Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor worldwide, and mastectomy remains the primary strategy for treating early stage breast cancer. However, the complication rates, surgical variables, and oncologic safety of minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (MINSM) have not been fully addressed. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compared MINSM with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM), both followed by Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction (PBR). The main outcomes observed included overall complications, (Grade III) complications, skin and nipple necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, seroma, hematoma, implant loss, and oncologic safety (positive margins and recurrence). Secondary outcomes included operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, cost-effectiveness, and patient satisfaction. Binary and continuous variables were compared using odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 10 studies involving 2,166 patients were included. There were no statistically significant differences between MINSM and CNSM in terms of skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, seroma, hematoma, implant loss, or oncologic safety. However, MINSM significantly reduced overall complications (OR = 0. 74, 95% CI [0. 58, 0. 94], p = 0. 01) and (Grade III) complications (OR = 0. 47, 95% CI [0. 31, 0. 71], p = 0. 0003). Nipple necrosis events were also significantly reduced in the MINSM group (OR = 0. 49, 95% CI [0. 30, 0. 80], p = 0. 005). Patient satisfaction improved notably in the MINSM group. Additionally, compared with the CNSM group, the MINSM group had longer operating times (MD = 46. 88, 95% CI [19. 55, 74. 21], p = 0. 0008) and hospital stays (MD = 1. 39, 95% CI [0. 65, 2. 12], p < 0. 001), while intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced (MD = -29. 05, 95% CI [-36. 20, -21. 90], p < 0. 001). Compared with CNSM, MINSM offers advantages in reducing complications and intraoperative blood loss, as well as improving aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. Therefore, MINSM may become a viable option for breast surgery. Nevertheless, a long-term evaluation of the oncologic safety of this approach is necessary to ensure its efficacy and safety for patients.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Breast implants interfere may interfere with surface ECG recording. The goal of this study was to evaluate if the presence of breast implants can lead to abnormal electrocardiogram (ECG) using a large database in adults.
METHODS: Using ICD 10 codes for breast implants and abnormal ECG, we evaluated any association between abnormal ECG coding in adult women with breast implants compared to women without breast implants utilizing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Using different age cutoffs showed similar results.
RESULTS: A total of 252,200 women in the NIS database had coding for abnormal EKG over age 18. There were no differences in the presence of abnormal EKG in women with or without breast implants (0.28% vs 0.3%, P = 0.64, OR: 1.02, CI: 0.72-1.32, p = 0.89). After multivariate adjustment for age, baseline characteristics, and comorbid conditions, women with or without breast implants had similar rates of abnormal ECG.
CONCLUSIONS: Using a large database, we could not find any effect of breast implants on ECG recording suggesting that breast implant has no significant interference with ECG.

BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are frequently employed in immediate prosthesis-based breast reconstruction (iPBR) to provide structural support. Despite differences in ADM derivatives, few studies directly compare their outcomes in the setting of iPBR. We sought to conduct a large head-to-head study comparing 3 ADMs used across our institution.
METHODS: A multicenter retrospective review of patients undergoing iPBR with SurgiMend PRS (fetal bovine-derived; Integra Lifesciences, Princeton, NJ), AlloDerm (human-derived; LifeCell Corp, Bridgewater, NJ), or DermACELL (human-derived; Stryker Corp, Kalamazoo, MI) between January 2014 to July 2022 was performed. Primary outcomes included rates of unplanned explantation and total reconstructive failure. Secondary outcomes included 90-day postoperative complications and long-term rates of capsular contracture development.
RESULTS: A total of 738 patients (1228 breasts) underwent iPBR during the study period; 405 patients received DermACELL (54.9%), 231 received AlloDerm (31.3%), and 102 received SurgiMend PRS (13.8%). Rates of short-term complications, total reconstruction failure, reoperation within 90 days, capsular contracture, and unplanned explantation were comparable. These findings remained true upon multivariate analysis accounting for baseline differences between cohorts, whereby ADM type was not an independent predictor of any outcome of interest. Conversely, factors such as body mass index, diabetes mellitus, smoking history, neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, skin-sparing mastectomy, Wise pattern and periareolar incisions, use of tissue expanders, and a subpectoral plane of insertion were significant predictors of postoperative complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Low rates of complications support the equivalency of fetal bovine and human-derived ADMs in iPBR. Patient characteristics and operative approach are likely more predictive of postoperative outcomes than ADM derivative alone.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications of distinct implant-based breast reconstruction modality for patients with postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).
METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on breast cancer patients with stage II-III disease who performed implant-based breast reconstruction following with PMRT between September 2016 and April 2022. The patients were categorized into two matched groups: (1) patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) or (2) subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) followed by PMRT. Following reconstruction, the patients were further compared for PMRT with the tissue expander (PMRT-TE) versus PMRT with permanent implant (PMRT-PI). PROs were measured with BREAST-Q questionnaire. Early and late complications were recorded and analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 55 eligible patients were recruited. Patients who underwent PBR reported significantly higher satisfaction with breasts scores (P = 0.003) compared with the SBR group. The PMRT-TE group had higher satisfaction with breasts (P = 0.001) but lower physical well-being (P = 0.029) scores compared with PMRT-PI group. Moreover, patients in SBR cohort had a higher risk of capsular contracture (Baker grade III or IV) (20.5% vs 6.3%) and implant dislocation (48.7% vs 12.5%) than patients in PBR cohort. Patients in PMRT-PI group had a slightly higher rate of capsular contracture (Baker grade III or IV) than PMRT-TE group (20.8% vs 12.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: PBR was associated with lower rates of late complications, especially for implant dislocation, and higher satisfaction with breasts scores compared to SBR. In addition, compared to PMRT-TE with PMRT-PI, patients in PMRT-TE cohort reported superior PROs of satisfaction with breasts.

BACKGROUND: Post-Covid Syndrome, Sick Building Syndrome, Silicone Breast Syndrome, Choric Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia -Autoimmunity to the Autonomic Nervous System.

BACKGROUND: The landscape of breast reconstruction has changed significantly with a shift in focus to include the restoration of a patient\'s quality of life after cancer. Reconstructive options can be divided into alloplastic (implant based) and autologous (tissue based). This paper aims to provide a current educational summary regarding implant-based reconstruction after breast cancer surgery and review the current literature.
METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted utilising standard PRISMA flowchart. Databases searched included Pubmed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE.
RESULTS: Current practice is explored within the text, including types of implants, indications, and surgical approaches. Heterogenous cohorts, surgical technique variation, and selection bias can make comparison of the literature challenging. The major evidence reviews of implant-based reconstruction topics are discussed including, ADM use, radiotherapy, and complications. Despite the benefits of autologous reconstruction, implant-based techniques still represent a significant proportion of reconstructive breast procedures. However, implant-reconstruction is not without its risks and limitations and, with such variety in practice, there remains a lack of high-quality evidence guiding practice. Most importantly, patients need to be counselled about the pros and cons of each choice, particularly with the increasing utilisation of radiotherapy post-reconstruction. Ultimately, the patient and surgeon should reach a decision in full knowledge of the risks and potential outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Further research is required into implant-based reconstructive therapy, which will allow a greater consensus for management and a pathway for both surgeons and patients.

BACKGROUND: Due to the declining mortality rates of breast carcinoma and the rising incidence of risk-reducing mastectomies, enhancing the quality of life after breast reconstructions has become an increasingly important goal. The advantages of lightweight breast implants (B-Lite®) may significantly contribute to achieving this objective. This study aims to investigate whether lightweight implants are suitable for patients undergoing breast reconstruction and could improve the quality of life in comparison to conventional implants.
METHODS: In this study, we retrospectively analyzed 48 patients (38 implants in each group) who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction with either B-Lite® or conventional breast implants between 2019 and 2022 at the University Center for Plastic Surgery in Regensburg. As part of the postoperative follow-up, a clinical examination and a survey using the Breast-Q® questionnaire were conducted to evaluate the postoperative quality of life.
RESULTS: The implants used were similar in weight and shape. On average, the B-Lite® implants had a higher implant volume and patients in this group had a slightly higher BMI. Patients who received B-Lite® implants showed a significantly better result regarding the sensation of sensitivity in the surgical area and the scar formation also appeared to be more favorable. However, patients with B-Lite® implants perceived their implants as more uncomfortable than those with conventional breast implants. In other terms concerning quality of life, both groups appeared similar.
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, there are confounding factors that could influence the outcome of some aspects in this study, which could not be avoided due to the retrospective study design and the temporary suspension of B-Lite implants. Nevertheless, as the first of its kind, this study demonstrated that B-Lite implants could also be suitable for usage in breast reconstructions, thus providing an important foundation for further prospective studies to build upon.

BACKGROUND: With rising breast augmentations worldwide, there is an increasing clinical need for an early and accurate detection of implant complications.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of chemical shift encoding-based (CSE) water-fat-silicone separation compared to double inversion recovery (DIR) silicone-only imaging in breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
METHODS: This retrospective, single-center study included women with silicone implants subjected to 3-T MRI between January 2021 and March 2022. MRI included (i) two-dimensional silicone-only T2-weighted turbo spin echo DIR acquisition and (ii) three-dimensional CSE imaging based on multi-echo gradient-echo sequence enabling water-, fat-, and silicone-image separation. Images were evaluated and compared by three independent radiologists using a clinically established rating including differentiability of the silicone implant, visibility and contouring of the adjacent fibrous capsule, and accuracy of intralesional folds in a ranking of 1-5. The apparent contrast-to-noise (aCNR) was calculated.
RESULTS: In 71 women, the average quality of water-fat-silicone images from CSE imaging was assessed as \"good\" (assessment 4 ± 0.9). In 68 (96%) patients, CSE imaging achieved a concise delineation of the silicone implant and precise visualization of the fibrous capsule that was not distinguishable in DIR imaging. Implant ruptures were more easily detected in CSE imaging. The aCNR was higher in CSE compared to DIR imaging (18.43 ± 9.8 vs. 14.73 ± 2.5; P = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: Intrinsically co-registered water-fat-silicone-separated CSE-based images enable a reliable assessment of silicone implants. The simultaneously improved differentiability of the implant and fibrous capsule may provide clinicians with a valuable tool for an accurate evaluation of implant integrity and early detection of potential complications.

BACKGROUND: Skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) is often used when tumor location prohibits performing a nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). We examined a square excision of the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) and an X-shaped purse string closure after implant-based reconstruction.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing periareolar SSM and immediate implant-based reconstruction from January 2015 through December 2022, specifically identifying those patients who had square NAC excision and skin closure.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. They underwent 54 periareolar SSM and immediate implant-based reconstruction (bilateral 25, unilateral 4). Indications for surgery were cancer (30) and prophylactic (24; 2 patients had bilateral cancer). Reconstructive methods included tissue expander (TE) (36 [66.7%]) and direct-to-implant (DTI) (18 [33.3%]). The mean mastectomy weights and final implant sizes were similar between the 2 groups. Overall wound complications occurred in 13 (24.1%) of the breasts: mastectomy skin flap necrosis (MSFN; 10 [18.5%]) and infection (3 [5.6%]). Reconstructive failure occurred in 3 cases: TE, 1 (infection); DTI, 2 (MSFN/exposure). MSFN by reconstructive method: TE, 4 (11.1%); DTI, 6 (33.3%) (P = 0.05, comparing MSFN rates between TE and DTI methods). The mean initial TE fill volume was 247.1 cc; mean implant size in the DTI group was 417.8 cc (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The square NAC excision and closure can minimize the surgical incision in implant reconstruction. Two-stage TE reconstruction permits lower initial fill volumes, which reduces the risk of MSFN after box to X closure of SSM and implant-based reconstruction. It is useful in small- to moderate-sized breasts with mild ptosis in patients who are not candidates for NSM.