Mitchell H. Brown

Assessment of technical skills transfer from the bench training model to the human model.

BACKGROUND This study examines whether technical skills learned on a bench model are transferable to the human cadaver model. METHODS Twenty-three first-year residents were randomly assigned to three groups receiving teaching on six procedures. For each procedure, one group received training on a cadaver model, one received training on a bench model, and one learned independently from a prepared text. Following training, all residents were assessed on their ability to perform the six procedures. RESULTS Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of training modality for both checklist scores (F(2,44) = 3.49, P <0.05) and global scores (F(2,44) = 7.48, P <0.01). Post-hoc tests indicated that both bench and cadaver training were superior to text learning and that bench and cadaver training were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS Training on a bench model transfers well to the human model, suggesting strong potential for transfer to the operating room.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a 2-year curriculum in a surgical skills center

BACKGROUND This study was a formative evaluation of a 2-year Surgical Skills Center Curriculum (SSCC) using objective measures of surgical performance and self-reported process-oriented evaluations. METHODS Fifty postgraduate third-year (PGY-3) residents participated in an Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) examination. Nineteen residents underwent the SSCC and 31 residents did not. During the SSCC, self-reported student and faculty evaluations were completed after each session. RESULTS For the OSATS examination, scores were not significantly different between treatment and control groups, on either the checklist (66.4 +/- 6.1 versus 64.1 +/- 10.8) or global rating scale scores (66.9 +/- 6.9 versus 68.0 +/- 9.6). Further comparisons between groups on individual OSATS stations revealed no significant differences between groups. The majority of student and faculty evaluation remarks were highly positive. CONCLUSIONS The OSATS results failed to support our hypothesis that training on a core procedure in a single session during a SSCC would have an appreciable and sustained effect after 2 years. Self-reported process-oriented evaluations support the utility of our SSCC.

Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery.

Background: Cohesive silicone gel breast implants are composed of a textured silicone elastomer shell and are filled with cohesive silicone gel. Cohesive gel is formed by increasing the number of cross-links between gel molecules, which results in an implant that has better retention of shape and is less likely to fold or collapse, especially in the upper pole. Methods: The initial 150 consecutive patients who received cohesive gel breast implants by the senior author (Brown) were included in the study. A retrospective chart review was carried out to analyze patient demographics, diagnosis, indication for cohesive gel selection, procedure performed, implant selected, and complications. All implants were manufactured by Inamed Aesthetics and were either style 410, CML, or CMH. Results: One woman underwent unilateral augmentation for breast asymmetry and 117 women underwent bilateral breast augmentation. Of the 235 implants used, all were model 410 anatomical implants, with the majority being MM, MF, FM, or FF styles. Complications occurred in four of 118 patients (3.4 percent). There was one immediate postoperative hematoma, two cases of unilateral Baker II contracture, and one case of asymmetry related to excessive lowering of an inframammary fold. There were no cases of rotation, malposition, infection, rippling, or loss of implant integrity. Thirty-two women underwent breast reconstruction with cohesive gel implants. A total of 50 implants were used in the 32 patients (27 style 410, 19 style CML, and four style CMH). Complications occurred in six of 32 patients (18.8 percent), although five of the six were minor and only one of 32 patients (3.1 percent) required a secondary procedure. There were two seromas, three capsular contractures, and one implant exposure following a skin-sparing mastectomy. Conclusions: Cohesive gel implants have the potential for providing a natural breast shape, minimizing the risk of postoperative rippling, and providing a greater degree of safety should the implant lose its integrity. The wide variety of implant shapes and sizes allows for great flexibility in reconstructive surgery, in cases of breast asymmetry, and in primary breast augmentation. Results in our initial 150 patients have been excellent, with a high degree of patient satisfaction, excellent aesthetic outcomes, and very few implant-related complications. Cohesive gel implants are likely to play an important role in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery when silicone gel implants are reintroduced into the North American market.

Breast cancer found at the time of breast reduction.

In a recent study involving 27,500 women who had breast reduction surgery in Ontario, Canada, 17 women who were diagnosed as having breast cancer at the time of their breast reduction surgery were identified. The aims of this study were to (1) describe a population-based series of patients who had breast cancer diagnosed at the time of breast reduction, (2) describe the treatment of these cancers, and (3) compare their survival rate with survival in patients in the general population who had breast cancer. Information about these women, their treatment, and outcome was extracted from hospital records, pathology reports, and reports from regional cancer centers. The chance of finding an invasive breast cancer at the time of breast reduction was 0.06 percent, which is lower than what has been reported previously. Sixty-seven percent of these women were treated with total mastectomy. In the remaining 33 percent, who were treated with partial mastectomy, the entire tumor was removed at the time of breast reduction. Fifty percent of the women were treated with radiation, and 25 percent were treated with chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. Compared with women in the general population of Ontario who have breast cancer, women whose breast cancer is discovered during breast reduction surgery are more likely to be treated with complete mastectomy and less likely to be treated with radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Seventy-one percent of the breast reduction group were axillary node-negative at diagnosis, compared with 58 percent in the general population of women with breast cancer. Survival from breast cancer in women diagnosed at the time of breast reduction (88 percent, 5-year survival) was better than survival from breast cancer in the general population (77 percent). These findings suggest that cancers found in women at the time of breast reduction are less advanced, possibly because they are diagnosed at an earlier stage.

Managing late periprosthetic fluid collections (seroma) in patients with breast implants: a consensus panel recommendation and review of the literature.

Background: The goal of this consensus is to establish an algorithm for the management of patients who develop a late or delayed periprosthetic fluid collection. A work group of practicing plastic surgeons and device industry physicians met periodically by teleconference and discussed issues pertinent to the diagnosis and management of late periprosthetic fluid collections in patients with breast implants. Based on these meetings, treatment recommendations and a treatment algorithm were prepared in association with an editorial assistant. Method: The work group participants discussed optimal care approaches developed in their private practices and from evidence in the literature. Results: The consensus algorithm and treatment and management recommendations represent the consensus of the group. Conclusions: The group concluded that late periprosthetic fluid collection (arbitrarily defined as occurring ≥1 year after implant) is an infrequently reported occurrence (0.1 percent) after breast implant surgery and that, at a minimum, management should include clinically indicated ultrasound-guided aspiration of fluid, with appropriate cultures and cytologic testing. Further evaluation and additional treatment is recommended for recurrence of periprosthetic fluid collection after aspiration, or clinical suspicion of infection or neoplasia.

Late seromas after breast implants: theory and practice.

Background: Late seromas surrounding breast implants are becoming an increasingly important issue in breast surgery. The authors report their experience with late seromas and describe their previous management options. Methods: A multicenter retrospective review of patients who developed late seromas (clinically presenting seromas without evidence of overt or documented infection more than 1 year after implant operation) was performed. Management, surgical technique, outcomes, complications, culture findings, and cytology results were recorded. Results: Between 2005 and 2010, 28 late seromas were identified in 25 patients. The average interval from the patients last surgery to seroma onset was 4.7 years; 27 of 28 breasts (96 percent) had a Biocell textured device in place at the time of seroma development. The late seromas in the series were managed as follows: 15 (53.6 percent) by complete capsulectomy, seroma drainage, and new implant placement; three (10.7 percent) by seroma drainage and new implant placement but without capsulectomy; two (7.1 percent) by complete capsulectomy and seroma drainage but without implant replacement; five (17.9 percent) by only ultrasound-guided seroma drainage without the need for surgical intervention; and three (10.7 percent) by antibiotic therapy alone. All cultures and cytology studies were negative for malignancy or infection; 27 of 28 seromas (96 percent) were treated successfully by one of the described approaches. Conclusions: Biocell textured implants were more likely to be associated with late seromas than were smooth shell implants. The overwhelming majority of late seromas appear to be idiopathic, without clear evidence of infection or malignancy. A graduated approach, including several different management strategies, was used to successfully manage these patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Outcomes in primary breast augmentation: a single surgeon's review of 1539 consecutive cases.

Background: The use of implants in aesthetic breast surgery may lead to complications resulting in the need for reoperation. This study examines outcomes following breast augmentation in a single surgeon’s practice and investigates the effect of implant selection and surgical technique on complications and reoperations. Methods: A retrospective review of a single surgeon’s prospectively maintained database over 15 years was performed. All primary bilateral breast augmentation patients were included. Implant characteristics—including implant type, fill, shape, surface, and projection; incision type; and pocket location—were collected. Complications and reasons for reoperation were analyzed using survival analysis. Results: One thousand five hundred thirty-nine patients with 3078 implants were included. Implant types included 596 shaped textured gel, 515 round smooth saline, 192 round textured gel, and 236 round smooth gel implants. Follow-up ranged from 0 to 155 months (average, 18 months). Total complication and reoperation rates were 6.8 and 7.7 percent, respectively. Inframammary incisions and the use of shaped textured gel implants were associated with lower rates of complications. The use of a dual-plane II or III pocket, and implant volumes over 400 cc, were associated with higher rates of complications. Full-projection round implants had rates of complications and reoperations equivalent to those of moderate-projection devices. Both textured shaped gel implants and a subpectoral pocket location were associated with the lowest rates of capsular contracture. Conclusion: This large series of breast implant patients demonstrates that both implant- and technique-related factors may influence complications and reoperations in breast implant surgery. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Management of Tuberous Breast Deformity with Anatomic Cohesive Silicone Gel Breast Implants

BackgroundTuberous breast deformity is a rare congenital condition that often requires surgical correction. Numerous surgical techniques have been described, reflecting the reconstructive challenge of this deformity. The anatomic cohesive gel breast implant is a powerful tool in both aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. In the authors’ experience, its use in treating tuberous breast deformity has provided the opportunity for a single-stage approach, with very good results.MethodsThe senior author has managed more than 50 cases of single-stage reconstruction for tuberous breast deformity using anatomic cohesive gel breast implants. His surgical technique is described with suggestions for achieving optimal results. Representative case examples are provided.ConclusionsThe anatomic cohesive silicone gel breast implant is an excellent device for treating tuberous breast deformity. It often can be used as a single-stage correction of the deformity with very good results. The authors strongly advocate consideration of its use in tuberous breast deformity reconstruction.

Variables affecting symmetry of the nipple-areola complex

Currently, little is known about which variables are most critical to the subjective appearance of symmetry of the nipple-areola complex. Clinical photographs were transferred onto a compact disc and then imported into a computer photoshop program. Alterations to the nipple-areola complex were then performed, creating 1 symmetrical image and 19 asymmetrical images. The asymmetries were produced by altering position, diameter, or pigmentation. The images were converted to 35-mm slides and shown to four separate panels of three members each. A “symmetry score” was given for each slide. Results showed that any deviation from symmetrical was reliably detectable by the observers. Changes in areola diameter were detected most easily, and the specific direction of positional change was not found to be a significant factor. Differences were seen between individual panel assessments. This study has shown an application for CD-ROM technology in analyzing well-identified variables and has helped in delineating which factors are most critical to the subjective impression of symmetry of the nipple-areola complex. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 96: 846, 1995.)

Breast size and breast cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND There are many known breast cancer risk factors, but traditionally the list has not included breast size. The aim of this study was to synthesize the literature on breast size as a risk factor for breast carcinoma by examining studies addressing this question both directly and indirectly. METHODS A systematic review was performed searching MEDLINE from 1950 to November 2010, and updated again in February 2014. Literature was sought to assess the relationship between the following variables and breast cancer: 1) breast size; 2) breast reduction; 3) breast augmentation; and 4) prophylactic subcutaneous mastectomy. Findings were summarized and the levels of evidence were assessed. RESULTS 50 papers were included in the systematic review. Increasing breast size appears to be a risk factor for breast cancer, but studies are limited by their retrospective nature, imperfect size measurement techniques and confounding variables. The evidence is stronger for risk reduction with breast reduction, including prophylactic subcutaneous mastectomy at the extreme. Generally the breast augmentation population has a lower risk of breast cancer than the general population, but it is unclear whether or not this is related to the bias of small breasts in this patient population and the presence of other confounders. CONCLUSIONS There is direct and indirect evidence that breast size is an important factor in the risk of developing breast cancer. Plastic surgeons are in a unique position to observe this effect. Well-designed prospective studies are required to further assess this risk factor.