Drainage Collection After Endoscopic-Assisted Transaxillary Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty Using Cold or Electrosurgical Separation of Interpectoral Space

Harmonic Scalpel Versus Monopolar Electrotome in Endoscopic-Assisted Transaxillary Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty: A Retrospective Study in 122 Patients

BACKGROUND

The transaxillary approach of breast augmentation is the most popular method in Asia, but longer period of recovery was observed in spite of the assistance of endoscope.

OBJECTIVES

Introducing the ultrasonic dissection devices might be a solution to minimizing tisue damage thus relieving pain and shortening the period of recovery.

METHOD

Between March 2020 and September 2022, we retrospectively reviewed the cases of 122 patients underwent endoscopic augmentation mammoplasty via the transaxillary approach using either the monopolar electrotome (ME) alone or assisted with Harmonic Scalpel (HS) in defining the retropectoral pocket and severing the pectoralis major muscle.

RESULT

The total drainage volume was significantly lower in the HS group than ME group (74.33 ± 48.81 vs. 180.30 ± 125.10 mL; p < 0.0001). VAS score of the first 24 hour after surgery of the ME group was significantly higher than that of the HS group (6.10 ± 1.27 vs. 2.88 ± 1.29, p < 0.0001). Operation time in HS group was reduced compared to ME group (113.1 ± 14.46 mins vs. 131.3 ± 35.51 mins, p < 0.001). The duration of drainage placement (1.08 ± 0.27 vs. 2.72 ± 1.18 days) and hospital stay after surgery (3.08 ± 0.42 vs. 5.64 ± 2.78 days; p < 0.0001) were largely reduced in HS group.

CONCLUSION

The assistance of Harmonic Scalpel significantly reduced total postoperative drainage, relieved pain and shortened operation time, length of drainage placement and hospital stay compared to using monopolar electrotome alone in endoscopic-assisted transaxillary dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

A Retrospective Study of Transaxillary Endoscopic Breast Augmentation Using Ultrasonic Scalpel or Conventional Electrocautery for Implant Pocket Dissection

BACKGROUND

Ultrasonic scalpel has been reported to be superior to conventional electrocautery in many studies. However, with respect to transaxillary endoscopic breast augmentation, few studies on the effect of ultrasonic scalpel are available in the literature.

METHODS

The medical records of 173 female patients who underwent breast augmentation via endoscopic transaxillary approach from January 2018 to December 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the implant pocket dissection instruments. In group A, the implant pockets were dissected with conventional electrocautery (EC group) on 81 patients, and in group B, ultrasonic scalpel (US group) was used for implant pockets on 92 patients. All operations were performed by the same senior plastic surgeon and the same surgical team. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative total drainage volume, days of drainage, postoperative surgical site pain and hospital stay time of the two groups were compared and analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

The average operation time of the US group (83.82 ± 11.57 min) was significantly shorter than that of the EC group (101.40 ± 14.36 min), intraoperative blood loss in the US group was significantly less than that of the EC group (18.67 ± 6.20 ml vs. 21.59 ± 6.44 ml), the mean hospital stay days (2.96 ± 0.69 vs. 4.30 ± 1.11), total drainage volume (122.24 ± 43.81 vs. 232.37 ± 99.15), and duration of drain (2.52 ± 0.54 vs. 3.77 ± 1.10), mean VAS score for surgical site pain on 3 postoperative days (5.08 ± 1.35 vs. 6.51 ± 1.36, 4.08 ± 1.16 vs. 5.40 ± 1.32, 3.04 ± 0.91 vs. 4.06 ± 1.11) were significantly lower in the US group compared to the EC group.

CONCLUSIONS

The ultrasonic scalpel reduces operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative pain, hospital stay time, and incidence of complications. The ultrasonic scalpel is safe and reliable for transaxillary endoscopic breast augmentation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Comparison of Total and Nontotal Endoscopic Transaxillary Breast Augmentation Techniques: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical outcomes of total endoscopic transaxillary (TET) breast augmentation with those of non-TET (NTET) breast augmentation. For the purposes of this study, the term NTET refers to the combination of blunt dissection and endoscopic techniques, whereas TET did not involve blunt dissection.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 119 consecutive cases of primary breast augmentation from May 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020. The primary outcomes were the number of drainage days and pain scores as assessed using the visual analog scale on the first postoperative day. The secondary outcomes were the daily drainage volume recorded during the postoperative drainage days, the presence of postoperative daily pain that required the administration of tramadol for relief, reoperation rate, and operative time.

RESULTS

The number of drainage days was significantly lower in the TET group than in the NTET group (TET vs NTET: 2.56 ± 0.57 vs 3.78 ± 1.30 days, P = 0.000). The visual analog scale score on the first postoperative day was significantly lower in the TET group than in the NTET group (TET vs NTET: 4.96 ± 0.63 vs 5.93 ± 0.93, P = 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that the major outcomes of the TET group were more favorable than those of the NTET group. Based on our results, we recommend the avoidance of blunt dissection during endoscopic transaxillary breast augmentation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

A Shakespearean Dilemma in Breast Augmentation: to Use Drains or not? a Systematic Review : Drains in Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly requested and performed plastic surgery procedures. In order to prevent early postoperative complications such as seroma or hematoma, surgical drains could be useful. The aim is to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of surgical drains in primary breast augmentation.

METHODS

This review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were queried in search of clinical studies describing the use of surgical drains in women undergoing primary breast augmentation with implants and documenting seroma and/or hematoma formation rate and/or infection rate.

RESULTS

Initial search identified 2596 studies, and 162 were found relevant. Full-text review and application of our inclusion criteria to all retrieved papers produced 38 articles that met inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 16 papers reported the use of surgical drains in breast augmentation, while in the remaining 22 articles drains were not used. Only 5 studies specifically investigated the role and effectiveness of surgical drains in augmentation mammaplasty and its possible relationship with complication rate such as seroma, hematoma or infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar complication rates emerged from the analyzed articles, because of the heterogeneity of the studies, we were not able to demonstrate specifically whether drain use affects the rate of early postoperative complications such as seroma, hematoma and infection. Additional randomized controlled trials are strongly advocated in order to provide the necessary scientific evidence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Comparison Of Endoscopic Transaxillary And Peri-areolar Approaches In Breast Augmentation With Smooth Implants

INTRODUCTION

The most common surgical approaches for breast augmentation in Asia have traditionally been peri-areolar and transaxillary. In recent years, transaxillary approach has become increasingly popular with the use of endoscopic methods, which result in safer and better outcomes. In the literature, there are no comparison studies of endoscopic transaxillary and peri-areolar approaches.

METHODS

This prospective study compared the outcomes of 275 women undergoing primary breast augmentation (endoscopic transaxillary n=205, peri-areolar n=70). All procedures were performed by a single surgeon using smooth round silicone implants and dual-plane pockets from April 2013 to March 2016. Every patient was monitored for a minimum of 4 years for minor and major complications.

RESULTS

Types and percentage of patients experiencing minor complications among transaxillary and peri-areolar patients were localized fluid collection in the wound (1% transaxillary, 7.1% peri-areolar), hypertrophic scarring or keloids (1% transaxillary, 8.6% peri-areolar), and areolar and nipple deformity (0% transaxillary, 8.6% peri-areolar). Major complications were postoperative bleeding (0% transaxillary, 2.9% peri-areolar) and capsular contracture, Baker Group III or IV (1% transaxillary, 5.7% peri-areolar).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic transaxillary breast augmentation had better outcomes, with lower rates of complications than the peri-areolar approach. Reviewing the literature, our study is the first direct comparison of peri-areolar and endoscopic transaxillary incisions using smooth implants. With the risk of anaplastic large cell lymphoma associated with certain macrotexture implants, endoscopic transaxillary approach using smooth implants is the safer technique and very good alternative choice for Asian women who do not want any scarring on their breasts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

LncRNA LOC146880 promotes esophageal squamous cell carcinoma progression via miR-328-5p/FSCN1/MAPK axis

We investigated the role of long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) LOC146880 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). LOC146880 was significantly upregulated in ESCC tissues (n = 21) and cell lines compared to the corresponding controls. Higher LOC146880 expression correlated with poorer overall survival (OS) of ESCC patients. Moreover, CREB-binding protein (CBP) and H3K27 acetylation levels were significantly higher in the LOC146880 promoter in ESCC cell lines than in the controls. LOC146880 silencing inhibited in vitro proliferation, invasion, migration, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition of ESCC cells. LOC146880 silencing also induced G1-phase cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in ESCC cells. Bioinformatics analysis, dual luciferase reporter assays, and RNA immunoprecipitation assays showed that LOC146880 regulates FSCN1 expression in ESCC cells by sponging miR-328-5p. Moreover, FSCN1 expression correlated with activation of the MAPK signaling pathway in ESCC cells and tissues. In vivo xenograft tumor volume and liver metastasis were significantly reduced in nude mice injected with LOC146880-silenced ESCC cells as compared to those injected with control shRNA-transfected ESCC cells. These findings show that the LOC146880/miR-328-5p/FSCN1/MAPK axis regulates ESCC progression in vitro and in vivo. LOC146880 is thus a promising prognostic biomarker and potential therapeutic target in ESCC.