No abstract available.
Skin ; Transplants ; Vacuum

BACKGROUND: A persistent problem in autologous breast reconstruction in skin-sparing mastectomies is skin restoration after skin necrosis or secondary oncological resection. As a solution to facilitate reconstruction, skin banking of free-flap skin has been proposed in cases where the overlying skin envelope must be resected, as this technique spares the patient an additional donor site. Herein, we present the largest series to date in which this method was used. We investigated its safety and the possibility of skin banking for prolonged periods of time. METHODS: All skin-sparing mastectomies and immediate autologous breast reconstructions from December 2009 until June 2013 at our institution were analysed. RESULTS: We identified 31 patients who underwent 33 free flap reconstructions in which skin banking was performed. Our median skin banking period was 7 days, with a maximum duration of 171 days. In 22.5% of cases, the banked skin was used to reconstruct overlying skin defects, and in 9.6% of cases to reconstruct the nipple-areolar complex. Microbiological and histological investigations of the banked skin revealed neither clinical infections nor malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: In situ skin banking, even for prolonged periods of time, is a safe and cost-effective method to ensure that skin defects due to necrosis or secondary oncological resection can be easily reconstructed.
Breast Neoplasms ; Female ; Free Tissue Flaps* ; Humans ; Mammaplasty ; Mastectomy* ; Methods ; Necrosis ; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures ; Skin* ; Tissue Donors ; Transplantation, Autologous

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy in male transgender patients is an important (and often the first) step toward physical manhood. At our department, mastectomies in transgender patients have been performed for several decades. METHODS: Recorded data were collected and analyzed for all male transgender patients undergoing mastectomy over a period of 24 years at our department. RESULTS: In total, 268 gender-reassigning mastectomies were performed. Several different mastectomy techniques (areolar incision, n=172; sub-mammary incision, n=96) were used according to patients’ habitus and breast features. Corresponding to algorithms presented in the current literature, certain breast qualities were matched with a particular mastectomy technique. Overall, small breasts with marginal ptosis and good skin elasticity allowed small areolar incisions as a method of access for glandular removal. In contrast, large breasts and those with heavy ptosis or poor skin elasticity often required larger incisions for breast amputation. The secondary correction rate (38%) was high for gender reassignment mastectomy, as is also reflected by data in the current literature. Secondary correction frequently involved revision of chest wall recontouring, suggesting inadequate removal of the mammary tissue, as well as scar revision, which may reflect intense traction during wound healing (36%). Secondary corrections were performed more often after using small areolar incision techniques (48%) than after using large sub-mammary incisions (21%). CONCLUSIONS: Choosing the suitable mastectomy technique for each patient requires careful individual evaluation of breast features such as size, degree of ptosis, and skin elasticity in order to maximize patient satisfaction and minimize secondary revisions.
Amputation ; Breast ; Cicatrix ; Elasticity ; Humans ; Male ; Mastectomy ; Methods ; Patient Satisfaction ; Retrospective Studies ; Skin ; Thoracic Wall ; Traction ; Transgender Persons ; Wound Healing