seventy-six (38.98%) were performed with standard LDF. The median volume of total fat transferred during LIFT was 125-cc [110–170 ​cc]. The rates of donor site wound disruption (23.7% versus 12.6%, p ​= ​0.044) were higher using the standard LDF compared to LIFT. Reconstructions performed with LIFT (HR 4.01, p ​< ​0.001) were found to be associated with secondary fat grafting procedures. LIFT is a safe procedure to enhance the volume of LDF in patients desiring autologous reconstruction without increasing recipient-site morbidity. On a time-to-event analysis, LIFT was associated with the requirement of further revision procedures using secondary fat grafting. •LIFT is a safe procedure to enhance the volume of the LDF. A higher rate of revision procedures was evident with LIFT, but lower fat grafting volumes are required during revision procedures compared to the standard LDF if these are needed.

Background: Primary lymphedema is a chronic condition caused by a developmental abnormality of the lymphatic system, leading to its malfunction. Various surgical options, including physiologic and excisional procedures, have been proposed. The aim of this study was to present a comprehensive algorithm for the treatment of primary lower extremity lymphedema: the Primary LYmphedema Multidisciplinary Approach (P-LYMA). Methods: Nineteen patients were treated following the P-LYMA protocol. Patients underwent pre- and postoperative complex decongestive therapy (CDT). A variety of physiologic and excisional procedures were performed, either independently or in combination. The primary outcome was to assess the circumferential reduction rate (CRR). The Lymphedema Quality of Life Score (LeQOLiS), reduction in the number of cellulitis episodes, and complications were recorded. Results: The mean CRR was 73 ± 20% at twelve months postoperatively. The frequency of cellulitis episodes per year decreased from a mean of 1.9 ± 0.8 preoperatively to 0.4 ± 0.6 during follow-up. Two patients experienced minor complications. The mean hospitalization time was 5 days. Patients’ quality of life, as measured by the LeQOLiS, significantly improved from 70.4 ± 12 preoperatively to 24 ± 14 at twelve months postoperatively. Conclusions: The P-LYMA algorithm maximizes surgical outcomes and improves the quality of life in patients with primary lymphedema. CDT is essential for optimizing results.

Background Reports evaluating plastic surgeons’ practices indicate there are conflicting trends regarding the use of one or two drains for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Our study aimed to perform a matched cohort analysis to examine the postoperative outcomes and complications of immediate IBBR with tissue expander (TE) using two drains versus a single drain. Methods A propensity score-matched analysis (nearest neighbor, 1:1 matching) of immediate reconstructions using two versus one drain was conducted. Female patients undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR with TEs between January 2011 and May 2021 were included. The covariables were as follows: BMI, mastectomy weight, lymph node surgery, TE surface, plane of reconstruction, use of acellular dermal matrix products, fluorescence imaging use, and intraoperative TE volume. Results After matching using propensity scores, 192 reconstructions were included in the final analysis: 96 in each group. The rate of 30-day complications and overall complications during the first phase of IBBR were comparable between groups. The time for drain removal, time to initiate and finalize expansions, and time for TE-to-implant exchange were comparable between groups. Diabetes (OR 3.74, p = 0.025) and an increased estimated blood loss (OR 1.004, p = 0.01) were the only independent predictors for seroma formation. Conclusion In this matched cohort analysis evaluating the role of one versus two drains for two-stage IBBR, we found a comparable rate of complications and surgical outcomes between the two cohorts. Using two drains for immediate IBBR needs to be tailored depending on intraoperative findings. 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 .

There is a literature gap regarding facial feminization surgery (FFS) access and coverage. Our goal is to compile information from previous studies and assess the current policy landscape for these surgeries in the US. We also explored why some policies do not cover them, identify states with better coverage, and determine the most covered procedures. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched for studies that reviewed policies on FFS coverage. Studies on surgical techniques or other gender-affirming surgeries (GASs) that did not involve FFS were excluded. Seven studies were included for analysis. In 2014, the Department of Human Health Services (HHS) lifted the transgender exclusion policy, leading to an increase in policies regarding GASs for both private and state insurance. However, there are differences in medical necessity requirements among policies, which may not align with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) criteria. States that prohibit exclusion tend to offer better coverage for FFS. These states are mainly located in the western and northeast regions, whereas states in the southern and middle east regions have less coverage. Among the procedures, chondrolaryngoplasty is the most covered, while facial and cervical rhytidectomy are the least covered. To enhance transgender care, it is crucial to reach a consensus on how to offer coverage for facial feminization surgery. However, there is a lack of adequate research on this topic, and there is a need for resources and tools to assess the results of FFS procedures. One significant constraint of this study is that it does not provide a systematic review of the literature.

Background Owing to its intricate structural and functional anatomy, the fingertip is immensely critical for a wide range of functions like sensation, gripping and fine handling. Therefore, it is important to be familiar with such injuries and their available treatment plans to ensure satisfactory aesthetic and functional results. We present our experience on fingertip reconstruction along with a critical analysis of the employed reconstructive techniques, their outcomes and an algorithm-based approach to address fingertip injuries. Methods A retrospective chart review of all fingertip injuries presented to the Sawai Man Singh Hospital was conducted during September 2018 and September 2020. Data on the defects size, type of reconstructive technique employed, surgical outcomes and surgical complications was recorded and analyzed. Results This study included 92 fingertip injuries in 80 participants, 22 injured thumbs, 21 injured index fingers, 24 injured middle fingers, 20 injured ring fingers and 5 injured little fingers were reported. The most common mechanism of injury was machine injury (n = 58, 72.5%) and electric burn (n = 12, 15%). The most common surgical techniques were the V–Y advancement flap (n = 30), Moberg flap (n = 10), reverse homodigital island flap (n = 8) and first dorsal metacarpal artery flap (n = 8). The average size of soft tissue defect was 2.1 cm. Conclusions Adequate knowledge of the anatomical structures, a satisfactory analysis of the type and mechanism of injury aid in the selection of reconstructive alternatives for fingertip injury, which, in turn, prevents secondary deformities, improves functional outcomes and decreases secondary reconstructive procedures that are more complicated and have unpredictable results. Level of evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Background Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most common technique for breast reconstruction. The primary resource for correcting deformities, once patients have achieved an adequate volume with two-stage IBBR, is autologous fat grafting. We compared the surgical outcomes of simultaneous fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange (SFG + TtIE) versus no fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange (No-FGX). Methods A retrospective review was performed of all consecutive patients undergoing two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with TE from January 2011 to December 2020. Propensity score matching was implemented to optimize comparability. The control group did not receive fat grafting at the time of TE-to-implant exchange. Results After propensity score matching, 196 reconstructions were evaluated, 98 in each group. Reconstructions in the SFG + TtIE received larger implants during exchange in comparison with the No-FGX group (539 ± 135.1-cc versus 495.97 ± 148-cc, p =0.035). The mean volume of fat lipoinjected during TE-to-implant exchange in the SFG + TtIE group was 88.79 ± 41-ml. A higher proportion of reconstructions in the SFG + TtIE group underwent additional fat grafting after exchange versus the No-FGX group (19% versus 9%, p  = 0.041). After propensity score matching, only the rate of fat necrosis after exchange was significantly higher in the SFG + TtIE group (10% versus 2%, p  = 0.017). The rate of breast cancer recurrence (3% versus 5%, p  = 1.00) was comparable between the groups. Conclusion SFG + TtIE is a safe procedure to improve the envelope of reconstructed breasts during two-stage IBBR. SFG + TtIE does not increase the rate of periprosthetic infection or wound-related complication versus no fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange, but increases the rate of fat necrosis. Level of Evidence III Therapeutic study. 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

Background: There is an increasing demand for body contouring and gender-affirming surgeries, and so is the need to compare outcomes between techniques. Gender dysphoria is a discrepancy between gender identity and the sex assigned at birth. One way to address this is to perform procedures to enable patients to look according to their desired gender identity. Gaps in knowledge regarding the best approaches and which surgical techniques yield the most patient satisfaction remain. This article summarizes up-to-date studies, including upper and lower body contouring procedures. Methods: A systematic review was performed using terms related to body contouring in gender-affirming surgery for transgender patients. All articles included surgical and patient-reported outcomes following either chest or lower body contouring procedures. Results: 15 studies, including trans male chest wall contouring, trans female breast augmentation, and lower body contouring, with 1811 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The double incision (DI) techniques consistently resected more tissue and had better BODY Q scores than non-overweight patients. Bleeding was increased in periareolar, semicircular, and obese patients with DI techniques. Nipple depigmentation and sensation loss were more common with double-incision-free nipple graft techniques (DIFNG). Lower body contouring patients had average implant sizes bigger than 200 mL and reported 2 gluteal implant displacements, 1 exposure, and one rupture. Eight percent of patients who underwent large-volume fat grafting reported dissatisfaction due to fat reabsorption. Conclusions: The debate between the double incision and periareolar techniques continues. Variations of the DIFNG technique continue to be the most common approach; however, nipple depigmentation and loss of sensation are also more common with it. Regarding increased bleeding with periareolar techniques, there is still no evidence that hormonal therapy may be playing a role in it. For lower-body trans female contouring, implants could help with the longevity of contouring results in patients needing large-volume fat grafting. There is an increasing evaluation of gender-affirming body contouring patient-reported outcomes; however, there is still a need for a validated way to report satisfaction scores in lower body contouring. Validated surveys could help identify surgical candidates based on satisfaction patterns, specifically for transgender and non-binary patients.

Background There is limited evidence regarding the factors causing a prolonged time for tissue expander (TE) exchange into a definitive implant using two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). This study aimed to review our experience with IBBR, focusing on the time for TE-to-implant exchange and determining which factors cause a prolonged time for exchange. Methods A retrospective review was performed to include women undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR with TEs after total mastectomy between January 2011 and May 2021. Reconstructions with irradiated TEs were excluded. Cases that had a prolonged time for TE-to-implant exchange were defined as those undergoing exchange longer than 232 days, which corresponds to the 75th percentile of the overall study group. Results We included 442 reconstructions in our analysis. The median age for our series was 51 years and the median body mass index was 26.43-kg/m 2 . The median time for TE-to-implant exchange was 155 days [IQR, 107–232]. Cases that had a prolonged time for TE-to-implant exchange were defined as those undergoing exchange on postoperative day 232 or afterward. Diabetes (OR 4.05, p = 0.006), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 2.76, p = 0.006), an increased length of stay (OR 1.54, p = 0.013), and a lengthier time to complete outpatient expansions (OR 1.018, p < 0.001) were independently associated with a prolonged time for exchange. Conclusion As evident from our analysis, the time for exchange is highly heterogeneous among patients. Although several factors affect the timing for TE-to-implant exchange, efforts must be directed to finalize outpatient expansions as soon as possible to expedite the transition into a definitive implant. 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 .

Background Previous reports have evidenced the disruptive effect of the COVID-19 in microsurgical and reconstructive departments. We report our experience with cross-leg free flaps and (CLFF) and cross-leg vascular cable bridge flaps (CLVCBF) for lower limb salvage, technical consideration to decrease morbidity, and some structural modifications to our protocols for standard of care adapted to the COVID-19. Methods We retrospectively included consecutive patients undergoing reconstruction with CLFFs and CLVCBFs for lower limb salvage from January 2003 to May 2022. We extracted data on baseline demographic characteristics, mechanism of trauma, and surgical outcomes. Results Twenty-four patients were included, 11 (45.8%) underwent reconstruction with CLFF while 13 had CLVCBFs (54.2%). Fifteen patients (62.5%) underwent lower limb reconstruction under general anesthesia while 9 (37.5%) had combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. During COVID-19 pandemic, six CLFF cases were performed under S-E (25%). The average time for pedicle transection of muscle CLFFs and muscle CLVCBFs was comparable between groups (60 days versus 62 days, p = 0.864). A significantly shorter average time was evidenced for pedicle division of fasciocutaneous flaps in the CLFF group when compared to CLVCBFs (45 days versus 59 days, p = 0.002). Conclusions In selected patients, CLFFs and CLVCBFs offer an optimal alternative for lower limb salvage using recipient vessels out of the zone of injury from the contralateral limb. Modification in the surgical protocols can decrease improve resource allocation in the setting of severely ill patients during COVID-19. Level of evidence: Level III, Therapeutic.

Background Due to fluctuations in contemporary trends for breast reconstruction, we aimed to perform a comparative analysis to assess postoperative outcomes and complications of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) with tissue expander before and over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Consecutive adult women undergoing total mastectomy and immediate two-stage IBBR with tissue expanders between September 2018 and May 2021 were included. Two groups were compared: reconstructions performed before COVID-19 (pre-pandemic) and reconstructions performed after the implementation of the COVID-19 policies at our institution. We compared postoperative complications and perioperative outcomes (e.g., length of stay, expander volume, time for definitive implant) between groups. Results One hundred fourteen patients representing 192 reconstructions with expanders were included. One-hundred twenty-eight (66.6%) were performed before the COVID-19 pandemic, while 64 (33.3%) were performed during the pandemic. A larger proportion of reconstructions performed during the pre-pandemic era had a prolonged length of stay (≥ 2 days) compared to reconstructions performed during the COVID-19 pandemic (43% versus 9.4%, p  < .001). The median time from immediate IBBR to initiate outpatient expansions (22 days [IQR, 15–34]; p  = 0.45) and to conclude outpatient expansion was (52 days [IQR, 40–76]; p  = 0.85) comparable between groups. The rates of 30-day complications and rates of complications during the expansion period were similar between groups. Conclusion Due to adjustments in perioperative management and the implementation of institutional and state recommendations, IBBR with tissue expander during the COVID-19 pandemic exhibited a reduced length of stay compared to pre-pandemic reconstructions without increased morbidity. Level of evidence: Level IV, Risk/Prognostic