Sir:FigureWe thank Dr. Gedge D. Rosson and colleagues for their comments and interest in our recent article, “Fat Grafting and Breast Reconstruction with Implant: Another Option for Irradiated Breast Cancer Patients.”1 The reconstructive issues faced in breast implant reconstruction for irradiated breast cancer patients are mainly two: a high risk of implant-related complications and unpleasant cosmetic results caused by soft-tissue thinness, extensive scarring, and contour defects as sequelae of oncologic surgery. The concept behind the “lipobed” is to address both issues. Fat grafting is used for its regenerative properties with the aim of transforming a hostile recipient site, such as irradiated tissues, into a “cozy bed” for implant placement. At the same time, lipofilling is also exploited as filler by correcting contour defects in quadrantectomy/lumpectomy patients, by releasing scarred tissues, and by enhancing soft-tissue thickness.1 Lipobed surgery has been intended as a further option for the small subset of irradiated breast cancer patients who present contraindications to or refuse autologous tissue reconstruction. In our tertiary care center, we routinely offer perforator free flap breast reconstruction (mainly deep inferior epigastric perforator flap) to irradiated breast cancer patients. Thus, we cannot say how many irradiated patients who underwent reconstruction with implants had complications, as we do not perform this reconstruction in an irradiated field. These, along with the time needed to finish the protocol, are the reasons why the number of patients treated is limited to 16 over a period of 3 years. We did report our two preliminary cases in 2009.2 Along with another case, these three patients are the ones with the longest follow-up of more than 30 months. The surgical outcomes are preserved, with Baker grade I capsular contracture, and surgeons' and patients' satisfaction was very high (Fig. 1). These findings make this approach promising. However, we agree with Dr. Rosson and colleagues that our surgical protocol is now better offered in an advanced breast cancer center where all possible reconstructive options can be discussed comprehensively with the patient.Fig. 1: (Above) Patient with a history of left breast inferior quadrant lumpectomy, left axillary sentinel node biopsy, and radiation therapy was seeking correction of the deformity and bilateral breast augmentation with implants. She underwent the lipobed surgical protocol on the left side (two sessions of fat grafting with a 3-month interval in between, and 60 cc of fat transplanted at each session) and augmentation mammaplasty after 6 months from the last fat graft. (Center) Photographs obtained 48 months postoperatively show Baker grade I capsular contracture. The patient is very satisfied (postoperative BREAST-Q score, 94.1). The result has been classified as excellent. (Below) The pinch test on the right side (healthy breast) and on the left side (previous inferior quadrantectomy and radiation therapy) shows the same soft-tissue thickness on the superior and inferior poles. The breast tissues are equally soft on the right and left sides, and the breast shape is very pleasant.In designing the lipobed surgical protocol, we did decide to limit the indications to patients with a Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force/Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic score of maximum 2. These patients show radiation sequelae that can be correctly addressed by fat grafting. We are now focusing also on patients with a Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force/Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic score between 2 and 3, the ones that Dr. Rosson and colleagues refer to as patients with “already too damaged irradiated skin.” Patients with a Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force/Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic score of 3 or even 4 are the ones with chronic radiodermatitis ulceronecrotic type that show different degrees of loss of substance, until bone exposure. Because of advances in radiotherapy, this subset of patients is seldom encountered today. However, in our opinion, the implant reconstruction plays no role in these cases, as what these patients need is wound care and/or surgical intervention for débridement and coverage. This can be successfully addressed only by flap surgery. A further interesting issue addressed by our protocol is the quadrantectomy/lumpectomy irradiated patients being referred to aesthetic surgeons for augmentation mammaplasty. After in-depth counseling with the patient about the risk of placing an implant in an irradiated field, we routinely offer lipobed surgery to maximize cosmetic results and to minimize implant complications. We are thankful again for the useful comments provided by Dr. Gedge D. Rosson and colleagues. We are continuing with our protocol and we hope for a larger volume of patients with longer follow-up and other future reports worldwide to increase the knowledge and experience regarding lipobed surgery. Marzia Salgarello, M.D. Giuseppe Visconti, M.D. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Liliana Barone-Adesi, M.D. Breast Unit, Catholic University of “Sacro Cuore”, University Hospital “A. Gemelli”, Rome, Italy DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.
Read full abstract