• Archives of Reconstructive Microsurgery
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.36-41
• /
• 2008

Surgical treatment of compressive ulnar neuropathy at the elbow has been performed with a wide variety of techniques. Among these techniques, anterior submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve has been regarded as the method of choice by many authors. It has many advantages including a low recurrence rate, scar-free vascular bed, and protection from repeated trauma to the nerve. However, anterior submuscular transposition is technically demanding and requires more extensive soft tissue dissection. On the other hand, anterior subfascial transposition is less invasive, requires a relatively shorter operation time than the submuscular technique, and also can be done safely even in patiensts with elbow arthritis. We evaluated the clinical results of anterior submuscular transposition compared with anterior subfascial transposition. Fifteen patients underwent anterior submuscular transposition and ten patients underwent anterior subfascial transposition of the ulnar nerve. The mean follow-up time was 15 months (range 10 to 38 months) in the anterior submuscular transposition group and 7 months (range 6 to 15 months) in the anterior subfascial transposition group. According to the outcome status determination algorithm devised by Mowlavi, 3 patients (20%) showed total relief, 10 patiensts (66.7%) improvement and 2 patients (13.3%) no changes in the anterior submuscular transposition group. In the anterior subfascial transposition group, 2 patients (20%) showed total relief, 7 patients (70%) improvement and 1 patient (10%) displayed no changes. Statistically there was no significant difference of the clinical results between the two surgical techniques. Therefore we would suggest anterior subfascial transposition of the ulnar nerve as a preferred method for treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.158-164
• /
• 2018

Background During breast augmentation, the transaxillary approach provides the advantage of allowing the mammary prosthesis to be placed through incisions that are remote from the breast itself, thereby reducing the visibility of postoperative scars. For patients experiencing capsular contracture who do not want additional scars, the previous transaxillary scar can be used for site change and implant exchange. Methods This study analyzed 17 patients (34 breasts) with submuscular breast implants with grade III-IV capsular contracture who received treatment from 2010 to 2015. The mean age of the patients was 29 years (range, 20-38 years). The inclusion criterion was a pinch test of more than 3 cm at the upper pole of the breast. Previous axillary scars were used to expose the pectoralis fascia, and submuscular breast implants were removed carefully. The dissection underneath the pectoralis fascia was performed with endoscopic assistance, using electrocautery under direct visualization. Results The mean follow-up period was 14 months (range, 6-24 months). The entire dissection plane was changed from the submuscular plane to the subfascial plane. Round textured gel implants were used, with a mean implant size of 220 mL (range, 160-300 mL). Two patients developed grade II capsular contracture. There were no cases of malposition or asymmetry. Three patients complained of minor implant palpability. None of the patients required additional surgery. Conclusions Endoscopic subfascial conversion may be an effective technique for treating capsular contracture and avoiding scarring of the breast in selected patients.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.40 no.1
• /
• pp.19-27
• /
• 2013

Background Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) allografts and their putative benefits have been increasingly described in prosthesis based breast reconstruction. There have been a myriad of analyses outlining ADM complication profiles, but few large-scale, multi-institutional studies exploring these outcomes. In this study, complication rates of acellular dermis-assisted tissue expander breast reconstruction were compared with traditional submuscular methods by evaluation of the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) registry. Methods Patients who underwent immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction from 2006-2010 were identified using surgical procedure codes. Two hundred forty tracked variables from over 250 participating sites were extracted for patients undergoing acellular dermis-assisted versus submuscular tissue expander reconstruction. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes and captured risk factors for complications were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 9,159 patients underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction; 1,717 using acellular dermis and 7,442 with submuscular expander placement. Total complications and reconstruction related complications were similar in both cohorts (5.5% vs. 5.3%, P=0.68 and 4.7% vs. 4.3%, P=0.39, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression revealed body mass index and smoking as independent risk factors for reconstructive complications in both cohorts (P<0.01). Conclusions The NSQIP database provides large-scale, multi-institutional, independent outcomes for acellular dermis and submuscular breast reconstruction. Both thirty-day complication profiles and risk factors for post operative morbidity are similar between these two reconstructive approaches.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.50 no.2
• /
• pp.156-159
• /
• 2023

Breast implants whether used for cosmetic or reconstructive purposes can be placed in pockets either above or below the pectoralis major muscle, depending on clinical circumstances such as subcutaneous tissue volume, history of radiation, and patient preference. Likewise, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can be placed above or below the pectoralis major muscle. When a patient has both devices, knowledge of the pocket location is important for procedural planning and for durability of device placement and performance. Here, we report a patient who previously failed subcutaneous CIED placement due to incision manipulation with prior threatened device exposure requiring plane change to subpectoral pocket. Her course was complicated by submuscular migration of the CIED into her breast implant periprosthetic pocket. With subcutaneous plane change being inadvisable due to patient noncompliance, soft tissue support of subpectoral CIED placement with an acellular biologic matrix (ABM) was performed. Similar to soft tissue support used for breast implants, submuscular CIED neo-pocket creation with ABM was performed with durable CIED device positioning confirmed at 9 months postprocedure.

• The Journal of the Korean bone and joint tumor society
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.42-46
• /
• 2010

Angiomyxolipoma is a rare variant of lipoma, which is described by Mai, 1996, at first. The nine cases of which have been reported to date. Microscopically, the lesion consists of adipose tissue with the paucicellular myxoid areas and fat tissue with numerous thin, dilated, and congestive blood vessels. The reported cases mostly located to the superficial layer on the scalp, subungual, extremities in adults. We report one case of angiomyxolipoma located in the submuscular and parosteal area in the distal femur around knee joint in a child.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.105-110
• /
• 2007

Purpose: The major drawback of submuscular augmentation of the ptotic breast is a "double-bubble" deformity. If a traditional mastopexy is added to correct the ptosis, there would be additional scars. This article describes simultaneous periareolar mastopexy with dual plane or subfascial breast augmentations. Methods: A series of 81 patients with grade I or II ptosis underwent the procedure from 1999 to 2005. Out of these, dual plane augmentation was done in 71 cases and subfascial plane in 10. After periareolar skin excision, an incision is made perpendicularly down to the fascia of pectoralis. At the lower pole, all breast implants are inserted into the subfascial plane. In case of upper pole thickness of above 20 mm, we inserted the implant into the subfascial plane, whereas below 20 mm, we inserted that into the submuscular plane. Results: No major complications were noted and patients' satisfactory score was high. This technique avoids the "double-bubble" deformity and leaves a minimal periareolar scar. Conclusion: Simultaneous periareolar mastopexy/breast augmentation is useful for correction of the ptotic breast, increasing the volume of breast and providing the natural breast shape with minimal scars. We consider that subfascial plane augmentation with periareolar mastopexy to be an alternative for cases with breast upper pole thickness of at least above 20 mm.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.99-104
• /
• 2007

Purpose: Subfascial augmentation mammaplasty was introduced by Dr. Graf in 2000. Subfascial placement of breast implants for augmentation was advocated as an option that has some of the advantages of both the subpectoral and subglandular placement while minimizing the disadvantages of each. The clinical experiences of 23 breast augmentations in the subfascial placement are reported. The indications for this technique are proposed. The incidence of complications is described from clinical experiences and compared with that of other methods. Methods: From January of 2004 through December of 2005, 23 patients underwent periareolar subfascial augmentation mammaplasty. The mean postoperative follow-up time was 8 months. Results: In comparing the results of the subpectoral augmentation group(57 patients) with those of the dual plane(124 patients) and subfascial groups(23 patients), the total rate of complications didn't represented the significant difference. The benefits of this technique include avoiding hematoma(as seen in the dual plane) and muscle action(in the subpectoral), and minimizing postoperative chest pain(inherent to subpectoral), and the ability to correct ptosis. And also this subfascial technique can be used for changing the plane from submuscular to subfascial in case of the reoperations. Conclusion: We're thinking that the periareolar subfascial augmentation mammaplasty would be the very useful tool for the primary and secondary breast augmentations.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.38 no.3
• /
• pp.323-325
• /
• 2011

Purpose: Breast implant ruptures and displacement are problematic complications after augmentation mammoplasty. The authors report a patient whose cohesive silicone gel implant ruptured and migrated into the pleural cavity after augmentation mammoplasty. Methods: A 23-year-old female had received augmentation mammoplasty at a local clinic a week before visiting our hospital. When the patient's doctor performed a breast massage on the sixth postoperative day, the left breast became flattened. The doctor suspected a breast implant rupture and performed revision surgery. The implant, however, was not found in the submuscular pocket and no definite chest wall defect was found in the operative field. The doctor suspected implant migration into the pleural cavity, and after inserting a new breast implant, the doctor referred the patient to our hospital for further evaluation. The patient's vital signs were stable and she showed no specific symptoms except mild, intermittent pain in the left chest. A CT scan revealed the ruptured implant in the left pleural cavity and passive atelectasis. Results: The intrapleurally migrated ruptured implant was removed by video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). There were no adhesions but there was mild inflammation of the pleura. No definite laceration of the pleura was found. The patient was discharged on the first day after the operation without any complications. Conclusion: Surgeons should be aware that breast implants can rupture anytime and the injury to the chest wall, which may displace the breast implant into the pleural cavity, can happen during submuscular pocket dissection and implant insertion.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.42 no.5
• /
• pp.532-543
• /
• 2015

Capsular contracture is the most common complication following implant based breast surgery and is one of the most common reasons for reoperation. Therefore, it is important to try and understand why this happens, and what can be done to reduce its incidence. A literature search using the MEDLINE database was conducted including search terms 'capsular contracture breast augmentation', 'capsular contracture pathogenesis', 'capsular contracture incidence', and 'capsular contracture management', which yielded 82 results which met inclusion criteria. Capsular contracture is caused by an excessive fibrotic reaction to a foreign body (the implant) and has an overall incidence of 10.6%. Risk factors that were identified included the use of smooth (vs. textured) implants, a subglandular (vs. submuscular) placement, use of a silicone (vs. saline) filled implant and previous radiotherapy to the breast. The standard management of capsular contracture is surgical via a capsulectomy or capsulotomy. Medical treatment using the off-label leukotriene receptor antagonist Zafirlukast has been reported to reduce severity and help prevent capsular contracture from forming, as has the use of acellular dermal matrices, botox and neopocket formation. However, nearly all therapeutic approaches are associated with a significant rate of recurrence. Capsular contracture is a multifactorial fibrotic process the precise cause of which is still unknown. The incidence of contracture developing is lower with the use of textured implants, submuscular placement and the use of polyurethane coated implants. Symptomatic capsular contracture is usually managed surgically, however recent research has focussed on preventing capsular contracture from occurring, or treating it with autologous fat transfer.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.43 no.3
• /
• pp.258-264
• /
• 2016

Background The survival rate of newborns with severe congenital abdominal wall defects has increased. After successfully addressing life-threatening complications, it is necessary to focus on the cosmetic and functional outcomes of the abdominal wall. Methods We performed a chart review of five cases treated in our institution. Results Five patients, ranging from seven to 18 years of age, underwent the following surgical approaches: simple approximation of the rectus abdominis fascia, the rectus abdominis sheath turnover flap, the placement of submuscular tissue expanders, mesh repair, or a combination of these techniques depending on the characteristics of each individual case. Conclusions Patients with severe congenital abdominal wall defects require individualized surgical treatment to address both the aesthetic and functional issues related to the sequelae of their defects.