INTRODUCTION
According to their genetic heritage, women worldwide are born with different shapes
and sizes of breasts, a product of natural and cultural selection throughout human
evolution. Multiple etiologies are reasons for these variations, and cases of hypomastia,
ptosis and breasts that have suffered weight loss and lost volume are common.
Congenital deformities such as Poland’s syndrome, tuberous or asymmetrical breasts,
and even the absence of a breast after mastectomy also comprise anatomical variations
that began to receive attention with the evolution of plastic surgery.
Since 1985, with Czerny1, we have described operative techniques to treat anatomical variations of the breast
by increasing its volume. In 1963, Cronin & Gerow introduced silicone implants to
correct deformities, creating breast volume2. Since then, breast surgery using implants has increased exponentially. A race began
to manufacture breast implants that marked breast surgery in the following years and
established silicone, as it seemed inert, as the most appropriate material.
Guided by cultural phenomena and concepts of the beauty of a certain period and place,
added to this set is the female desire for firm breasts with a well-defined shape
and ideal size, even leading to breast reduction techniques with implants. The absence
of volume or support was resolved, but complications related to the implants emerged
over time.
Capsular contracture, aging of prostheses with leakage and migration of silicone gel,
calcification of the fibrous capsule3 and “double-bubble” deformity4 are some of these disorders. There is also an association between the implant and
anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). In these cases, the replacement of the implant
or its definitive removal, with, without or in association with capsulotomy and capsulectomy,
are the main forms of treatment4.
In addition, since the 1960s, the association between systemic diseases and breast
implants has been described. Perhaps the main one is Adjuvant-Induced Autoimmune Syndrome
(ASIA), an autoimmune disease first described in 2011 and which has implant silicone
as one of its etiologies5.
Recently, the set of nonspecific systemic symptoms associated with silicone implants
came to be called “silicone disease” from the English “Breast Implant Illness,” although
not yet fully proven and without registration as a disease by the World Health Organization
(WHO) 6.
Thus, moving in the opposite direction to that seen previously, this set of adverse
situations to the use of silicone implants, fueled by the growth of social media as
a source of information for patients, culminated in an increase in the definitive
removal of the implant7,8, sometimes by medical indication and, many times, by the patient’s desire and autonomy9.
The challenge, then, becomes the reconstruction of the explanted breast, which once
took shape through content that no longer exists. The remaining autologous breast
tissues become the main tool in this process.
The safest and most widespread way of filling the breast using autologous tissues
is with the inferior pedicle flap10, described since the 1940s with Maliniac and used by most surgeons until today4,11. However, considering that the inframammary incision is preferred by most Brazilian
surgeons (89.66%)4 in breast implant surgeries, many cases of explants have this inferior pedicle compromised
by injury to the perforating vessels.
As an alternative, we must remember the crossed flaps technique for treating breast
ptosis, initially described by Sperli, in 1972. It aims to restore the balance between
breast content and continent and provide harmonic breast cones, eliminating the inferior
pedicle12. Extending the indications of this technique to explanted breasts seems to be useful
in the treatment of these patients.
OBJECTIVE
This paper aims to describe the use of the crossed flap technique for breast reconstruction
after silicone prosthesis explantation.
METHODS
This is a retrospective study in which silicone explants were performed with immediate
breast reconstruction without using a new implant, motivated by medical indication
or the patient’s desire. Data were obtained from the medical records of the author’s
private clinic, and the same surgeon performed all surgeries.
The characteristics of the population, time of use of the prosthesis, reasons for
the explant and the presence of complications (dehiscence, seroma, necrosis, asymmetry,
infection, hematoma, pathological healing) were verified. Follow-up was 6 months.
Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing silicone breast implant explantation with
immediate reconstruction using crossed flaps without including a new implant.
Exclusion criteria were cases of explantation with prosthesis replacement, explantation
with reconstruction through the association of other techniques in addition to crossed
flaps, cases undergoing a second reconstruction procedure, and cases of explantation
motivated by infection or hematoma, which could receive implants at another operative
time due to patient’s wish.
Research subjects were informed, and consent terms were signed. This study followed
the ethical requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki and its updates.
Operative tactic
The surgical program starts with the principles described by Pitanguy et al.13-15 in marking the skin, considering that there will be a loss of the content formed
by the implant and that the continent formed by the skin will have to readjust after
the explant.
After de-epithelialization of the demarcated area (Figure 1), we incised the lower pole of the breast from the lower edge of the areola vertically
to obtain two parenchymal flaps from the upper pedicle, one medial and the other lateral,
as described by Sperli12.
Figure 1 - Marking the area to be de-epithelialized.
Figure 1 - Marking the area to be de-epithelialized.
At this moment, the prosthesis store is accessed, which may involve the subglandular,
subfascial or submuscular space. We opted, preferably, for the dissection of the entire
capsule for resection next to the implant. After removal, photographic and video records
are made, and the pieces are sent for anatomopathological study. Then, we make release
incisions on the outer edges of the flaps up to points “B” and “C,” respectively.
With well-defined flaps, the simulation of the assembly of the breast with the crossing
between them is performed (Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Crossing the flaps.
Figure 2 - Crossing the flaps.
In each case, the rotation and crossing order of the lateral and medial flaps is free
to reach the best conformation of the mammary cone. The fixation of the flaps will
proceed in the best way so that the mammary cone is structured, in most cases with
simple sutures between the tip of the flap that will cross first and the internal
base of the second, followed by the rotation of the second flap over the first, suturing
it to the base external of this. The anatomical plane of the previous breast pocket
will not influence these maneuvers.
The final skin adjustment for the closure of the assembled breast and the definition
of the position of the nipple-areolar complex will help to obtain a breast with a
balance between the distribution of the remaining breast tissue content of the flaps
in its skin continent (Figure 3).
Figure 3 - Aspect of the assembly of the breast with the crossing of the flaps and skin adjustment.
Figure 3 - Aspect of the assembly of the breast with the crossing of the flaps and skin adjustment.
Thus, we established a new breast with safe flaps, regardless of the incisions from
previous surgeries for the breast implant. It is a science that we will always have
a smaller volume, but with satisfactory aesthetic results, without high degrees of
ptosis or the feeling of an empty breast.
RESULTS
Ten cases of explant reconstruction using crossed flaps were performed in female patients
between 2004 and 2021. Ages ranged from 33 to 65 (Figures 4 and 5).
Figure 4 - Preoperative (A and B); Postoperative period of 6 months (C and D).
Figure 4 - Preoperative (A and B); Postoperative period of 6 months (C and D).
Figure 5 - Preoperative (A and B); Postoperative period of 6 months (C and D).
Figure 5 - Preoperative (A and B); Postoperative period of 6 months (C and D).
The diagnosed comorbidities were one case of heart disease, one of Hashimoto’s thyroiditis,
one of depression, one of diabetes mellitus, and two patients were former smokers.
Confirmed personal or family history of autoimmune disease was not verified in any
patient. However, one of the patients had a positive antinuclear factor (ANA) but
was still without a definitive autoimmune disease diagnosis.
The use time of the explanted prostheses ranged from 3 to 19 years (Figure 6).
Figure 6 - Ages of explanted prostheses in years.
Figure 6 - Ages of explanted prostheses in years.
The reason for explant surgery, followed by reconstruction without a new prosthesis,
was capsular contracture, followed by nonspecific breast pain. Some patients had more
than one motivation (Figure 7).
Figure 7 - Definitive explant motivations.
Figure 7 - Definitive explant motivations.
As a complication, two cases of hypertrophic scars were easily treated using clinical
measures (Table 1).
Table 1 - Number of cases in each complication.
Dehiscence |
Seroma |
Necrosis |
Infection |
Asymmetry |
Bruise |
Hypertrophic Scar |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Table 1 - Number of cases in each complication.
DISCUSSION
The change in the perception of breast beauty is a dynamic process and has given value
to smaller breasts. This and other influences that associate multiple diseases or
symptoms with silicone, added to common indications for implant replacement, seem
to be the reason for an increase in the number of patients who opt for the definitive
explant. Social media emerged as a strengthening element of this phenomenon.
When inserted in a breast, the silicone implant almost always leads to a process of
tissue expansion of the tissues surrounding the breast pocket, in different degrees15. With the removal of this prosthesis, flaccid tissues remain, without a well-defined
shape and with the sensation of lack of breast volume. The balance between the continent
and breast content is lost. For these cases, the redistribution of autologous tissues
must be well understood to restore the breast cone safely from the flaps.
Several techniques have been developed to provide the breast with satisfactory shape
and volume, reducing the rate of complications16.
The use of crossed flaps was improved by Sperli12, Hakme et al.17 and Miró18. It can redistribute tissue without using medial or inferior pedicles. Therefore,
it proved useful in cases of explantation, where these pedicles tend to be compromised
by the previous surgeries4.
Turner et al.19 show the usefulness of fat grafting for filling breasts with little breast tissue.
The authors recognize it but consider it unnecessary in most cases where patients
understand the beauty of a smaller breast.
As a limiting factor, this work does not compare the authors’ method with other techniques
not yet described for these cases.
The scarcity of literature alerts us to the need for documentation and elaboration
of studies comparing different tactics for this treatment that grows daily.
CONCLUSIONS
The authors conclude that using crossed flaps is a useful and safe alternative for
breast reconstruction surgeries after definitive explantation using autologous tissues.
REFERENCES
1. Beekman WH, Hage JJ, Jorna LB, Mulder JW. Augmentation mammaplasty: the story before
the silicone bag prosthesis. Ann Plast Surg. 1999;43(4):446-51.
2. Cronin TD, Gerow FJ. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new “natural fell” prosthesis. In:
Transaction of the Third International Congress of Plastic Surgery (Excerpta Medica
International Congress Serie Nº 66). Amsterdam; 1964.
3. Bozola AR, Bozola AC, Carrazzoni RM. Inclusão de Próteses Mamárias de Silicone - Poliuretano.
Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2006;21(1):18-22.
4. Charles-de-Sá L, Gontijo-Deamorim NF, Albelaez JP, Leal PR. Perfil da cirurgia de
aumento de mama no Brasil. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2019;34(2):174-86.
5. Miranda RE. O explante em bloco de prótese mamária de silicone na qualidade de vida
e evolução dos sintomas da síndrome ASIA. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2020;35(4):427-31.
6. Magnusson MR, Cooter RD, Rakhorst H, McGuire PA, Adams WP Jr, Deva AK. Breast Implant
Illness: A Way Forward. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:74S-81S.
7. Keane G, Chi D, Ha AY, Myckatyn TM. En Bloc Capsulectomy for Breast Implant Illness:
A Social Media Phenomenon? Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41(4):448-59. DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjaa203
8. Tanna N, Calobrace MB, Clemens MW, Hammond DC, Nahabedian MY, Rohrich RJ, et al. Not
All Breast Explants Are Equal: Contemporary Strategies in Breast Explantation Surgery.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(4):808-18.
9. Georgiade NG, Serafin D, Morris R, Georgiade G. Reduction mammaplasty utilizing an
inferior pedicle nipple-areolar flap. Ann Plast Surg. 1979;3(3):211-8.
10. Bustos SS, Molinar V, Kuruoglu D, Cespedes-Gomez O, Sharaf BA, Martinez-Jorge J, et
al. Inferior pedicle breast reduction and long nipple-to-inframammary fold distance:
How long is safe? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74(3):495-503.
11. Maliniac JW. Arterial blood supply of the breast. Arch Surg. 1943;47:329-43.
12. Fischler R, Sperli A. Mastoplastia pela técnica dos retalhos cruzados: reavaliação
de técnica. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2008;23(3):173-8.
13. Pitanguy I, Caldeira AML, Alexandrino A, Martinez JG. Mamaplastia redutora e mastopexia
técnica Pitanguy. Vinte e cinco anos de experiência. Rev Bras Cir. 1984;74(5):33-46.
14. Pitanguy I. Mamaplastia Pitanguy. 1ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 1978.
15. Cammarota MC, Lima RQ, Almeida CM, Esteves BP, Curado DMDC, Ribeiro Júnior I, et al.
Reconstrução de mama com expansor de Becker: uma análise de 116 casos. Rev Bras Cir
Plást. 2016;31(1):12-8.
16. Ferreira MPS. Variação da técnica em “L” para redução de volume e correção das ptoses
mamárias. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2008;23(4):248-53.
17. Hakme F, Gomes Filho BS, Muller PM, Sjostedt C. Técnica em “L” nas ptoses mamárias
com confecção de retalhos cruzados. Rev Bras Cir Plast. 1983;73:87-91.
18. Miró AL. Tratamento das ptoses mamárias com retalhos cruzados sem prévia ressecção
de pele. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2000;15(1):32-4.
19. Turner A, Abu-Ghname A, Davis MJ, Winocour SJ, Hanson SE, Chu CK. Fat Grafting in
Breast Reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg. 2020;34(1):17-23.
1. Hospital Daher Lago Sul, Serviço de Cirurgia Plástica, Brasília, DF, Brazil
Corresponding author: Tristão Maurício de Aquino Filho SQS 105, Bloco G, apto 402, Asa Sul, Brasília, DF, Brazil. Zip code: 70344-070, E-mail: dr.tristaomauricio@gmail.com
Article received: September 15, 2021.
Article accepted: July 11, 2022.
Conflicts of interest: none.