Post on 27-Jan-2021
Q1
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery (2008) xx, 1e7
+ MODEL
1
2345
678
91011
121314
15161718
192021
222324
25262728
293031
323334
353637
38394041
424344
454647
48495051
525354
555657
585960
6162
PRAS846_proof � 27 February 2008 � 1/7
63
64656667
686970
717273
747576
FPocket work for optimising outcomes in prostheticbreast reconstruction
77787980
O
Hugo D. Loustau*, Horacio F. Mayer, Manuel Sarrabayrouse
O 818283848586
87
PRPlastic Surgery Department, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, School of Medicine,Buenos Aires, Argentina
Received 30 June 2007; accepted 30 August 2007
888990
919293
949596
979899
KEYWORDSProsthetic breastreconstruction;Pocket work;Capsulotomy;Capsulectomy;Capsulorraphy;Myectomy
U
* Corresponding author. Address: PHospital Italiano de Buenos Aires,School of Medicine, Gascon 450 (118Tel.: þ54 11 49590506.
E-mail address: hugo.loustau@hLoustau).
1748-6815/$ - see front matter ª 2008 Pdoi:10.1016/j.bjps.2007.08.037
100101102103
104105106
Please cite this article in press as: HuReconstr Aesthet Surg (2008), doi:10
RRECTED
Summary Implant breast reconstruction is a recommendable alternative for women whohave undergone mastectomy and lack the necessary subcutaneous fat tissue for an autologousreconstruction. On the other hand, many women reject the morbidity of the donor site, pro-longed recovery periods and muscular weakness associated with autologous reconstruction.Therefore, muscle and skin expansion has become one of the most popular approaches usedin breast reconstruction. Nevertheless, the expansion process may be hindered by events likeseroma formation, implant rotation, moving upward or downward altering the location orshape of the submammary crease, capsule contracture or extrusion. Since the advent of theanatomical expander, two-stage reconstruction with the expander/implant sequence has be-come the most popular choice in prosthetic breast reconstruction (PBR). The second surgicalstage, in which the tissue expander is exchanged for the permanent implant, offers a uniqueopportunity for pocket work. Pocket work strategies and their indications should be known andapplied by the surgeon who aims at optimising PBR aesthetic results.ª 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive andAesthetic Surgeons.
107
O108109
110111112113
114
NCImplant breast reconstruction is a recommendable alterna-
tive for women who have undergone mastectomy and lackthe necessary subcutaneous fat tissue for an autologousreconstruction. On the other hand, many women reject themorbidity of the donor site, prolonged recovery periods and
lastic Surgery Department,University of Buenos Aires,1), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
ospitalitaliano.org.ar (H.D.
ublished by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of
115116
117118119
120121
go D Loustau et al., Pocket work f.1016/j.bjps.2007.08.037
muscular weakness associated with autologous reconstruc-tion. Therefore, muscle and skin expansion has become oneof the most popular approaches used in breast reconstruc-tion.1 Tissue expansion recruits local tissue with similar tex-ture, colour and sensitivity, thus avoiding donor sitemorbidity and reducing operative time and enhancing post-operative recovery. Nevertheless, the expansion processmay be hindered by events like seroma formation, implantrotation, moving upward or downward, altering the loca-tion or shape of the submammary crease (SMC), capsulecontracture or extrusion.2,3 There are several options inprosthetic breast reconstruction (PBR) which could be
British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.
122
123124
or optimising outcomes in prosthetic breast reconstruction, J Plast
mailto:hugo.loustau@hospitalitaliano.org.ar
T
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 H.D. Loustau et al.
+ MODEL
125
126127128129
130131132
133134135
136137138
139140141142
143144145
146147148
149150151152
153154155
156157158
159160161
162163164165
166167168
169170171
172173174175
176177178
179180181
182183184
185186
187
188189190191
192193194
195196197
198199200
201202203204
205206207
208209210
211212213214
215216217
218219220
221222223
224225226227
228229230
231232233
234235236
PRAS846_proof � 27 February 2008 � 2/7
NCORREC
immediate (IPBR), delayed (DPBR) and at the same time ineither one or two stages (Table 1).4e7 Even though patientsmay prefer reconstruction with permanent expanders suchas the Becker type, or the most modern ones such as theMcGhan Style 150, to avoid a second surgery,6 the authorsdiscourage this practice because it does not allow adequatesymmetrisation if a displacement occurrs. Since the adventof the anatomical expander,8 two-stage reconstruction withthe expander/implant sequence has become the most pop-ular choice in PBR. During the second stage, expander re-moval and final implant placement provide an excellentopportunity to perform pocket work. Pocket work (PW) en-hances implant location and allows for strategic alterationsof soft tissue, if they are necessary. The authors aim atshowing the resources they currently use to optimise PBRsymmetry, similitude and natural look.
Materials and methods
Between January 1992 and January 2005, 310 patientswhose ages ranged from 27 to 72 years (average 46 years),underwent PBR (Table 1). All procedures were carried outunder general anaesthesia. The authors reviewed all thosecases in which PW was necessary during the replacement ofthe expander by the final implant in a two-stage recon-struction, or after the final implant placement in eithera second stage or a primary reconstruction (immediate ordelayed). Several causes for PW were analysed: inade-quately positioned implants, capsular or muscular restric-tions and capsular laxity that required surgery to correctthe disharmony. These situations were reviewed in patientswith either the expander or the final implant.
As previously defined by the authors,9 the reconstructedbreast shows some anatomical features determined notonly by the implant shape but also by the soft tissue includ-ing the capsule. Three distinctive features can be high-lighted in a reconstructed breast:
(a) The submammary crease (SMC) is the feature that uponevaluation ensures the best aesthetic impact. From anaesthetic point of view, SMC is enhanced by three fea-tures: height, shape and definition.
(b) The reconstructed breast projection is influenced bythe success of the expansion process and the implant’sfeatures.
(c) The upper mammary margin (UMM) defined as the transi-tion between chest and the implant’s cephalic boundary.
These factors determining the final outcome in breastreconstruction are always conditioned by the thickness and
U
Table 1 Patients and modalities of PBR employed
One stage immediate reconstruction (primary)Immediate expander e implant sequencePermanent expander e implant immediate reconstruction (220 pOne stage delayed reconstruction (primary)Delayed expander e implant sequencePermanent expander e implant delayed reconstruction (90 patie
Total: 310 patients e 376 PBR
Please cite this article in press as: Hugo D Loustau et al., Pocket work fReconstr Aesthet Surg (2008), doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2007.08.037
EDPROOF
malleability of the soft tissues covering the implant, in-cluding the capsule, and by the position of the implant on thechest. When the expander or final implant is not located atthe right position to achieve symmetry or is having sectorialrestrictions, it will require pocket work. These cases can beorganised into eight categories and are listed in Table 2.There a number of solutions which can be applied either incombination or in isolation depending on the deformity:
(a) Capsulorraphies: the capsulorraphy is a resource aimingto reduce the pocket size at any margin. Most of thetime, it is executed at the level of the SMC and, lessfrequently, at the level of the anterior axillary linewhen the implant is lateralised. The technique pro-duces a re-definition of the SMC or the anterior axillaryline with a running suture preserving capsule integrity.Additionally, the creation of raw areas by electrocau-tery promotes a better adherence. This can be carriedout very superficially, creating just a shallow scoring, ordeeper, sectioning the fascia superficialis, fat and cel-lular subcutaneous tissue (CST). Then, the hypodermisis fixed to the thoracic wall with a permanent runningsuture, in order to achieve a better defined SMC.When an expander or implant is removed, the lowerboundary of the pocket folds itself, thus points of refer-ences are lost. Therefore, it is necessary to recreatethe real position of the SMC as if the expander were po-sitioned. Before deciding where to reposition the SMC,it is necessary to know what the original position was.This position is mimicked exerting traction andcounter-traction manoeuvres. The surgeon retractsand raises the flap by means of a retractor, while theassistant pulls the skin downwards. This way, the grav-itational effect and the presence of the implant insidethe pocket is simulated, which is very helpful for thesurgeon. Capsulorraphies almost always involve the lift-ing of the SMC. The lowest point of the capsular back-side, where a curve named C starts as the main pointof reference, is named point A (Fig. 1). This pointdoes not necessarily correspond with the SMC drawnon the skin with the patient in standing position. Thedifference in height between the SMC of both breasts,in centimetres, is transferred above point A, determin-ing point A0 Point A00 results from transferring the samedistance on the curve C, below point A. This way, thedegree of ascent results from transporting point A00 tothe back wall of the capsule, coinciding with point A0,and with point A being the turning point. When theimplant is lateralised, capsulorraphy of the anterioraxillary line should be complemented with the
17 patients (11 bilateral)198 patients (48 bilateral)
atients e 282 IPBR) 5 patients (3 bilateral)9 patients (1 bilateral)74 patients (3 bilateral)
nts e 94 DPBR) 7 patients
237
238239240
241242243
244245246
247248
or optimising outcomes in prosthetic breast reconstruction, J Plast
T
ROOF
Table 2 Indications for pocket work
a) Downward migration of implant and SMC due to anexcessive capsular softness or laxity.
b) Lateral migration of implant due to an excessive capsularsoftness or laxity.
c) Upward migration due to capsular sectorial constrictionwith expander elevation.
d) Restriction of upper-medial quadrant by inadequaterelease of pectoralis major’s fibres from costal insertionsor by development of sectorial capsular contracture.
e) Axial rotation of the expander or implant (anatomicimplant dystopia) usually associated with seromaformation.
f) Fibrous capsular contracture after implantation of thepermanent breast implant.
g) Malpositioning of the implant (too high, too low orlateralised) by the surgeon.
h) Deliberate lower positioning of the expander in order torecruit extra soft tissue coverage.
Figure 2 Capsulotomy/myotomy for plane change. Thereare three levels of capsulotomy and undermining. At level I, af-ter capsulotomy, the undermining proceeds underneath themuscular plane. No relaxation is obtained. When performingcapsulotomies at level II moderate relaxation of the lowerpole is obtained, relaxation being maximal at level III. Thelast two always involve myotomies.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Prosthetic breast reconstruction 3
+ MODEL
249
250251252253
254255256
257258259
260261262
263264265266
267268269
270271272
273274275276
277278279
280281282
283284285
286287288289
290291292
293294295
296297298299
300301302
303304305
306307308
309310
311
312313314315
316317318
319320321
322323324
325326327328
329330331
332333334
335336337338
339340341
342343344
345346347
PRAS846_proof � 27 February 2008 � 3/7
EC
enlargement of the pocket towards the midline in orderto avoid recurrence.
(b) Capsulotomies: the capsule is severed in order to releaseadhesions developed during the expansion process.
(c) Capsulotomies/myotomies for plane exchange: are in-tended to expand the pocket capacity, usually down-ward. This always implies the change of anatomicalplane towards a thinner plane lacking capsule and mus-cle (Fig. 2). This plane provides the required malleabil-ity to achieve an adequate projection of the implant’slower pole. The change of plane is executed at least2 cm above the SMC, incising capsule and muscle andthen undermining proceeds above the fascial layer.This way, the lower pole of the implant is just coveredby the SCT and skin, achieving enough enlargement and
UNCORR
Figure 1 Capsulorraphies. The original position of the SMC ismimicked exerting traction and counter-traction manoeuvres.The surgeon retracts and raises the flap by means of a retrac-tor, while the assistant pulls the skin downwards. The mainpoint of reference is named point A.
348349350351
352353354
355356357
358359360
Please cite this article in press as: Hugo D Loustau et al., Pocket work fReconstr Aesthet Surg (2008), doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2007.08.037
EDPdistensibility without previous expansion. Neverthe-
less, if this manoeuvre was performed in isolation,two different tensions would be created and as a conse-quence a double bubble deformity would result.10 Asa result, capsulotomies/myotomies for plane changeare always associated with capsulotomies/myotomiesfor progressive relaxation.
(d) Capsulotomies/myotomies for progressive relaxation:previous to switching the anatomical plane, the en-largement of the pocket always involves performingcapsulotomies and radial myotomies in inverted fanshape, extending 2.5 to 3 cm above and finishing atthe level of the change of plane (Fig. 3).
(e) Capsulectomies/myectomies: involve the resection ofan important portion of the capsule or capsule andmuscle. They usually start as capsulotomies/myotomiesfor plane change and, once the inferior boundary isreached, a resection of a crescent-shaped portion ofcapsule and muscle (patch myectomy) is carried out(Fig. 4). Capsulotomies/myotomies for progressive re-laxation are always associated with this resource.
(f) Liposuction at the level of the SMC: although it cannotbe strictly considered pocket work, liposuction can re-ally improve SMC definition, therefore it has been in-cluded in this classification. In most of the cases it isassociated with capsulorraphy in order to provide bet-ter SMC definition.
361
362363364
365366367
368369370
371372
Results
During the 13-year study period, 105 of the total of 376 PBRcases (27.9%) required PW. Of the 282 IPBR, 81 cases (28.7%)needed PW. Of the 94 cases reconstructed through DPBR(25.5%), 24 required PW. The most frequent proceduresemployed in this series for PW are listed in Table 3 and itscomplications in Table 4. Results were very good in termsof mammary symmetry and patient satisfaction (Figs. 5e9).
or optimising outcomes in prosthetic breast reconstruction, J Plast
TFigure 3 Capsulotomies/myotomies for progressive relaxa-tion. The enlargement of the pocket always involves perform-ing capsulotomies and radial myotomies in an inverted fanshape, previous to switching the anatomical plane.
Table 3 Most frequent procedures in pocket work
Capsulotomies/myotomies for planechange
67 casesa 63.8%
Capsulorraphies by lower SMC 30 casesb 28.5%Capsulectomies/myectomies 6 cases 5.7%Capsulotomies 2 cases 1.9%
Total 105 cases 100%a Ten cases also required capsulorraphy of anterior axillary
line.b Associated with defatting of the SMC in five cases.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 H.D. Loustau et al.
+ MODEL
373
374375376377
378379380
381382383
384385386
387388389390
391392393
394395396
397398399400
401402403
404405406
407408409
410411412413
414415416
417418419
420421422423
424425426
427428429
430431432
433434
435
436437438439
440441442
443444445
446447448
449450451452
453454455
456457458
459460461462
463464465
466467468
469
PRAS846_proof � 27 February 2008 � 4/7
C
Discussion
The possibility of offering a relatively immediate solution tomastectomised patients, a reduction in surgical steps andpractice, has made PBR a very popular technique. However,its success will always depend on the immobility of theimplant and the absence of capsular contracture. The
UNCORRE
Figure 4 Capsulectomies/myectomies. The procedure in-volves the resection of an important portion of capsule or cap-sule and muscle.
470471
472473474475
476477478
479480481
482483484485
Please cite this article in press as: Hugo D Loustau et al., Pocket work fReconstr Aesthet Surg (2008), doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2007.08.037
EDPROOFposition of the implant, where its backside contacts the
chest wall, is the most prominent factor in determiningsymmetry in PBR. The permanence and evolution of theimplant is conditioned by the interaction between humantissues and implant. After implant placement, there isalways a foreign body response to the capsule. Thus, thecapsule is the second most important factor determiningsymmetry in PBR. Capsular consistency ranges from totalsoftness to severe restriction (capsular contracture) andhas been matter of study since the introduction of siliconegel implants by Cronin and Gerow.12 Capsular contracture isa common problem, which produces implant distortion, dis-rupting PBR symmetry. On the other hand, total softness orlaxity can also be problematic. In cases of a strong pector-alis major muscle, its repetitive contraction can progres-sively promote downward displacement of the implant.This is the description of a scenario where the only distor-tive factors are random. Whereas, in some cases, the defor-mity may result from tactical or surgical errors whenplanning or executing surgery, in others postoperative com-plications such as fluid collection produce implant dystopia.All these situations require PW. Sometimes, in cases of bi-lateral reconstruction, it is hard to account for the factthat a meticulously planned reconstruction, after an expan-sion process, does not reach adequate symmetry. Hypo-thetically, if pockets and implant positions were strictlyidentical, the unfolding of the expander as the expansionprocess progresses would be responsible for more evidentasymmetries. An extremely soft unilateral capsule wouldwork in the same way. Sectorial capsular contractures donot usually modify implant position; perimetral shape andtridimensional results are altered though. In patients un-dergoing two-stage PBR, there is a second surgical stagewhich allows the surgeon to revise any problem in symme-try, thus preserving the patient-physician relationship.
PW aims at providing the reconstructed breast with ananatomical shape, which does not exclusively depend onthe implant. When considering PW, the problem should be
Table 4 Complications
Seroma 11 casesHaematoma 1 caseRotational dystopia 2 casesa
Recurrence of SMC lowering 5 casesb
a One case was associated with a previous fluid collection.b They required a new capsulorraphy, three of them executed
by the Nava’s technique.
486487488
489490491
492493494
495496
or optimising outcomes in prosthetic breast reconstruction, J Plast
ECTEDP
Q2
Figure 5 (a) A case of high restrictive pocket and insufficientlower pole expansion. (b) After capsulotomy/myotomy forplane change associated to radial myotomies in an invertedfan shape.
Figure 6 (a) A case of restrictive pocket and sectorial con-tracture at lower and upper pole. (b) After capsulotomy/myot-omy for plane change.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Prosthetic breast reconstruction 5
+ MODEL
497
498499500501
502503504
505506507
508509510
511512513514
515516517
518519520
521522523524
525526527
528529530
531532533
534535536537
538539540
541542543
544545546547
548549550
551552553
554555556
557558
559
560561562563
564565566
567568569
570571572
573574575576
577578579
580581582
583584585586
587588589
590591592
593594595
596597598599
600601602
603604605
606607608609
610611612
613614615
616617618
619620
PRAS846_proof � 27 February 2008 � 5/7
UNCORR
approached focusing on the five layers of tissue coveringthe implant: skin, SCT, plane of fibrosis (which replacesbreast tissue), muscle and capsule. In cases of seroma, theimmediate adherence between SCT and muscle is impaired.Due to halstedian principles, the comunication betweenaxilla and the surgical lodge makes self-limited fluidcollections more frequent. Furthermore, in these casesthere is a higher deposit of collagen fibres producinga thicker and more rigid layer of fibrosis. As a consequence,capsulotomies/myotomies for plane change are not enoughto improve lower pole definition. The removal of a patch ofcapsule, muscle and fibrosis through the procedure namedcapsulectomy/miomectomy solves the problem.
Capsulotomies are needed when adherences betweenthe anterior and posterior walls of the pocket are created.These adherences are frequently founded at the level ofthe pocket covered by the serratus anterior muscle. Afterreleasing such adherences, a capsulorraphy to regularisethe perimeter is usually required.
The main indications for capsulorraphies are the descentor the lateralisation of the expander. It can also benecessary to improve SMC definition, without displacing
Please cite this article in press as: Hugo D Loustau et al., Pocket work fReconstr Aesthet Surg (2008), doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2007.08.037
ROOF
the implant.13 In 1979, Lewis reported the use of an abdom-inal sliding flap to provide coverage in breast reconstruc-tions and its fixation as in internal capsulorraphies.14
Later, Ryan described a similar resource although ap-proaching through the crease itself.15 In 2001 Massiha pub-lished a SMC reconstruction technique through an internalapproach, which is similar to the method employed bythe authors.16 In this work, the authors present a novelmethod for the exact determination of the necessary SMClifting. According to this method, transferring the distancebetween two horizontal tangents to the creases of bothbreasts (difference in heights), above and below the pointof reference A, allows crease symmetry to be achieved.Point A, which has been defined as the lowest point ofthe posterior wall of the capsule, must be exactly locatedby means of traction and counter-traction manoeuvres. In1998 Nava proposed an approach for SMC definition throughan incision of fascia and TCS and suture of the posteriorwall of the pocket to the dermis.11 This approach was ap-plied in only three patients of this series, being indicatedfor recurrence of SMC lowering. In the remaining cases,the liposuction of the SMC achieved an adequate definition.
or optimising outcomes in prosthetic breast reconstruction, J Plast
ECTEDPROOF
Figure 7 (a) Lateralised expander and restriction at internallower quadrant. (b) After capsulotomy/myotomy for planechange associated with lateral capsulorraphy.
Figure 8 (a) A case of descent of the SMC. (b) After capsulor-raphy to mimic contralateral mammary ptosis.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 H.D. Loustau et al.
+ MODEL
621
622623624625
626627628
629630631
632633634
635636637638
639640641
642643644
645646647648
649650651
652653654
655656657
658659660661
662663664
665666667
668669670671
672673674
675676677
678679680
681682
683
684685686687
688689690
691692693
694695696
697698699700
701702703
704705706
707708709710
711712713
714715716
717718719
720721722723
724725726
727728729
730731732733
734735736
737738739
740741742
743744
PRAS846_proof � 27 February 2008 � 6/7
UNCORR
This is usually complemented by wearing a brassiere, whichexerts pressure on the SMC and 1.5 cm below.
The surgeon always works with delayed flaps at themoment of PW. These flaps provide safety in proceduressuch as capsulotomies/myotomies for plane change, cap-sulectomies and myectomies. The execution of thesemanoeuvres, involving dermal or dermofatty pedicles withlow risk of cutaneous necrosis, is evidence of that. Ryan’stechnique of thoracic advancement flap in bucket handlecan be cited as another example.15
In terms of postoperative seromas, they can be pre-vented by keeping drains in place until output is less than30 cc per day17 and providing inmobilisation through thewearing of tailor-made brassieres with medial, lateral andinferior reinforcements for 1 month. If fluid collection is de-tected, it should be treated with corticosteroids, prophy-lactic antibiotics and arm immobilisation. Surgicaldrainage is seldom necessary. In the sentinel node era theseseromas will probably diminish. The most feared effect offluid collection is implant malposition. The authors have re-cently described the application of polyglycolic mesh asa supplement to the pectoralis major in cases of IPBR in
Please cite this article in press as: Hugo D Loustau et al., Pocket work fReconstr Aesthet Surg (2008), doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2007.08.037
order to allow the settings of bigger implants without pre-vious expansion, while preventing implant displacements.18
Not only does radiotherapy affect the capsule consis-tency but it also affects the plane of fibrosis of the surgicallodge and reinforces the collagen matrix of the SCT.Therefore, all tissue layers are affected. On the otherhand, flaps raised from radiated areas are not reliableenough. The most commonly accepted theory explainingthe effects of radiation has focused on decreased vascu-larity and hypoxia in affected tissues. More recently,impaired leukocyte function has been considered as anadditional factor in the pathophysiology of radiation in-jury.19 Patient’s clinical records should always be carefullyanalysed, focusing on radiotherapic events. Some of the pa-tients who have been radiated after conservative surgeryundergo mastectomy after cancer recurrence. Nowadays,radiated patients are seldom regarded as candidates forPBR. On the other hand, the current trend of radiating pa-tients with less involved axillary lymph nods will eventuallyincrease radiotheraphy indications.20 There is not a consen-sus about radiating mastectomised patients with a perma-nent breast implant21 or with a tissue expander in placebefore their permanent implant exchange.4
or optimising outcomes in prosthetic breast reconstruction, J Plast
ECT
Q4
Q3
Figure 9 (a) Patient with extracapsular contractur due topre-muscular fluid collection and subsequent fibrosis. (b) Aftercapsulectomy/myectomy.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Prosthetic breast reconstruction 7
+ MODEL
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
PRAS846_proof � 27 February 2008 � 7/7
UNCORRIn conclusion, after analysing results obtained with thisgroup of patients, it is evident that two-stage PBR with the
sequence expander/implant has been, in the authors’hands, the best surgical option in order to optimise resultsin terms of symmetry and natural look.
The second surgical stage, in which the tissue expanderis exchanged for the permanent implant, offers a uniqueopportunity for PW. Pocket work strategies and theirindications should be known and applied by the surgeonwho aims at optimising PBR aesthetic results.
References
1. Kroll SS, Baldwin B. A comparison of outcomes using three dif-ferent methods of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg1992;90:455e62.
Please cite this article in press as: Hugo D Loustau et al., Pocket work fReconstr Aesthet Surg (2008), doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2007.08.037
EDPROOF
2. Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Kim HM, et al. Complications in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: two-year results of theMichigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast ReconstrSurg 2002;109:2265e74.
3. Clough KB, O’Donoghue JM, Fitoussi AD, et al. Prospectiveevaluation of late cosmetic results following breast reconstruc-tion, I: implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;107:1702e9.
4. Kronowitz SJ, Hunt KK, Kuerer HM, et al. Delayed-immediatebreast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113:1617e28.
5. Spear SL, Pelletiere CV. Immediate breast reconstruction intwo stages using textured, integrated-valve tissue expandersand breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113:2098e103.
6. Camilleri IG, Malata CM, Stavrianos S, et al. A review of 120Becker permanent tissue expanders in reconstruction of thebreast. Br J Plast Surg 1996;49:346e51.
7. Ward J, Cohen IK, Knaysi GA, et al. Immediate breast recon-struction with tissue expansion. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987;80:559e66.
8. Maxwell GP, Falcone PA. Eighty-four consecutive breast recon-structions using a textured silicone tissue expander. Plast Re-constr Surg 1992 Jun;89(6):1022e34 [discussion: 1035e6].
9. Loustau HD, De Elizalde L, Sarrabayrouse M. ReconstrucciónMamaria Protesica: evolucion estetica. Rev Arg Cir Plast2003;9(2):15e21.
10. Massiha H. Augmentation in ptotic and densely glandularbreasts: prevention, treatment, and classification of double-bubble deformity. Ann Plast Surg 2000 Feb;44(2):143e6.
11. Nava M, Quattrone P, Riggio E. Focus on the breast fascial sys-tem: a new approach for inframammary fold reconstruction.Plast Reconstr Surg 1998 Sep;102(4):1034e45.
12. Cronin TD, Greenberg RL. Our experiences with the silastic gelbreast prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1970 Jul;46(1):1e7.
13. Pennisi VR. Making a definite inframammary fold under a recon-structed breast. Plast Reconstr Surg 1977 Oct;60(4):523e5.
14. Lewis Jr JR. Use of a sliding flap from the abdomen to providecover in breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 1979 Oct;64(4):491e7.
15. Ryan JJ. A lower thoracic advancement flap in breast recon-struction after mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982 Aug;70(2):153e60.
16. Massiha H. Reconstruction of the submammary crease for cor-rection of postoperative deformities in aesthetic and recon-structive breast surgery. Ann Plast Surg 2001 Mar;46(3):275e8.
17. Vinton A, Traversa W, Zehring D. Immediate breast recontruc-tion following mastectomy is as safe as mastectomy alone.Arch Surg;125:1303e8.
18. Loustau HD, Mayer HF, Sarrabayrouse M. Immediate prostheticbreast reconstruction: the ensured supectoral pocket (ESP).J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, in Press.
19. Mathes S, Alexander J. Radiation injury. Surg Oncol Clin N Am1996;5(4):809e24.
20. Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL, Disa JJ, et al. Irradiation after immedi-ate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: outcomes,complications, aesthetic results, and satisfaction among 156patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113(3):877e81.
21. Damast S, Beal K, Ballangrud A, et al. Do metallic ports in tis-sue expansion affect postmastectomy radiation delivery? IntJ Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;66(1):305e10.
or optimising outcomes in prosthetic breast reconstruction, J Plast
Pocket work for optimising outcomes in prosthetic breast reconstructionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences