Skip to main content
Aesthetic Surgery Journal logoLink to Aesthetic Surgery Journal
editorial
. 2026 Sep 16;46(10):1051–1053. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjag041

Reconstructing Aesthetics: Aesthetic Surgery Journal and Aesthetic Breast Reconstruction

Maurice Y Nahabedian 1,3,✉, Nolan Karp 2,3
PMCID: PMC13577779  PMID: 42744319

Welcome to this special Aesthetic Breast Reconstruction issue of Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ) in celebration of its 30th anniversary. In this editorial, we will review the various innovations and advancements, as well as the evolution of breast reconstruction and how it has become an aesthetic operation.

AESTHETIC BREAST RECONSTRUCTION: A BRIEF HISTORY

Surgical breast reconstruction dates back to the late 19th century, with the first documented instance being performed in Germany by Vincent Czerny in 1895, followed in 1905 by the first breast reconstruction using the pectoral muscle to form a mound.1,2 It is no longer acceptable to simply create a mound on the chest as it was during the first half of the 20th century, the early years of reconstruction. With the invention of the silicone gel breast implant in 1963, surgeons from the 1970s onward began to expand what was possible for breast surgery.3-5 These crucial developments allowed breast surgeons to perform surgeries that were not only lifesaving but could also achieve a beautiful aesthetic result. Today's patients expect, and surgeons can deliver, outcomes that are far superior to what was achievable 50 years ago. When we reflect on our personal experiences from the 1980s and 1990s to now, it is astounding how our techniques and strategies have evolved. What we learned about breast reconstruction during our residencies serves as a foundation for what we do today, as so much has changed for the better and translated into fewer complications, improved aesthetic outcomes, and higher patient satisfaction.

AESTHETIC BREAST RECONSTRUCTION AND AESTHETIC SURGERY JOURNAL

The Aesthetic Breast Reconstruction section was launched in 2023.6 Our goal was to make this section unique and different from other journals in that its purpose was to emphasize the aesthetic aspects of breast reconstruction. Since its launch, the section has seen over 80 articles published (and counting!), as well as many articles published in ASJ Open Forum (Figure 1).7 Today's patients expect outcomes that are natural and aesthetically pleasing, and many want to improve upon the appearance of their breasts. As such, plastic surgeons have sought various innovative strategies intended to improve surgical outcomes and reduce complications. This has been achieved by applying various principles and concepts unique to plastic surgery that have evolved over the decades. Many of these current innovations and advancements are captured within this section and have served to benefit our global readership.

Figure 1.

For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Aesthetic Surgery Journal Aesthetic Breast Reconstruction section editor Dr Maurice Nahabedian (far left) moderating the “Aesthetic Breast Reconstruction: An Expert Video Roundtable Discussion,” with discussants Dr Steven Sigalove (left), Dr Allen Gabriel (middle), and Dr Kiya Movassaghi (right), as published in ASJ Open Forum and sponsored by The Aesthetic Foundation at The Aesthetic Meeting 2024 in Vancouver, Canada.7.

Plastic surgeons are inherently interested in “aesthetics” and optimizing outcomes following all forms of breast surgery, and this section has provided a forum for just that. It is this merging of patient expectation and surgical technique that was our primary goal for this section. ASJ has prided itself on providing its readership with strategies for success that are focused on aesthetic optimization for breast, body, and facial procedures. The combination of reconstructive principles and aesthetic concepts was the impetus for initiating this section and is the basis from which we will continue to evolve. We feel that it is important for breast reconstruction to be included in this aesthetic arena because all patients, aesthetic and reconstructive, are inherently interested in natural and pleasing outcomes. Thus, we have encouraged authors to submit manuscripts that are focused on all forms of breast reconstruction that include autologous, prosthetic, and oncoplastic. Plastic surgeons understand that all patients are different and that there is no single technique or strategy that can be applied to everyone, which is reflected by the diversity of thought, discipline, and approach that can be found in the pages of ASJ and in the work of the dedicated members of The Aesthetic Society who perform these procedures (Figures 2, 3).

Figure 2.

For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Dr Nolan Karp (left) and Dr Melinda Haws (right) photographed together at The Aesthetic Meeting 2022 in Vancouver, Canada.

Figure 3.

For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ) Aesthetic Breast Reconstruction section editor Dr Nolan Karp (right) and ASJ Body Contouring section editor Dr Jamil Ahmad (left) participating in a panel discussion at The Aesthetic MEET 2025 in Austin, TX.

As we reflect on some of the aesthetic breast reconstruction manuscripts published in ASJ, there are several that come to mind that emphasize these aesthetic principles and concepts. The first paper is focused on autologous reconstruction, titled “Breast Reconstruction with Simultaneous Bilateral Lumbar Artery Perforator Flaps Improves Waistline Definition and Buttock Projection.”8 The authors evaluated 50 patients and demonstrated through digital morphometry that after reconstruction, patients were found to have a more defined waistline and a more projected buttock. Patients were surveyed postoperatively, and 73% indicated that their waistline had aesthetically improved and 53% reported an aesthetic improvement in the buttock. The second manuscript is “Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing and Skin-Sparing Mastectomy in Breast-Augmented Patients.”9 These patients often pose unique challenges based on having certain aesthetic ideals and expectations and then having to undergo mastectomy because of cancer. The authors demonstrated that immediate prepectoral implant reconstruction represents a safe, viable, and aesthetically pleasing option for patients following mastectomy who have undergone previous breast augmentation. The final manuscript is titled “Head-to-Head Analysis of Vertical vs Horizontal Incision Patterns in Breast Reconstruction.”10 The authors were able to demonstrate that there were no differences in the complication rate following one incision or the other; however, they did demonstrate that the vertical incisions were preferred aesthetically in a crowdsourcing analysis of the general population. In addition to these 3 standout articles, the Aesthetic Breast Reconstruction section of ASJ has published new techniques and technical refinements, as well as key articles on the use of acellular dermal matrices in breast reconstruction, biosynthetic mesh, tranexamic acid administration reducing the risk of postoperative hematoma and seroma, and new insights into patient priorities and emotional outcomes of aesthetic breast reconstruction.11-,22

PREDICTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Maurice Nahabedian, MD, FACS: My predictions for the future are filled with optimism. Plastic surgeons by nature are creative, visual, and artistic and will continue to innovate to provide our patients with the best outcomes.23 In many ways, plastic surgery is a regenerative specialty. Although this is especially true with the face, it is also true for the breast. Plastic surgeons will continue to explore the role of autologous fat grafting and ways to improve fat viability and incorporation.24 The regenerative potential of fat is becoming more understood, and its role in breast reconstruction and augmentation will one day be a mainstay and possibly reduce the role of artificial prosthetic material.25 Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly being incorporated into our armamentarium. Plastic surgeons and researchers are continually refining the use of machine-based learning tools like 3-dimensional simulation so potential surgical outcomes can be predicted.26-28 AI is also being used to assess soft tissue perfusion using indocyanine green that assists surgeons in reducing the incidence of delayed healing and fat necrosis.29-33 The combination of AI and robots continues to be explored for autologous breast reconstruction using deep inferior epigastric perforator and latissimus dorsi flaps.34,35 These technological advancements will continue to elevate and expand what is possible for our specialty.

Nolan S. Karp, MD: Current implant-based breast reconstruction uses implants designed for breast augmentation. Sometimes these implants work well, and sometimes revisions are required to achieve a good result. In the future, I think we will use computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology to design custom implants for each individual patient so that an excellent result is achievable in a single stage, when nipple-sparing is possible.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, plastic surgery is in exciting times when it comes to aesthetic breast reconstruction. We at ASJ are thrilled with the volume of incoming manuscripts and will continue to publish the best of the best. With each passing year, more manuscripts are being submitted that are of high caliber and worthy of publication. Our turnaround times are low, and authors will notice that the time from submission to publication is faster than the scholarly and medical publishing industry standards.36-38 We are excited and happy to be affiliated with this premier journal and will continue to promote it nationally and globally.

Disclosures

Dr Karp is a shareholder for Surgical Innovation Associates (Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation, Princeton, NJ).

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Czerny  V. Plastic replacement of the breast with a lipoma [in German]. Chir Kong Verhandl. 1895;2:216. [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Teimourian  B, Adham  MN. Louis Ombredanne and the origin of muscle flap use for immediate breast mound reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1983;72:907–910. doi: 10.1097/00006534-198312000-00037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Cronin  TD, Gerow  FJ. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new “natural feel” prosthesis. Transactions of the Third International Congress of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Excerpta Medica; 1963. [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Snyderman  RK, Guthrie  RH. Reconstruction of the female breast following radical mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1971;47:565–567. doi: 10.1097/00006534-197106000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Birnbaum  L, Olsen  JA. Breast reconstruction following radical mastectomy, using custom designed implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1978;61:355–363. doi: 10.1097/00006534-197803000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Kenkel  JM. Introducing aesthetic breast reconstruction and aesthetic breast surgery. Aesthet Surg J. 2023;43:525–526. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjad010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Nahabedian  M, Sigalove  S, Gabriel  A, Movassaghi  K. Aesthetic breast reconstruction: an expert video roundtable discussion. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2024;6:ojae055. doi: 10.1093/asjof/ojae055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Teotia  SS, Henn  D, Lakatta  A, Steppe  C, Haddock  NT. Breast reconstruction with simultaneous bilateral lumbar artery perforator flaps improves waistline definition and buttock projection. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44:165–171. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjad305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Salgarello  M, Fabbri  M, Visconti  G, Barone Adesi  L. Implant-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy in breast-augmented patients: prepectoral or submuscular direct-to-implant reconstruction?  Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44:503–515. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjad383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Lakatta  AC, Steppe  C, Teotia  SS, Haddock  NT. Head-to-head analysis of vertical vs horizontal incision patterns in breast reconstruction: surgical outcomes and aesthetic implications. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44:286–294. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjad331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Li  WY. The combined bra-line back lift latissimus flap (BLBL-LAT flap) for aesthetic breast reconstruction and simultaneous back contouring. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;45:63–70. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Herold  K, Stoddard  T, Rodriguez-Unda  N, et al.  Robotic repair: an alternative technique for rectus diastasis and abdominal bulge following DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44:957–964. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Delay  E, Michel  G, Mambour  G, Meruta  AC, Frobert  P, Perez  S. The breast-pectoralis flap: a new advance in autologous breast reconstruction-a preliminary report on 20 cases. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44:NP645–NP653. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Chu  JJ, Nelson  JA, Kokosis  G, et al.  A cohort analysis of early outcomes after AlloDerm, FlexHD, and SurgiMend use in two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J. 2023;43:1491–1498. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjad246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Davison  SP, Harbour  S, Fassihi  E. Comparison of different acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction: a skin-to-skin study. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44:829–837. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Gabriel  A, Maxwell  GP, O'Rorke  E, Harper  JR. Performance of human and porcine derived acellular dermal matrices in prepectoral breast reconstruction: a long-term clinical and histologic evaluation. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;45:56–62. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Kaplan  HY, Rysin  R. Use of 801 acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: a clinical observation of complication profiles over a 7-year period. Aesthet Surg J. 2025;45:276–285. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Salgarello  M, Barbera  M, Visconti  G, et al.  Prepectoral breast reconstruction: early and long-term complications and outcomes of total coverage acellular dermal matrix and implants vs polyurethane-coated implants without use of acellular dermal matrix. Aesthet Surg J. 2025;46:38–48. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaf158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Arnautovic  A, Williams  S, Ash  M, Menon  A, Shauly  O, Losken  A. Outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction utilizing biosynthetic mesh: a meta-analysis. Aesthet Surg J. 2025:sjaf002. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaf002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Norlin  CB, Weltz  TK, Bak  EEF, et al.  Tranexamic acid and the risk of hematoma and seroma following implant-based breast reconstruction: a retrospective study of 1782 patients. Aesthet Surg J. 2025;45:1227–1233. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaf154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Davison  SP, Ellor  M, LaBove  G. The metamorphosis of patient priorities throughout the breast reconstruction process. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44:1186–1196. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Zhang  C, Wang  VL, Sarrami  S, Reddy  PD, De La Cruz  C. Closing the loop on revision: the impact of emotional well-being on elective revision after breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44:1309–1316. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Wood Matabele  KL, Nkana  ZH, Seitz  AJ, Edalatpour  A, Mahajan  AY, Poore  SO. From tip of brush to tip of knife: the relationship between post-mastectomy breast reconstruction and the classical arts. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44:716–721. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Kendir  MS, Ismayilzade  M. Fat graft replacement for reducing implant size may decrease radiotherapy-related complications in prepectoral expander-to-implant breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J. 2025;20:49–56. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaf166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Yu  C, Xu  J, Chen  W. The landscape of research on autologous fat grafting for breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025;49:3285–3287. doi: 10.1007/s00266-024-04392-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Zaussinger  M, Schwaiger  K, Schwarzbauer  J, et al.  3D Technology for autologous breast reconstruction: increased aesthetic outcomes and quality of life utilizing patient-specific templates. Aesthet Surg J. 2025;45:373–380. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaf005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Stern  CS, Graziano  FD, White  DR, et al.  Nipple position and clinical outcomes following nipple-sparing mastectomy: an examination of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based reconstruction utilizing 3D imaging. Aesthet Surg J. 2025;45:479–485. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaf004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Vaccari  S, Lusi  S, Klinger  MEA, et al.  Pectoralis major muscle 3D volumetric reconstruction in the tuberous breast: anatomical and radiomics differences with potential surgical impact. Aesthet Surg J. 2025;45:264–270. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Fiedler  LS, Daaloul  H. An overview of current assessment techniques for evaluating cutaneous perfusion in reconstructive surgery. J Biophotonics. 2024;17:e202400002. doi: 10.1002/jbio.202400002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Gorgy  A, Xu  HH, Hawary  HE, Nepon  H, Lee  J, Vorstenbosch  J. Integrating AI into breast reconstruction surgery: exploring opportunities, applications, and challenges. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2024;34:37–46. doi: 10.1177/22925503241292349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Ozmen  BB. Navigating FDA regulations for the development of artificial intelligence technologies in plastic surgery. Aesthet Surg J. 2025;45:865–868. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaf051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Lim  B, Cevik  J, Seth  I, et al.  Evaluating artificial intelligence's role in teaching the reporting and interpretation of computed tomographic angiography for preoperative planning of the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap. JPRAS Open. 2024;40:273–285. doi: 10.1016/j.jpra.2024.03.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Abdelhady  AM, Davis  CR. Plastic surgery and artificial intelligence: how ChatGPT improved operation note accuracy, time, and education. Mayo Clin Proc Digit Health. 2023;1:299–308. doi: 10.1016/j.mcpdig.2023.06.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Eo  PS, Kim  H, Lee  JS, Lee  J, Park  HY, Yang  JD. Robot-assisted latissimus dorsi flap harvest for partial breast reconstruction: comparison with endoscopic and conventional approaches. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44:38–46. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjad280 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Novo  J, Seth  I, Mon  Y, et al.  Use of robotic surgery in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a narrative review. Biomimetics (Basel). 2025;10:97. doi: 10.3390/biomimetics10020097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Björk  B-C, Solomon  D. The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. J Informet. 2013;7:914–923. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Journal of Medical Care Research and Review. Manuscript Processing Time. Accessed September 26, 2025. https://mcrr.info/index.php/mcrr/mpt
  • 38. Kibbe  MR. JAMA surgery—the year in review 2024. JAMA Surg. 2025;160:481–482. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2025.0267 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Aesthetic Surgery Journal are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES