Thursday, 11 January 2018

Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Expander/Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Assessment of Risks and Benefits

Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Expander/Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Assessment of Risks and Benefits

Sorkin M et al

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: December 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 6 - p 1091–1100

Background: Acellular dermal matrix has gained widespread acceptance in immediate expander/implant reconstruction because of perceived benefits, including improved expansion dynamics and superior aesthetic results. Although previous investigators have evaluated its risks, few studies have assessed the impact of acellular dermal matrix on other outcomes, including patient-reported measures. Methods: The Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study used a prospective cohort design to evaluate patients undergoing postmastectomy reconstruction from 10 centers and 58 participating surgeons between 2012 and 2015. The analysis focused on women undergoing immediate tissue expander reconstruction following mastectomies for cancer treatment or prophylaxis. Medical records and patient-reported outcome data, using the BREAST-Q and Numeric Pain Rating Scale instruments, were reviewed. Bivariate analyses and mixed-effects regression models were applied. Results: A total of 1297 patients were evaluated, including 655 (50.5 percent) with acellular dermal matrix and 642 (49.5 percent) without acellular dermal matrix. Controlling for demographic and clinical covariates, no significant differences were seen between acellular dermal matrix and non–acellular dermal matrix cohorts in overall complications (OR, 1.21; p = 0.263), major complications (OR, 1.43; p = 0.052), wound infections (OR, 1.49; p = 0.118), or reconstructive failures (OR, 1.55; p = 0.089) at 2 years after reconstruction. There were also no significant differences between the cohorts in the time to expander/implant exchange (p = 0.78). No significant differences were observed in patient-reported outcome scores, including satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, physical well-being, and postoperative pain. Conclusions: In this multicenter, prospective analysis, the authors found no significant acellular dermal matrix effects on complications, time to exchange, or patient-reported outcome in immediate expander/implant breast reconstruction. Further studies are needed to develop criteria for more selective use of acellular dermal matrix in these patients.

Optimizing Postsurgical Scars: A Systematic Review on Best Practices in Preventative Scar Management

Optimizing Postsurgical Scars: A Systematic Review on Best Practices in Preventative Scar Management


Perez J, Rohrich RJ
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: December 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 6 - p 782e–793e

Background: Scar management is critical for every plastic surgeon’s practice and, ultimately, the patient’s satisfaction with his or her aesthetic result. Despite the critical nature of this component of routine postoperative care, there has yet to be a comprehensive analysis of the available literature over the past decade to assess the best algorithmic approach to scar care. To this end, a systematic review of best practices in preventative scar management was conducted to elucidate the highest level of evidence available on this subject to date. 
Methods: A computerized MEDLINE search was performed for clinical studies addressing scar management. The resulting publications were screened randomized clinical trials that met the authors’ specified inclusion/exclusion criteria. 
Results: This systematic review was performed in May of 2016. The initial search for the Medical Subject Headings term “cicatrix” and modifiers “therapy, radiotherapy, surgery, drug therapy, prevention, and control” yielded 13,101 initial articles. Applying the authors’ inclusion/exclusion criteria resulted in 12 relevant articles. All included articles are randomized, controlled, clinical trials. 
Conclusions: Optimal scar care requires taking into account factors such as incisional tension, anatomical location, and Fitzpatrick skin type. The authors present a streamlined algorithm for scar prophylaxis based on contemporary level I and II evidence to guide clinical practice.

[Review] Radiotherapy in the setting of breast reconstruction: types, techniques, and timing

[Review] Radiotherapy in the setting of breast reconstruction: types, techniques, and timing

Ho, AY et al

Lancet Oncology December 2017 Vol 18, 12 e742- e753

As the use of breast reconstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) has increased over the past decade, the typical approach to integrating radiotherapy with breast reconstruction has provoked intense controversy in the management of breast cancer. PMRT can lead to an increased frequency of complications in the reconstructed breast. Conversely, the reconstructed breast can increase the complexity of radiotherapy delivery. How to minimise the frequency of complications without compromising oncological or cosmetic outcomes of the reconstructed breast is an important shared multidisciplinary goal for oncologists and their patients.

Evidence-Based Performance Measures: Quality Metrics for the Care of Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction

Evidence-Based Performance Measures: Quality Metrics for the Care of Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction

Manahan MA, et al

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery:December 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 6 - p 775e–781e

Summary: The American Society of Plastic Surgeons commissioned the Breast Reconstruction Performance Measure Development Work Group to identify and draft quality measures for the care of patients undergoing breast reconstruction surgery. Two outcome measures were identified. The first desired outcome was to reduce the number of returns to the operating room following reconstruction within 60 days of the initial reconstructive procedure. The second desired outcome was to reduce flap loss within 30 days of the initial reconstructive procedure. All measures in this report were approved by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Breast Reconstruction Performance Measures Work Group and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Executive Committee. The Work Group recommends the use of these measures for quality initiatives, Continuing Medical Education, Maintenance of Certification, American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ Qualified Clinical Data Registry reporting, and national quality reporting programs.

The Expanded Use of Autoaugmentation Techniques in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery

The Expanded Use of Autoaugmentation Techniques in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery

Losken A et al

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Durgery: January 2018 - Volume 141 - Issue 1 - p 10–19

Background: Autoaugmentation techniques have been applied to oncoplastic reductions to assist with filling larger, more remote defects, and to women with smaller breasts. The purpose of this report is to describe the use of autoaugmentation techniques in oncoplastic reduction and compare the results with those of traditional oncoplastic reduction. 
Methods: The authors queried a prospectively maintained database of all women who underwent partial mastectomy and oncoplastic reduction between 1994 and October of 2015. The autoaugmentation techniques were defined as (1) extended primary nipple autoaugmentation pedicle, and (2) primary nipple pedicle and secondary autoaugmentation pedicle. Comparisons were made to a control oncoplastic group. Results: There were a total of 333 patients, 222 patients (67.7 percent) without autoaugmentation and 111 patients (33 percent) with autoaugmentation (51 patients with an extended autoaugmentation pedicle, and 60 patients with a secondary autoaugmentation pedicle). Biopsy weight was smallest in the extended pedicle group (136 g) and largest in the regular oncoplastic group (235 g; p = 0.017). Superomedial was the most common extended pedicle, and lateral was the most common location. Inferolateral was the most common secondary pedicle for lateral and upper outer defects. There were no significant differences in the overall complication rate: 15.5 percent in the regular oncoplastic group, 19.6 percent in the extended pedicle group, and 20 percent in the secondary pedicle group. Conclusions: Autoaugmentation techniques have evolved to manage complex defects not amenable to standard oncoplastic reduction methods. They are often required for lateral defects, especially in smaller breasts. Autoaugmentation can be performed safely without an increased risk of complications, broadening the indications for breast conservation therapy. 

Two-Stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Prepectoral and Partial Subpectoral Techniques

Two-Stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Prepectoral and Partial Subpectoral Techniques

Nahabedian M Y, CocilovoC

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Durgery: December 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 6S - p 22S–30S

Background: Prosthetic breast reconstruction with prepectoral placement may confer clinical advantages compared with subpectoral placement. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare clinical outcomes following 2-stage reconstruction following prepectoral and partial subpectoral placement of tissue expanders and implants. Methods: A retrospective review of 39 (prepectoral) and 50 (partial subpectoral) patients was completed. Acellular dermal matrix was used in all patients. Mean age was 50.4 and 49.2 years, respectively. Body mass index (BMI) > 30 was noted in 15.4% of prepectoral and 18% of partial subpectoral patients. Radiation therapy was delivered to 38.5% of prepectoral patients and to 22% of partial subpectoral patients. Mean follow-up was 8.7 and 13 months for the prepectoral cohort and partial subpectoral cohorts. Results: The percentage of patients having at least 1 adverse event was 20.5% in the prepectoral and 22% in the partial subpectoral cohorts. The incidence of surgical-site infection and seroma was 8.1% and 4.8%, respectively, for the prepectoral cohort and 4.8% and 2.4%, respectively, for the partial subpectoral cohorts. Device explantation was 6.5% for the prepectoral and 7.2% for the partial subpectoral patients. Explantation did not occur in patients who had radiation or who had a BMI > 30. Four patients (6 breasts—7.2%) required conversion from partial subpectoral to prepectoral because of animation deformity. Conclusions: Prepectoral reconstruction is a viable alternative to partial subpectoral reconstruction. Proper patient selection is an important variable. Prepectoral reconstruction can be safely performed in patients with a BMI < 40 and in patients having postmastectomy radiation therapy.

Important Considerations for Performing Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Important Considerations for Performing Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Sbitany, H
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Durgery: December 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 6S - p 7S–13S

Summary: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has emerged as an excellent technique for postmastectomy reconstruction, as it allows for full preservation of a patient’s pectoralis major muscle and chest wall function. This reduces pain, eliminates animation deformity, and results in high patient satisfaction. Safely performed prepectoral breast reconstruction requires a careful patient selection process before committing to the procedure, taking into account comorbidities, radiation status, and oncologic criteria such as tumor location and breast cancer stage. Furthermore, a thorough intraoperative assessment of mastectomy skin flaps is critical, with careful and precise confirmation that the skin is viable and well perfused, prior to proceeding with prepectoral breast reconstruction. This can be done both clinically and with perfusion assessment devices. The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has enhanced outcomes and aesthetics of prepectoral reconstruction, by providing implant coverage and soft-tissue support. The ADM also adds the benefit of reducing capsular contracture rates and offers full control over the aesthetic definition of the newly reconstructed breast pocket. Aesthetic enhancement of results requires routine use of oversizing implants in the skin envelope, careful selection of full capacity or cohesive gel implants, and autologous fat grafting. In this way, patients in all clinical scenarios can benefit from the full muscle-sparing technique of prepectoral breast reconstruction, including those undergoing immediate reconstruction, delayed reconstruction, and delayed conversion from a subpectoral to prepectoral plane to correct animation deformity.

Revisiting the Abdominal Donor Site: Introducing a Novel Nomenclature for Autologous Breast Reconstruction

Revisiting the Abdominal Donor Site: Introducing a Novel Nomenclature for Autologous Breast Reconstruction

Weissler, J et al

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Durgery: December 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 6 - p 1110–1118

Background: As abdominally based free flaps for breast reconstruction continue to evolve, significant effort has been invested in minimizing donor-site morbidity. The impact on the donor site remains a prevailing principle for breast reconstruction, and thus must be adequately reflected when classifying what is left behind following flap harvest. Although successful in describing the type of flap harvested, the existing nomenclature falls short of incorporating certain critical variables, such as degree of muscular preservation, fascial involvement, mesh implantation, and segmental nerve anatomy. Methods: In an effort to expand on Nahabedian’s 2002 classification system, this descriptive study revisits and critically reviews the existing donor-site classification system following abdominally based breast reconstruction. Results: The authors propose a nomenclature system that emphasizes variability in flap harvest technique, degree of muscular violation, fascial resection, mesh implantation, and degree of nerve transection. Conclusion: With this revised classification system, reconstructive surgeons can begin reporting more clinically relevant and accurate information with regard to donor-site morbidity.

Sunday, 26 November 2017

Lower Extremity Free Flaps for Breast Reconstruction

Lower Extremity Free Flaps for Breast Reconstruction

Dayan, JH. Allen, RJ. 
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: November 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 5S - p 77S–86S

Thigh-based flaps are typically a secondary option for breast reconstruction because of concerns regarding limited tissue volume and donor-site morbidity. In recent years, there have been a number of new techniques and insights that have resulted in greater flexibility and improved outcomes. This article reviews lessons learned from a large collective experience using the following 4 flaps: transverse upper gracilis also known as transverse myocutaneous gracilis, diagonal upper gracilis, profunda artery perforator, and lateral thigh perforator flaps. Flap selection considerations include the patient’s fat distribution and skin laxity, perforator anatomy, and scar location. Pearls to minimize donor-site morbidity include avoiding major lymphatic collectors in the femoral triangle and along the greater saphenous vein and respecting the limits of flap dimension to reduce wound healing complications and distal ischemia. Limited flap volume may be addressed with stacking another flap from the contralateral thigh or primary fat grafting as opposed to overaggressive flap harvest from a single thigh. A detailed review of the benefits and disadvantages of each flap and strategies to improve results is discussed. With careful planning and selection, thigh-based flaps can provide a reliable option patients desiring autologous breast reconstruction.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Ter Louw, R P.  Nahabedian, M Y. 
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: November 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 5S - p 51S–59S

Oncologic and reconstructive advancements in the management of patients with breast cancer and at high risk for breast cancer have led to improved outcomes and decreased patient morbidity. Traditional methods for prosthetic breast reconstructions have utilized total or partial muscle coverage of prosthetic devices. Although effective, placement of devices under the pectoralis major muscle can be associated with increased pain due to muscle spasm and animation deformities. Prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction has gained popularity in the plastic surgery community, and long-term outcomes have become available. This article will review the indications, technique, and current literature surrounding prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction.

Breast Reconstruction and Radiation Therapy: An Update

Breast Reconstruction and Radiation Therapy: An Update

Nelson, JA. Disa, JJ.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: November 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 5S - p 60S–68S

With the indications for radiation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer continuing to expand, many patients present for reconstruction having previously had radiation or having a high likelihood of requiring radiation following mastectomy. Both situations are challenging for the plastic surgeon, with different variables impacting the surgical outcome. To date, multiple studies have been performed examining prosthetic and autologous reconstruction in this setting. The purpose of this article was to provide a general platform for understanding the literature as it relates to reconstruction and radiation through an examination of recent systematic reviews and relevant recent publications. We examined this with a focus on the timing of the radiation, and within this context, examined the data from the traditional surgical outcomes standpoint as well as from a patient-reported outcomes perspective. The data provided within will aid in patient counseling and the informed consent process.

Friday, 24 November 2017

Fat Grafting to the Breast: Clinical Applications and Outcomes for Reconstructive Surgery

Fat Grafting to the Breast: Clinical Applications and Outcomes for Reconstructive Surgery

Katzel, EB.Bucky, LP. 

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: November 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 5S - p 69S–76S

Summary: This article is a review of fat grafting for breast reconstruction. The use of small volume fat grafting for the correction of step-off deformities, intrinsic deformities, and extrinsic deformities of the breast, and the uses of large volume fat grafting for total breast reconstruction, correction of implant complications with simultaneous implant exchange with fat, and correction of noncancer chest wall deformities is reviewed. Cancer monitoring and the risks of cancer recurrence following fat-grafting to the breast is also reviewed.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

Colwell, AS.Christensen, JM.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: November 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 5S - p 7S–13S

Breast reconstruction following mastectomy has evolved to preserve the native skin and nipple of the breast and create a natural-appearing reconstruction in 1 or 2 surgeries. Nipple-sparing procedures appear to be oncologically safe with low risks of cancer recurrence. In our series of 2,182 nipple-sparing mastectomies, there was no development or recurrence of cancer in the nipple. Direct-to-implant single-stage surgery offers the patient a complete reconstruction at the time of mastectomy. Patient selection centers on preoperative breast anatomy combined with postoperative goals for size and uplift of the breast. The best candidates for nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction include those with grade I–II breast ptosis and those desiring to stay approximately the same breast size. The choice of incision and width of the implant play key roles in nipple centralization. Partial muscle coverage with acellular dermal matrix remains the most common technique to support the implant and offers the advantage of more soft-tissue coverage in the upper pole. With experience, complications and revisions are similar in this approach compared with more traditional 2-stage tissue expander-implant reconstruction. Thus, nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is emerging as a preferred method of breast reconstruction when the breast skin envelope is sufficiently perfused.

Updated Evidence on the Oncoplastic Approach to Breast Conservation Therapy

Updated Evidence on the Oncoplastic Approach to Breast Conservation Therapy

Losken, A et al

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: November 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 5S - p 14S–22S

The oncoplastic approach to breast conservation therapy has become a useful and popular option for women with breast cancer who wish to preserve their breast. The initial driving forces were aimed at minimizing the potential for a breast conservation therapy deformity; however, various other benefits have been identified that include broadening the indications for breast conservation therapy in some patients and improved margin control. The various techniques can be categorized into glandular rearrangement techniques such as breast reductions usually in patients with larger breasts or flap reconstruction such as the latissimus dorsi muscle usually in patients with smaller breasts. As the acceptance continues to increase, we are starting to see more outcomes evidence in terms of patient satisfaction, quality of life, complications, and recurrence, to further support the safety and efficacy of the oncoplastic approach.

Current Trends in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Current Trends in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Panchal, H. Matros, E.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: November 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 5S - p 7S–13S

Postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction in the U.S. continues to experience an upward trend owing to heightened awareness, innovations in reconstructive technique, growing evidence of improved patient-reported outcomes, and shifts in mastectomy patterns. Women with unilateral breast cancer are increasingly electing to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, instead of unilateral mastectomy or opting for breast conservation. The ascent in prophylactic surgeries correlates temporally to a shift toward prosthetic methods of reconstruction as the most common technique. Factors associated with the choice for implants include younger age, quicker recovery time, along with documented safety and enhanced aesthetic outcomes with newer generations of devices. Despite advances in autologous transfer, its growth is constrained by the greater technical expertise required to complete microsurgical transfer and potential barriers such as poor relative reimbursement. The increased use of radiation as an adjuvant treatment for management of breast cancer has created additional challenges for plastic surgeons who need to consider the optimal timing and method of breast reconstruction to perform in these patients.

What’s New in Acellular Dermal Matrix and Soft-Tissue Support for Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

What’s New in Acellular Dermal Matrix and Soft-Tissue Support for Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

Kim, J et al
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: November 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 5S - p 30S–43S

Of the nearly 90,000 implant-based breast reconstructions performed in the United States, the majority use internal soft-tissue support. Aesthetically, these constructs may allow for better positioning of prosthesis, improve lower pole expansion, and increase projection. They may have particular utility in direct-to-implant, nipple-sparing mastectomies, and prepectoral reconstructions. In recent years, new permutations of acellular dermal matrices have evolved with diverse shapes, sizes, form-factor innovations, and processing characteristics. The literature is largely limited to retrospective studies (and meta-analyses thereof), making robust comparisons of 1 iteration vis-à-vis another difficult. Although synthetic mesh may provide a cost-effective alternative in primary and secondary reconstruction, comparative studies with acellular dermal matrix are lacking. This review aims to provide a balanced overview of recent biologic and synthetic mesh innovation. As this technology (and concomitant techniques) evolve, the reconstructive surgeon is afforded more—and better—choices to improve care for patients.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline: Autologous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP or Pedicled TRAM Abdominal Flaps

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline: Autologous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP or Pedicled TRAM Abdominal Flaps

Lee, B et al
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: November 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 5 - p 651e–664e

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons commissioned a multistakeholder Work Group to develop recommendations for autologous breast reconstruction with abdominal flaps. A systematic literature review was performed and a stringent appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research. The Work Group assigned to draft this guideline was unable to find evidence of superiority of one technique over the other (deep inferior epigastric perforator versus pedicled transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap) in autologous tissue reconstruction of the breast after mastectomy. Presently, based on the evidence reported here, the Work Group recommends that surgeons contemplating breast reconstruction on their next patient consider the following: the patient’s preferences and risk factors, the setting in which the surgeon works (academic versus community practice), resources available, the evidence shown in this guideline, and, equally important, the surgeon’s technical expertise. Although theoretical superiority of one technique may exist, this remains to be reported in the literature, and future methodologically robust studies are needed.

Monday, 23 October 2017

Trends and predictions to 2020 in breast cancer mortality in Europe

Trends and predictions to 2020 in breast cancer mortality in Europe
Carioli G et al
The Breast, Article in Press

We analyzed trends in mortality from breast cancer in women in 36 European countries and the European Union (EU) over the period 1970–2014, and predicted numbers of deaths and rates to 2020.

Highlights:

  • EU breast cancer mortality rates declined by 15% between 2002 and 2012.
  • We predict a further 10% decline in breast cancer mortality to 2020.
  • The falls were largest in the young.
  • Trends were less favourable in central and eastern than in western Europe.
  • The key determinant of the falls is management; early diagnosis contributed, too.

Breast Cancer Genetics for Plastic Surgeons

Breast Cancer Genetics for Plastic Surgeons
McInerney, N et al

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: September 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 3 - p 455–460

Summary: Multidisciplinary genetic clinics offer counseling and testing to those who meet criteria for familial breast cancer, and plastic surgeons become integral to this process when risk-reducing surgery and postmastectomy reconstruction are deemed appropriate. As reconstructive surgeons, it is important that plastic surgeons are aware of the risks and issues associated with the genetic variants that cause patients to present for prophylactic or therapeutic surgery.

Determining the Oncologic Safety of Autologous Fat Grafting as a Reconstructive Modality: An Institutional Review of Breast Cancer Recurrence Rates and Surgical Outcomes

Determining the Oncologic Safety of Autologous Fat Grafting as a Reconstructive Modality: An Institutional Review of Breast Cancer Recurrence Rates and Surgical Outcomes
Cohen, O et al
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, September 2017 - Volume 140 - Issue 3 - p 382e–392e

Background: The increasing use of autologous fat grafting in breast cancer patients has raised concerns regarding its oncologic safety. This study evaluated patient outcomes and tumor recurrence following mastectomy reconstruction and autologous fat grafting. 
Methods: Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent mastectomy followed by breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2015. Eight hundred twenty-nine breasts met inclusion criteria: 248 (30.0 percent) underwent autologous fat grafting, whereas 581 (70.0 percent) breasts did not. Patient demographics, cancer characteristics, oncologic treatment, surgical treatment, surgical complications, local recurrence, and distant metastases were analyzed. 
Results: Autologous fat grafting patients and control patients were of similar body mass index, smoking status, and BRCA status. Patients who underwent fat grafting were significantly younger than control patients and were less likely to have diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. The two groups represented similar distributions of BRCA status, Oncotype scores, and hormone receptor status. Patients underwent one to four grafting procedures: one procedure in 83.1 percent, two procedures in 13.7 percent, three in 2.8 percent, and four in 0.4 percent. Mean follow-up time from initial surgery was 45.6 months in the fat grafting group and 38.8 months in controls. The overall complication rate following fat grafting was 9.4 percent. Among breasts undergoing surgery for therapeutic indications, there were similar rates of local recurrence (fat grafting group, 2.5 percent; controls, 1.9 percent; p = 0.747). Interestingly, mean time to recurrence was significantly longer in the fat grafting group (52.3 months versus 22.8 months from initial surgery; p = 0.016). 
Conclusions: Autologous fat grafting is a powerful tool in breast reconstruction. This large, single-institution study provides valuable evidence-based support for its oncologic safety.