Microsurgical breast reconstruction demands the highest level of expertise in both reconstructive and aesthetic plastic surgery. Implementation of such a complex surgical procedure is generally associated with a learning curve defined by higher complication rates at the beginning. The aim of this study was to present an approach for teaching deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) and transverse upper gracilis (TUG) flap breast reconstruction, which can diminish complications and provide satisfying outcomes from the beginning. DIEP and TUG flap procedures for breast reconstruction were either performed by a senior surgeon (>200 DIEP/TUG, ”no-training group”), or taught to one of five trainees (>80 breast surgeries; >50 free flaps) in a step-wise approach. The latter were either performed by the senior surgeon, and a trainee was assisting the surgery (“passive training”); by the trainee, and a senior surgeon was supervising (“active training”); or by the trainee without a senior surgeon (“after training”). Surgeries of each group were analyzed regarding OR-time, complications, and refinement procedures. A total of 95 DIEP and 93 TUG flaps were included into this study. Before the first DIEP/TUG flap without supervision, each trainee underwent a mean of 6.8 DIEP and 7.3 TUG training surgeries (p > 0.05). Outcome measures did not reveal any statistically significant differences (passive training/active training/after training/no-training: OR-time (min): DIEP: 331/351/338/304 (p > 0.05); TUG: 229/214/239/217 (p > 0.05); complications (n): DIEP: 6/13/16/11 (p > 0.05); TUG: 6/19/23/11 (p > 0.05); refinement procedures (n): DIEP:71/63/49/44 (p > 0.05); TUG: 65/41/36/56 (p > 0.05)), indicating safe and secure implementation of this step-wise training approach for microsurgical breast reconstruction in both aesthetic and reconstructive measures. Of note, despite being a perforator flap, DIEP flap required no more training than TUG flap, highlighting the importance of flap inset at the recipient site.

Lipofilling is a frequently used and safe procedure for breast reconstruction. One of the most feared complications is soft tissue infection following lipofilling. Because of this, some surgeons propose the practice of rinsing fat grafts with antibiotics. This study investigates the effect of antibiotic rinses on fat grafts in an in vitro model. Adipocytes and stem cells were isolated from fat tissue harvested during 24 lipofilling procedures and incubated with different doses of clindamycin or cefazolin. Cell viability, metabolism, proliferation, and differentiation capacities were analyzed by gross morphology, fluorescence staining, -(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazoliumbromid (MTT-), and Glyceraldehyde 3 Phosphate Dehydrogenase (G3PD)-assay as well as reactive oxygen species (ROS)-assay. Cefazolin and clindamycin led to significant reduction of cell viability of adipocytes. High doses of both antibiotics led to a rupture of adipocytes with visible free lipid droplets. Cell metabolism was significantly decreased after incubation with both antibiotics. There was a significant increase in ROS production. Exposure to clindamycin and cefazolin led to morphological changes in stem cells in a dose- and time-dependent manner. Furthermore, differentiation potential was significantly reduced. Antibiotic susceptibility testing, however, showed that low concentrations of antibiotics effectively inhibited bacterial growth in contaminated fat grafts. This study confirms that rinsing fat grafts with clindamycin or cefazolin not only overly prevents infection but also has cytotoxic and metabolic effects on adipocytes. Therefore, based on these results, the routine clinical application in high doses cannot be recommended.