• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.49 no.3
• /
• pp.346-351
• /
• 2022

Background Postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMR) increases patient satisfaction, quality of life, and psychosocial well-being. There is scarce data regarding the safety of PMR in chronic anticoagulated patients. Perioperative complications can reduce patient satisfaction; therefore, it is important to elucidate the safety of PMR in these patients. Methods A retrospective case-control study of patients who underwent PMR with implants and were on chronic anticoagulation was performed at our institution. Inclusion criteria were women ≥ 18 years old. Exclusion criteria included autologous reconstructions, lumpectomy, and oncoplastic procedures. Two controls for every one patient on anticoagulation were matched by age, body mass index, radiotherapy, smoking history, type of reconstruction, time of reconstruction, and laterality. Results From 2009 to 2020, 37 breasts (20 patients) underwent PMR with implant-based reconstruction and were on chronic anticoagulation. A total of 74 breasts (40 patients) who had similar demographic characteristics to the cases were defined as the control group. Mean age for the case group was 53.6 years (standard deviation [SD] = 16.1), mean body mass index was 28.6 kg/m² (SD = 5.1), and 2.7% of breasts had radiotherapy before reconstruction and 5.4% after reconstruction. Nine patients were on long-term warfarin, six on apixaban, three on rivaroxaban, one on low-molecular-weight heparin, and one on dabigatran. The indications for anticoagulation were prior thromboembolic events in 50%. Anticoagulated patients had a higher risk of capsular contracture (10.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.005). There were no differences regarding incidence of hematoma (2.7% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.63), thromboembolism (5% vs. 0%, p = 0.16), reconstructive-related complications, or length of hospitalization (1.6 days [SD = 24.2] vs. 1.4 days [SD = 24.2], p = 0.85). Conclusion Postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction can be safely performed in patients on chronic anticoagulation with appropriate perioperative management of anticoagulation. This information can be useful for preoperative counseling on these patients.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.93-98
• /
• 2007

Purpose: Many options are available for the incision and pocket selection in breast augmentation. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. To leave an invisible operation scar and to achieve easier pocket dissection by the central location of the incision on the breast, we made a transareolar-perinipple incision. To overcome the disadvantages of the transareolar incision, originally advocated by Pitanguy in 1973, we modified the direction of incision line and dissection plane. Methods: To avoid the injury of 4th intercostal nerve responsible for nipple sensation, we made perinipple incision on the medial side of the nipple instead of trans-nipple incision and made the transareolar incision as 11-5 o'clock on the left side and 1-7 o'clock on the right side instead of 3-9 o'clock on both sides. To avoid the possible infection and breast feeding problem caused by the injury to the lactiferous duct, and the possible implant hernia caused by the incisions lying on a same plane of pocket dissection, we made a subcutaneous dissection just above the breast tissue medially down to the bottom of breast tissue and made a subglandular or subfascial pocket, which may avoid the injury of lactiferous duct and create different planes for skin incision and pocket dissection. Other advantages of the transareolar-perinipple incision include easier pocket dissection, less chance of hematoma, and as a result less postoperative pain because of the central location of the approach which allow finger dissection and meticulous bleeding control with direct vision, without any specialized instrument such as an endoscope or long mammary dissectors. As for pocket selection, we made dual pockets. We prefer subglandular or subfascial pocket. Also, we made a subpectoral pocket in the upper 1/4 of the pocket to add more volume on the upper part of the augmented breast, which can make aesthetically more desirable breasts in thin Asian women with small breasts. Possible disadvantages of our method are subclinical infection and scar widening, which could be overcome by meticulous operation techniques, antibiotic therapy, and intradermal tattooing. Results: From September, 2003 to August, 2005, 12 patients underwent breast augmentation using round smooth surface saline implants by our method. During the mean follow-up period of 13 months, there were no complications such as infection, hematoma, capsular contracture, and sensory change of nipple, and results were satisfactory. Conclusion: We suggest breast augmentation via transareolar-perinipple incision and dual pockets(subpectoral-subglandular or subfascial) as a valuable method in thin oriental women with small breasts.