Why is breast cancer reconstruction surgery with implants done in multiple stages? "Baby Steps"

From time to time you will get asked by breast cancer patients whether their reconstruction surgery can be done all in one stage at the time of mastectomy. The answer is you can, but there are a number of factors working against you for the best result, such that "baby steps" (planned sequential small procedures)

Typically, most implant reconstruction surgery involves placing a temporary implant called a "tissue expander" at the time of mastectomy that is later replaced by a permanent implant. As compared to a regular implant, a tissue expander is shaped different to maximize shape of the lower breast. It is decidedly more rigid and firm and then permanent devices, particular when silicone implants are later used. The advantage of such specialized devices is that they allow either 1) expansion of the skin by periodically adding fluid to them and 2) better resisting shrinkage of the skin following mastectomy.

Planned 2 stage surgery was popularized by Dr. Pat Maxwell (my mentor) and Dr. Scott Spears, and is well established as the most popular way to do breast reconstruction world wide. There has always been some interest in trying to skip the intermediate step, but doing it predictably is elusive. The big problem is tissue shrinkage of the skin, which as I mentioned is better resisted by the more rigid expander implant versus the softer permanent ones. The best candidates are those with smaller breasts who are having nipple-sparing procedures so that the native skin is 100% conserved. Even in that group, I find I'd be increasingly likely to go back and fat graft to camouflage the implant in a 2nd stage surgery. To my way of thinking, the benefit of single stage surgery just work enough to give up the benefit of the expander structural advantages.

Rob

Latisse (the eyelash drug) has been a raging clinical success

Quick thought of the day:

After dispensing Allergan's Latisse medication for enhancing eyelash growth for over a year now, I'm officially impressed. It is hand's down the single most reliable treatment we offer to patients, and I have not seen anyone who does not respond well with it. Part of it's popularity is also the relatively low price tag (~ $120-$130 for a 2 month supply).

The "off the record" advice I have for Latisse users is that I think you can actually use it less frequently then daily and maintain results. I advise patients that once they get to a good clinical result that they try every other or every third day for application. Rationing the medication like that can make a single box extend for 3-4 months instead of 2 without much diminishing results. A good cosmetic budgeting strategy in these times!

Rob

When is a medical record not a medical record? When the Obama adminstration get's PC with it

If the roll out of 21st century health care could have been more poorly handled, I'm not sure how. From a slow bleed over the spring involving an ill-conceived re-imagination of American health care delivery by the Democrats we are now presented with statements from President Obama's electronic medical record (EMR) czar that a medical record does not have to actually reflect what your medical history is.

Dr. David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, said in an interview with CNS news (see here) that patients can choose to omit procedures such as abortions, positive HIV tests, or other perceived embarrassing information from their electronic health records (EHR).This is concerning in that a purported health record reporting a patient's comprehensive history could be edited so as to be politically correct. As a provider it would be important (for instance) to know that a patient had hepatitis or HIV before scheduling major elective procedures so as to protect oneself and operating room staff from unnecessary exposure or even advise patients to avoid some procedures altogether. Much as a physician has an informed consent with a patient, a provider must be aware of any and all material issues when delivering care.

Rob

What to look for for well done breast augmentation surgery -The inframammary fold

Sorry for the long break! We've been busy designing our practice's new web site. It's gonna POP! Stay Tuned.

This post is kind of an "inside baseball" topic about what surgeons look at when we judge our own or others work. One thing I fixate on more and more with cosmetic breast surgery is the position of the inframammary fold (IMF). The IMF (in layman's terms) is an anatomic landmark created by adherence of connective tissue to the chest wall. It defines the inferior border of the anatomic breast, and it's location makes it the most popular place for an incision to place breast implants via the "inframammary" approach.

One of the things I look for in someone I've operated on or whom comes in for revision surgery by another provider is where a prior inframammary scar is. If the scar is stable and in the position it was originally made in then I'm satisfied the surgical dissection was performed well. If the scar is now residing up on the skin of the lower breast, that suggests over release of the native IMF during prior surgery. Once violated, that anatomic border is hard to reliably recreate. Just a little extra attention during surgery can prevent a lot of issues down the road as it relates to this.

Rob