Breast augmentation using polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAHG) was widely used in China. We present the first case of delayed breast inflammation after 2019 novel coronavirus(2019-nCoV) infection in a patient who recieved breast augmentation with PAHG 20 years ago, without any other predispositions. The 45-year-old female patient complained of severe breast swelling and pain three weeks after 2019-nCoV infection. The swelling extended from the upper clavicle to the upper abdomen. Delayed inflammation reaction was diagnosed, followed by emergency surgery. During the surgery, the injected material was observed to gush out in a form of greenish and thin paste, with a foul odor. The wound had extensive diffuse oozing and hemoglobin decreased significantly. The patient was discharged one week after surgery. During a three-month follow-up, she experienced weakness and fatigue with no complications. There are still many unknown areas of the impact of 2019-nCoV on human foreign bodies and immune system, which is diverse and complex. Reporting various possible symptoms and mechanisms is conducive to improving the level of awareness and intervention of plastic surgeons.

In recent years, with the development of autologous fat grafting and the use of scaffolds, prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) has regained popularity and ignited a heated discussion. Several meta-analyses have shown that PBR is safe when compared with subpectoral breast reconstruction, the standard of prosthetic breast reconstruction. There are many advantages in PBR such as mild pain and no dynamic deformity. Radiotherapy, required by up to 40% of patients, is a routine treatment for breast cancer. However, the safety and efficacy of PBR in this population remain inconclusive. Therefore, we reviewed clinical researches concerning PBR in patients who received radiotherapy, with the purpose to provide reference for clinical application and future study of PBR. We analysed the following five aspects: the influence of radiation on soft tissue and the implant, indications and contraindications, the research status of PBR in patients with radiotherapy, the influence of fat grafting on PBR in patients with radiotherapy and the limitation of the present study.

Breast augmentation using polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAHG) was widely used in China. We present the first case of delayed breast inflammation after 2019 novel coronavirus(2019-nCoV) infection in a patient who recieved breast augmentation with PAHG 20 years ago, without any other predispositions. The 45-year-old female patient complained of severe breast swelling and pain three weeks after 2019-nCoV infection. The swelling extended from the upper clavicle to the upper abdomen. Delayed inflammation reaction was diagnosed, followed by emergency surgery. During the surgery, the injected material was observed to gush out in a form of greenish and thin paste, with a foul odor. The wound had extensive diffuse oozing and hemoglobin decreased significantly. The patient was discharged one week after surgery. During a three-month follow-up, she experienced weakness and fatigue with no complications. There are still many unknown areas of the impact of 2019-nCoV on human foreign bodies and immune system, which is diverse and complex. Reporting various possible symptoms and mechanisms is conducive to improving the level of awareness and intervention of plastic surgeons.

In recent years, with the development of autologous fat grafting and the use of scaffolds, prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) has regained popularity and ignited a heated discussion. Several meta-analyses have shown that PBR is safe when compared with subpectoral breast reconstruction, the standard of prosthetic breast reconstruction. There are many advantages in PBR such as mild pain and no dynamic deformity. Radiotherapy, required by up to 40% of patients, is a routine treatment for breast cancer. However, the safety and efficacy of PBR in this population remain inconclusive. Therefore, we reviewed clinical researches concerning PBR in patients who received radiotherapy, with the purpose to provide reference for clinical application and future study of PBR. We analysed the following five aspects: the influence of radiation on soft tissue and the implant, indications and contraindications, the research status of PBR in patients with radiotherapy, the influence of fat grafting on PBR in patients with radiotherapy and the limitation of the present study.

Objective:To explore the safety and efficacy of prophylactic superdrainage using superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) in delayed single-pedicled deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction.Methods:The clinical data of all patients who underwent single-pedicle DIEP flap delayed breast reconstruction in Department of Comprehensive Breast Plasty Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College from May 2018 to August 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to whether SIEV-internal thoracic vein anastomosis was performed, they were divided into superdrainaged group and non-superdrainaged group. The diameter of SIEV and the time required for anastomosis were recorded. The total operation time, flap ischemia time, hospital stay, the rates of flap diffuse congestion, overall complications and second operation were compared between the two groups. The relative risks of flap diffuse congestion, complications and second operation were calculated. SPSS 24.0 software was used for data analysis. Measurement data was expressed as Mean±SD, independent sample t test was used for analysis. Counting data was expressed as %, and χ2 test was used for analysis. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:A total of 45 patients were included, including 26 patients in the non-superdrainaged group and 19 patients in the superdrainaged group. The total operation time was (7.7±1.9) h and (8.4±1.5) h, the flap ischemia time was (89.5±10.4) min and (92.6±12.3) min, and the hospital stay was (6.6±1.8) d and (6.6±2.0) d, respectively. There were no significant differences ( P>0.05). In the superdrainaged group, the diameter of SIEV was (2.5±0.3) mm, and manual suture was used. The time required for anastomosis of one SIEV was (12.2±2.3) min. The rates of diffuse congestion, recipient site complications, donor site complications and second operation were 7.7%(2/26), 15.4%(4/26), 7.7%(2/26) and 15.4%(4/26) in the non-superdrainaged group, and 0(0/19), 5.3%(1/19), 10.5%(2/19) and 5.3%(1/19) in the superdrainaged group, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups ( P>0.05). The relative risks were 3.7, 2.9, 0.7 and 2.9, respectively. Conclusion:Prophylactic superdrainage using SIEV is safe and effective. It can minimize the potential rate of diffuse venous congestion and secondary surgery, and not at the expense of increased flap ischemia time and abdominal complications in the meanwhile.

In deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction, diffuse venous congestion caused by non-pedicle causes, such as lack of effective communication between deep and superficial venous systems, is very rare. In this paper, a case of young woman who underwent DIEP breast reconstruction after breast cancer mastectomy was reported. Imaging findings showed the absence of bilateral dominant perforators and the lack of communication between the deep and superficial venous system. During operation, the superficial inferior epigastric vessels were dissected in advance. Indocyanine green angiography showed arterial perfusion insufficiency and venous congestion.The flap was successfully salvaged by supercharging/draining with superficial inferior epigastric vessels, preserving the abdominal function of the young patient to the greatest extent.

In recent years, with the development of autologous fat grafting and the use of scaffolds, prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) has regained popularity and aroused a hot topic. Several meta-analyses have shown that PBR is safe when compared with subpectoral breast reconstruction, the standard of prosthetic breast reconstruction. There are many advantages in PBR such as mild pain and no dynamic deformity. Radiotherapy, required by up to 40% of patients, is a routine treatment for breast cancer. However, the safety and efficacy of PBR in this population are still inconclusive. Therefore, we reviewed clinical researches concerning PBR in patients who recieved radiotherapy, in order to provide reference for clinical application and future study of PBR. We analysed in the following five aspects: the influence of radiation on soft tissue and the implant, indications and contraindications, the research status of PBR in patients with radiotherapy, the influence of fat grafting on PBR in patients with radiotherapy and the limitation of the present study.

Objective:This study aimed to explore the clinical application value of the indication selection criteria for bi-pedicled deep inferior epigastric arterial perforator flap(DIEP) versus pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap(TRAM) combined with DIEP for breast reconstruction.Methods:The clinical data of patients who underwent delayed bi-pedicled abdominal flap breast reconstruction after breast cancer surgery in the Department of Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery and Department of Mammoplasty, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 2008 to April 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the indications for each procedure, corresponding blood supply source was selected. Subsequently, patients were divided into two groups: bi-pedicled DIEP group and pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group according to the type of blood supply source. The indication selection criteria for pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap was as follows: lack of two groups of recipient vessels; no dominant perforator in the abdominal donor site; previous abdominal liposuction or abdominal surgery with large dissection range and severe scar; patients were unable to tolerate prolonged surgery or had high risk factors for microsurgery. A comparison of breast reconstruction surgery characteristics was conducted between the two groups. Independent-samples t-test, rank sum test, Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact probability method were used to analyze various data including age, body mass index (BMI), time interval between breast cancer surgery and breast reconstruction surgery, history of radiotherapy, history of chemotherapy, history of smoking, history of lower abdominal surgery, history of hypertension, original surgical incision type, length and width of flap, hospitalization length, preoperative and postoperative conditions, as well as postoperative complications. Statistical significance was defined at P<0.05. Results:A total of 54 patients who underwent unilateral breast reconstruction were included in this study with a mean age of 42.2 years (range, 30-59 years). The pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group consisted of 21 patients with a mean age of 42.7 years (range, 33-56 years) while the bi-pedicled DIEP group comprised 33 patients with a mean age of 41.8 years (30-59 years). Out of the 54 patients, a total of 38 were eventually followed up, comprising 14 in the pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group and 24 in the bi-pedicled DIEP group. The average follow-up duration for the pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group was 42 months (range, 6-69 months). Abdominal bulge occurred in one patient, while another patient experienced abdominal hernia. The average follow-up duration for the bi-pedicled DIEP group was 47 months (6-179 months), with no reported cases of abdominal bulge or abdominal hernia. There were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups regarding age, BMI, time interval between breast cancer surgery and breast reconstruction surgery, history of radiotherapy or chemotherapy, history of smoking, history of lower abdominal surgery, history of hypertension, original surgical incision type, length and width of flap, hospitalization length or time to ambulation (all P>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference noted in duration of surgery between the pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group and bi-pedicled DIEP group [6.0(5.5-6.5) hours vs. 8.5(8.0-8.8) hours] ( P<0.01). Comparison analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in terms of partial flap necrosis (0/21 vs. 1/33), abdominal incision dehiscence (2/21 vs. 2/33), abdominal bulge (1/14 vs. 0 /24) or abdominal hernia (1/1 vs. 0/24) between the two groups ( P>0.05). Conclusion:For patients who needed bilateral vascular pedicled lower abdominal wall for breast reconstruction, utilizing a pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap did not increase surgical complication risks. The proposed indication selection criteria for using a pedicled TRAM + DIEP combined flap outlined in this study could serve as guidance when choosing methods for bi-pedicled abdominal flap breast reconstruction.

Objective:To preliminarily evaluate the outcome of fat grafting breast augmentation using filtration-adsorption technique.Methods:Patients undergoing autologous fat grafting (AFG) breast augmentation between July of 2020 and March of 2021 were retrospectively reviewed at Breast Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Center, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College. Patients with complete data who followed up for at least 3 months were included. The lipoaspirates were processed with filtration-adsorption technique and AFG breast augmentation were performed (filtration-adsorption group), and then sedimentation method which was commonly used clinically was set as the control group (sedimentation group). During the follow-up, breast palpation and ultrasound inspection were performed, and the breast volumetric change between preoperative and postoperative was quantitatively compared by three-dimensional scanning technique. Demographic and surgical details were statistically analyzed. Postoperative breast volume retention rates and complication rates were calculated and compared. Normally distributed continuous variables were described in the form Mean±SD, and t-test was used for analysis. Non-normal distributed continuous variables were described in the form of M ( Q1, Q3) and analyzed by Mann-Whitney U test. The classified data were analyzed by Fisher exact probability test. Results:A total of 20 female patients (40 breasts) were included, including 10 patients (20 breasts) aged (31.4±2.5) years in sedimentation group and 10 patients (20 breasts) aged (28.5±4.4) years in the filtration-adsorption group. The fat injection volume in the filtration-adsorption group was 151.1 (125.0, 175.0) ml, and 165.0 (151.3, 196.3) ml in sedimentation group, respectively, with no statistical significance ( P>0.05). The breast volume retention rate in filtration-adsorption group was (62.93±14.06)%, which was significantly higher than that in sedimentation group (24.97±11.02)% ( P<0.01). During postoperative breast ultrasound examination, 2 breasts in sedimentation group had palpable nodules (< 6 mm), 1 breast had ultrasonically detectable but clinically inaccessible nodules (< 4 mm), while only 1 breast in the filtration-adsorption group had an oil cyst (4 mm×2 mm). The complication rate in the filtration-adsorption group was lower than that in sedimentation group[5.0%(1/20) vs. 15.0%(3/20), P>0.05]. Conclusion:The filtration-adsorption technique is an ideal method for fat grafting, which would multiply the volume retention rate in large-volume AFG breast augmentation and reduce the rate of complications.

Objective:To explore the safety and efficacy of prophylactic superdrainage using superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) in delayed single-pedicled deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction.Methods:The clinical data of all patients who underwent single-pedicle DIEP flap delayed breast reconstruction in Department of Comprehensive Breast Plasty Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College from May 2018 to August 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to whether SIEV-internal thoracic vein anastomosis was performed, they were divided into superdrainaged group and non-superdrainaged group. The diameter of SIEV and the time required for anastomosis were recorded. The total operation time, flap ischemia time, hospital stay, the rates of flap diffuse congestion, overall complications and second operation were compared between the two groups. The relative risks of flap diffuse congestion, complications and second operation were calculated. SPSS 24.0 software was used for data analysis. Measurement data was expressed as Mean±SD, independent sample t test was used for analysis. Counting data was expressed as %, and χ2 test was used for analysis. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:A total of 45 patients were included, including 26 patients in the non-superdrainaged group and 19 patients in the superdrainaged group. The total operation time was (7.7±1.9) h and (8.4±1.5) h, the flap ischemia time was (89.5±10.4) min and (92.6±12.3) min, and the hospital stay was (6.6±1.8) d and (6.6±2.0) d, respectively. There were no significant differences ( P>0.05). In the superdrainaged group, the diameter of SIEV was (2.5±0.3) mm, and manual suture was used. The time required for anastomosis of one SIEV was (12.2±2.3) min. The rates of diffuse congestion, recipient site complications, donor site complications and second operation were 7.7%(2/26), 15.4%(4/26), 7.7%(2/26) and 15.4%(4/26) in the non-superdrainaged group, and 0(0/19), 5.3%(1/19), 10.5%(2/19) and 5.3%(1/19) in the superdrainaged group, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups ( P>0.05). The relative risks were 3.7, 2.9, 0.7 and 2.9, respectively. Conclusion:Prophylactic superdrainage using SIEV is safe and effective. It can minimize the potential rate of diffuse venous congestion and secondary surgery, and not at the expense of increased flap ischemia time and abdominal complications in the meanwhile.