A Prospective Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes of Subpectoral and Prepectoral Strattice-Based Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Evaluation of Dual-port versus Single-port Tissue Expanders in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Background

Immediate tissue expander placement in postmastectomy breast reconstruction can be complicated by seroma or infection, requiring further imaging studies or interventions. This study compares dual-port tissue expanders, with both an aspiration and expansion port, with single-port expanders in terms of postoperative complications and further interventions.

Methods:

Patients with immediate tissue expander placement from March 2019 to March 2020 were reviewed. Complications included seroma, infection, hematoma, necrosis, and malposition of the expander. Further intervention included aspiration, ultrasound imaging, interventional radiology (IR) drainage, or return to operating room.

Results:

In total, 128 dual-port expanders were compared with 125 single-port expanders. Patients with single-port expanders were younger (P = 0.022) and of lower BMI (P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in key complications between these groups. In multivariate analysis, single-port expanders had a 3.4× higher odds of postoperative ultrasound imaging when controlling for texture, placement, and age (P = 0.01). Mean time to IR drain placement in the dual-port group was approximately 30 days after placement in single port (51.1 versus 21.4 days, P = 0.013). Thirty-four percent of dual-port expanders had at least one aspiration in clinic performed by plastic surgery, versus 2% of single port that required ultrasound-guided aspiration (P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

There were no differences in key postoperative complications between the two expander cohorts. Dual-port expanders significantly reduced postoperative ultrasound imaging, and delayed IR drain placement. The added convenience of clinic aspirations likely reduced costs related to utilization of resources from other departments.

Safety Profile and Predictors of Aesthetic Outcomes After Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction With Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix

INTRODUCTION

Prepectoral acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-assisted breast reconstruction has demonstrated improved pain scores, faster return to full range of motion, and an appropriate postoperative safety profile when compared with cohorts with submuscular implant placement; however, there are limited data on aesthetic outcomes. Basic science biointegration research has previously demonstrated faster ADM incorporation with fenestrated compared with confluent ADM. We report the safety profile of anterior support meshed ADM prepectoral breast reconstruction and analyze predictive factors for aesthetic outcomes after gel implant placement.

METHODS

All consecutive immediate staged prepectoral expander-to-implant breast reconstructions with more than 6 months of follow-up were compared with a partially submuscular cohort for demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications. All patients 1 to 3.5 years after gel implant placement were evaluated for the impact of clinical characteristics on aesthetic outcomes.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-four prepectoral tissue expander placements were compared with 535 partially submuscular tissue expanders with no significant differences in demographics. There was increased wound dehiscence repaired in clinic and insignificantly decreased seromas with prepectoral expander placement. One hundred sixty breasts were reconstructed with gel implants, and 12 underwent autologous reconstruction during the conduct of the study. The remaining 21 patients were continuing expansion, and 3 succumbed to disease progression. Regression analysis of 86 breast reconstructions showed that a body mass index of greater than 30, fat grafting, and highly cohesive anatomic implants decreased rippling, whereas radiation increased capsular contracture (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral meshed ADM breast reconstruction has an equivalent safety profile to partially submuscular ADM-assisted reconstruction and early aesthetic ratings comparable with other published accounts of implant-based reconstruction. Radiated skin envelopes carry higher capsular contracture rates. Thin patients have a higher risk of visible rippling, whereas fat grafting and higher cohesivity implants are associated with less rippling.

"To Pre or Not to Pre": Introduction of a Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment Score to Help Surgeons Solving the Decision-Making Dilemma. Retrospective Results of a Multicenter Experience

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction is the most performed breast reconstruction, and both subpectoral and prepectoral approaches can lead to excellent results. Choosing the best procedure requires a thorough understanding of every single technique, and proper patient selection is critical to achieve surgical success, in particular when dealing with prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Between January of 2014 and December of 2018, patients undergoing mastectomy and eligible for immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction with tissue expander or definitive implant, were selected. The Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment score was applied to evaluate patient-related preoperative and intraoperative risk factors that could influence the success of prepectoral breast reconstruction. All patients were scored retrospectively, and the results obtained through this assessment tool were compared to the records of the surgical procedures actually performed.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-two patients were included; 112 of them underwent direct-to-implant immediate reconstruction, and 240 underwent the two-stage procedure with temporary tissue expander. According to the Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment score, direct-to-implant reconstruction should have been performed 6.2 percent times less, leading to an increase of 1.4 percent in two-stage reconstruction and 4.8 percent in submuscular implant placement.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, there is no validated system to guide surgeons in identifying the ideal patient for subcutaneous or retropectoral breast reconstruction and eventually whether she is a good candidate for direct-to-implant or two-stage reconstruction. The authors processed a simple risk-assessment score to objectively evaluate the patient's risk factors, to standardize the decision-making process, and to identify the safest and most reliable breast reconstructive procedure.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Prepectoral immediate breast reconstruction with polyurethane foam-coated implants: Feasibility and early results in risk-reducing and therapeutic mastectomies

BACKGROUND

There is a renewed interest for prepectoral reconstruction. We aimed to describe the feasibility and the early complications associated with immediate one-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using prepectoral anatomical polyurethane (PU) foam-coated implants alone, for women with breast cancer or mutation carriers undergoing risk-reducing surgery.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, retrospective review of 50 patients (mean age of 49 years), who underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and immediate prepectoral PU implant-based reconstruction. All procedures were performed by the same senior operator, from July 2018 to March 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 64 mastectomies (25 SSMs and 39 NSMs) with one-stage prepectoral PU foam-coated implant reconstruction were performed. Out of 50 patients, 6 required surgical revision within 30 days, because of hematoma (2), wound dehiscence (2) infection (1), and full thickness nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis (1). Four patients developed a cutaneous rash with spontaneous resolution. Statistical analysis showed a significant influence of hypothyroidism and previous radiotherapy on the risk of complications. The association with prior radiotherapy (pRT) was not significant using binary logistic regression. When excluding oncological reasons and patient's wish for NAC excision, our decision to perform an NSM was influenced by breast cup size, preoperative measurements, and breast weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Early experience with immediate prepectoral DTI reconstruction with PU-covered implants alone suggests that it is a reliable procedure. Prior breast irradiation does not increase postoperative complication rates in our series. NAC preservation was decided according to preoperative lower breast measurements.

Cost-effectiveness of single-use negative-pressure therapy compared with standard care for prevention of reconstruction failure in prepectoral breast reconstruction

Background

Single-use negative-pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) has been reported to reduce the incidence of reconstruction failure in prepectoral breast reconstruction compared with standard surgical dressings. The aim of this economic evaluation was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of sNPWT compared with standard care for the prevention of reconstruction failure in prepectoral breast reconstruction in the UK.

Method

A decision tree model was used to estimate the expected cost and effectiveness per patient. Effectiveness was measured both by the number of reconstruction failures avoided and the gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The baseline incidence of reconstruction failure (8.6 per cent) was taken from a recently published study of 2655 mastectomies in the UK. The effectiveness of sNPWT used results from a clinical study comparing sNPWT with standard dressings. Previously published utility weights were applied. The cost of reconstruction failure was estimated from detailed resource data from patients with reconstruction failure, applying National Health Service reference costs. One-way, probabilistic, scenario and threshold analyses were conducted.

Results

The undiscounted cost per patient associated with reconstruction failure was estimated to be £23 628 (£22 431 discounted). The use of sNPWT was associated with an expected cost saving of £1706 per patient, an expected increase in QALYs of 0.0187 and an expected 0.0834 reconstruction failures avoided. Cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis demonstrated that, at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY, 99.94 per cent of the simulations showed sNPWT to be more cost-effective than standard care.

Conclusion

Among patients undergoing immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction, the use of sNPWT is more cost-effective than standard dressings.

A Sustainable Approach to Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Using Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix

Background:

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction provides an alternative to submuscular reconstruction, but the increased acellular dermal matrix (ADM) required has the potential to lead to increased costs and decreased supply of this limited-resource material. We present a method for prepectoral reconstruction utilizing skin-graft meshing techniques to increase the surface area of usable ADM.

Methods:

Forty-four patients underwent this technique from February 2019 to February 2020. Patient characteristics, operative details, and outcomes, including complications and patient satisfaction utilizing the BREAST-Q, were analyzed. Cost analysis relative to projected cost of nonmeshed techniques was performed.

Results:

There were 20 unilateral and 24 bilateral procedures, for a total of 68 breast reconstructions. Mean age was 45.9 years (32–71). Mean implant volume was 485 cm³ (265–800), and one sheet of ADM was used for each breast with an average surface area of 161 cm². Median follow-up was 350 days (212–576). Minor complications included an infection treated with oral antibiotics. Major complications included one axillary hematoma and one delayed implant loss. One patient underwent revision for asymmetry. Mean BREAST-Q score was 47.4/60. Cost ranged from $4113 to 5025 per breast, compared with the projected $9125–18250 per breast for other techniques in the literature.

Conclusions:

In contrast to previously described uses of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction, meshing maximizes resource utilization by expanding the coverage of a single sheet. Early findings demonstrate minimal complications and high patient satisfaction, suggesting the approach has potential to provide the benefits of prepectoral reconstruction while responsibly preserving product availability and tempering healthcare costs.

Quality of Life After Bilateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Simultaneous Reconstruction Using Pre-Pectoral Silicone Implants

PURPOSE

Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) can reduce the risk of developing breast cancer by up to 95% in women with increased exposure. Although survival is increased, mastectomies can adversely affect a patient physically, psychologically, and psychosexually. High health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is often achieved after simultaneous breast reconstruction (BR) following BRRM; however, data on the pre- and postoperative results of HRQoL are lacking. Therefore, we investigated the quality of life, esthetic outcome, and patient well-being after BRRM and simultaneous implant-based BR.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Of the 35 patients who underwent skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy between May 2012 and December 2017 at a university hospital, only 22 completed the evaluation. Baseline data and data on previous operations and operation techniques were retrieved from the patient's charts. BREAST-Q and short form-36 health survey (SF-36) questionnaires were used to evaluate patient satisfaction and HRQoL.

RESULTS

SF-36 analysis showed a significantly higher score for pain (p=0.043) in our population than in the general female population. Comparing the pre- and postoperative BREAST-Q results, a significant decrease in the physical well-being of the chest (p=0.0179) and a slight improvement in breast satisfaction were observed (p=0.3266). All patients were well-satisfied with the postoperative outcome, reconstruction, and perioperative surgeon care.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral mastectomy with simultaneous BR using pre-pectoral implants is associated with an HRQoL similar to that of the healthy population. Although bilateral mastectomy may have an immense effect on the psychological, physical, and social aspects, immediate BR preserves the outer appearance and improves self-esteem.

Decreased postoperative pain and opioid use following prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective cohort study: Pain after pre- versus subpectoral reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral (PP) breast reconstruction is now commonly performed and minimizes dissection of the pectoralis major muscle. Data are lacking comparing the immediate postoperative recovery of these patients as compared with traditional subpectoral (SP) breast reconstruction.

METHODS

From December 2015 to February 2017, 73 patients underwent PP prosthetic-based reconstruction at a single academic institution. PP cases were matched 1:1, by age and stage, to patients undergoing traditional SP reconstruction. Analysis of postoperative pain (visual analog scale) and opioid use (oral morphine equivalents, OME), was performed with both bi- and multivariate analyses. Additional outcomes explored included length of stay (LOS) and reconstructive intervention by plane of prosthetic reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 146 patients were included in the final cohort. PP reconstruction was associated with higher rates of direct-to-implant reconstruction (84.9% vs. 34.3%, p <0.001) and higher rates of initial prosthetic fill (401.53 mL vs. 280.88 mL, p<0.001). Patients undergoing PP reconstruction had significantly reduced postoperative pain (4.29 vs. 5.44, p<0.001) and in-hospital opioid use (62.63 mg OME vs. 98.84 mg OME, p = 0.03) compared with SP patients. This result remained in multivariate analysis for both pain (3.94 vs. 5.25, p<0.001) and opioid use (17.14 mg OME vs. 63.03 mg OME, p = 0.03). Additionally, patients undergoing PP reconstruction had significantly reduced overall LOS on multivariate analysis (21.36 vs. 26.28 h, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Following mastectomy, PP breast reconstruction results in significantly reduced pain, opioid use, and hospital LOS compared with SP reconstruction.

Acute Postoperative Complications in Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Reconstruction following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is associated with improved aesthetics and oncologic safety. Recently, there has been a resurgence in prepectoral reconstruction. Because of limited data comparing complication rates on patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction, this study compared 30-day postoperative complications by plane of prosthetic placement.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on all consecutive patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction with either prepectoral or subpectoral placement from 2014 to 2018. The primary outcome was a composite, acute 30-day postoperative complication, including nipple-areola complex necrosis, mastectomy flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, hematoma, and seroma. Secondary outcomes included nipple loss and rates of unintended reoperations. Univariate and mixed effects multivariate logistic regression were used to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 228 patients and 405 breasts were included in the final cohort, with 202 in the subpectoral cohort and 203 in the prepectoral cohort. The overall complication rate was 7.65 percent, with no significant difference between subpectoral and prepectoral cohorts (9.41 percent versus 5.91 percent, respectively; p = 0.148). Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly reduced ischemic complications, including nipple loss because of necrosis (2.97 percent versus 0.49 percent, respectively; p = 0.015) and mastectomy flap necrosis (5.45 percent versus 0 percent; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in rates of infection, hematoma, seroma, or implant loss/exchange.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral reconstruction is associated with similar overall 30-day postoperative complications and reoperations compared to traditional subpectoral implants. However, prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly decreased ischemic complications, including mastectomy flap necrosis and nipple-areola complex loss because of necrosis.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

How to Optimize Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has become a popular method of postmastectomy breast reconstruction due to its numerous benefits in properly selected patients. Prepectoral reconstruction, as compared with retropectoral position, offers the advantage of leaving the pectoralis muscle undisturbed and in its original anatomic position, resulting in significantly decreased acute and chronic pain, improved upper extremity strength and range of motion, and avoidance of animation deformity. The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) allows for precise control of the breast pocket, resulting in aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. ADMs have the added benefit of reducing capsular contracture, especially in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy. Although prepectoral breast reconstruction is effective, the breast implant is placed closer to the skin flap with less vascularized soft tissue coverage. Therefore, optimizing outcomes in prepectoral breast reconstruction requires careful patient selection, intraoperative mastectomy flap evaluation, and perioperative surgical algorithms specific to prepectoral reconstruction.

Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Prepectoral implant placement has many potential advantages in immediate breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are commonly used in these surgeries. ADM meshing may enhance integration, decrease seroma and infection rates, and reduce surgical costs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center study of 49 women (71 breasts) undergoing immediate, prepectoral, implant-based breast reconstruction with 2:1 meshed, bovine-derived ADM (SurgiMend). Outcomes were compared against those of 77 patients (105 breasts) undergoing a similar procedure but with partial subpectoral implant placement.

RESULTS

In the prepectoral group, the mean age was 49.1 years and mean body mass index was 24.7 kg/m². There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics versus the partial subpectoral control group. Mean follow-up was 18.6 months (prepectoral) and 21.3 months (partial subpectoral). Mean time to drain removal was reduced in the prepectoral group (6.5 versus 8.5 days; P < 0.001). Rates of minor and major complications with prepectoral implant placement were 15.5% and 11.3%, respectively - similar to partial subpectoral placement (15.2% and 14.3%) (overall P = 0.690). Capsular contracture and explantation were associated with radiation therapy, and rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral implant placement with meshed ADM is a safe and reproducible alternative to partial muscle coverage with meshed ADM. Recovery may be easier and animation deformity avoided. It could therefore become the standard of care for implant-based breast reconstruction.

A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

Background and objectives: Until now subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) has been the predominant form; however, it can present with pectoralis muscle contraction and animation deformity. To avoid these complications, surgeons have begun placing breast implants in the same anatomic space as the breast tissue that was removed. We report a comparative analysis of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) versus subpectoral breast reconstruction to analyze their differences. Materials and Methods: Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) performed from February 2015 to February 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We then compared the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of the two groups (prepectoral vs. subpectoral) based on the overall incidence of complications, pain scale, and the duration of drainage. Results: A total of 167 patients underwent unilateral DTI, with SBR 114 (68.3%) and PBR 53 (31.7%). Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of seroma, infection (requiring intravenous antibiotics), hematoma, and skin necrosis. Implant loss rates in the SBR 6.1% (n = 7) and PBR 9.4% (n = 5) were also not statistically significant (p = 0.99). The hemovac duration period was significantly longer in the SBR (14.93 ± 5.57 days) group than in the PBR group (11.09 ± 4.82 days) (p < 0.01). However, post-operative pain scores are similar between two groups, although it is not clear whether this was due to the effect of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia. Conclusions: A SBR is a commonly used procedure with various advantages, but there are many problems due to damage to the normal pectoralis major muscle. According to the results of our study, the PBR group had a shorter hemovac duration period compared to the SBR group, although there was no significant difference in complication rate. A PBR is a simple and safe technique allowing early discharge without increasing the incidence of long-term complications.

Current Trends in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Survey of American Society of Plastic Surgeons Members

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has recently gained increasing popularity, but there are limited data regarding national trends in the use of this technique. Our aim was to determine practice patterns related to prepectoral breast reconstruction among plastic surgeons, as well as to identify perceived advantages and disadvantages of this technique.

Methods

A 16-question electronic survey tool was distributed to 2535 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Survey items focused on surgeon practices related to prepectoral reconstruction, in addition to their motivations for and concerns with performing the procedure.

Results

A total of 274 responses were received (10.8% response rate). Nearly half of respondents (48.4%) reported using prepectoral techniques in all or most of their procedures. Decreased animation deformity was identified as the most significant advantage by 76.3% of respondents. Increased rippling and potential wound healing complications were identified as the most significant disadvantages to the procedure by 49.1% and 40.4% of respondents, respectively. The majority of surgeons reported using acellular dermal matrices in their procedures, with most surgeons demonstrating preferences for cohesive and shaped devices.

Conclusions

Prepectoral breast reconstruction is being widely adopted by plastic surgeons, with the majority of surgeons in our sample using prepectoral techniques in their practices. Responses demonstrate that this technique offers several perceived advantages, most notably the avoidance of animation deformity. However, our data also highlight that there are still many unanswered questions in the community about the complication profile and technical aspects of prepectoral techniques that warrant further investigation.

Optimizing non-opioid pain control after implant-based breast reconstruction: a review of the literature and proposed pain control algorithm

Despite the intense focus on the opioid epidemic and its known association with surgical procedures, there is a paucity of evidence-based literature on pain management in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). Herein, we present an updated review of the literature aimed at identifying pain treatment protocols to minimize narcotic use and its associated potential addiction in IBR. A comprehensive review of the published English literature was conducted using Ovid Medline/PubMed Database without timeframe limitations. The inclusion criteria of selected articles presented in this review included studies reporting objective outcomes of pain modulation (preoperatively, intraoperatively and postoperatively) in IBR. Articles for inclusion were stratified based on intervention. A total of 219 articles were identified in the initial search query, with 23 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Pain optimization interventions in IBR are herein summarized and analyzed based on the reported outcomes of each respective study. There is a substantial need for evidence-based guidelines in the plastic surgery literature for pain optimization without the use of opioids. While this review of studies to date investigates potential solutions, we hope this area of study continues to be a top priority for plastic surgeons to allow for optimized post-operative care for patients following IBR.

Intraoperative Intercostal Nerve Block for Postoperative Pain Control in Pre-Pectoral versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study

Background and Objectives: Patients undergoing mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction have significant acute postsurgical pain. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of intercostal nerve blocks (ICNBs) for reducing pain after direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction. Materials and Methods: Between January 2019 and March 2020, patients who underwent immediate DTI breast reconstruction were included in this study. The patients were divided into the ICNB or control group. In the ICNB group, 4 cc of 0.2% ropivacaine was injected intraoperatively to the second, third, fourth, and fifth intercostal spaces just before implant insertion. The daily average and maximum visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were recorded by the patient from operative day to postoperative day (POD) seven. Pain scores were compared between the ICNB and control groups and analyzed according to the insertion plane of implants. Results: A total of 67 patients with a mean age of 47.9 years were included; 31 patients received ICNBs and 36 patients did not receive ICNBs. There were no complications related to ICNBs reported. The ICNB group showed a significantly lower median with an average VAS score on the operative day (4 versus 6, p = 0.047), lower maximum VAS scores on the operative day (5 versus 7.5, p = 0.030), and POD 1 (4 versus 6, p = 0.030) as compared with the control group. Among patients who underwent subpectoral reconstruction, the ICNB group showed a significantly lower median with an average VAS score on the operative day (4 versus 7, p = 0.005), lower maximum VAS scores on the operative day (4.5 versus 8, p = 0.004), and POD 1 (4 versus 6, p = 0.009), whereas no significant differences were observed among those who underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction. Conclusions: Intraoperative ICNBs can effectively reduce immediate postoperative pain in subpectoral DTI breast reconstruction; however, it may not be effective in pre-pectoral DTI reconstruction.

Should Obesity Be Considered a Contraindication for Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction?

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant-based reconstruction reemerged as a viable approach following recent advances in reconstructive techniques and technology. To achieve successful outcomes, careful patient selection is critical. Obesity increases the risk of complications and has been suggested as a relative contraindication for prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent immediate two-stage implant-based reconstruction at the authors' institution was performed. Only women having a body mass index of 30 kg/m or greater were included. Patient demographics, operative details, and surgical outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction were compared.

RESULTS

One hundred ten patients (189 breasts) who underwent prepectoral and 83 (147 breasts) who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included. Complications were comparable between the two groups. Twelve devices (6.4 percent), including implants and tissue expanders, required explantation in the prepectoral group, and 12 devices (8.2 percent) required explantation in the subpectoral group (p =0.522). Final implant-based reconstruction was achieved in 180 breasts (95.2 percent) in the prepectoral group and 141 breasts (95.9 percent) in the subpectoral group. Regardless of type of reconstruction (prepectoral or subpectoral), for each point increase in body mass index, the odds of complications and device explantation increased by 3.4 percent and 8.6 percent, respectively; and the optimal cutoff to predict higher complications and explantation rates was a body mass index of 34.8 kg/m and 34.1 kg/m, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity increases complications and failure rates in a positive correlation; however, complications and final reconstruction rates are comparable between the prepectoral and subpectoral groups. The authors believe that obesity should not be a contraindication for prepectoral breast reconstruction but that care should be taken in patients with a body mass index above 35 kg/m.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Skin-Reducing Mastectomy and Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction in Large Ptotic Breasts

OBJECTIVES

Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is increasingly offered to breast cancer patients, as the one-stage technique has proved surgical and oncological safety and aesthetic effectiveness. Nevertheless, there are limited data on outcomes after pre-pectoral breast reconstruction in large and ptotic breasts. The aim of the paper is to present the authors' experience in performing Wise pattern mastectomy with pre-pectoral implant and complete acellular dermal matrix (ADM) coverage as a single-stage procedure in patients with large ptotic breasts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of protective collected data from January 2017 to June 2019 of patients who presented with large and ptotic breasts undergoing skin-reducing mastectomy and immediate pre-pectoral breast reconstruction with complete ADM coverage and inferior dermal sling was performed. Oncological and surgical outcomes were collected. Satisfaction with reconstruction and related quality of life were evaluated through BREAST-Q questionnaire.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients met the inclusion criteria. The average patient age was 55.6 years, and the mean body mass index was 31.2. Mean follow-up was 23.2 months from the initial reconstruction. One patient experienced seroma, and two cases of wound dehiscence at the T junction were observed and treated conservatively with no implant loss. All patients were satisfied with the final reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

The Wise pattern skin-reducing mastectomy and pre-pectoral breast reconstruction could be offered to patients presenting with large and ptotic breasts. Future studies should better define long-term outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Submuscular and Pre-Pectoral ADM Assisted Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Literature Review

Background and objectives: Breast cancer treatment has deeply changed in the last fifty years. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) were introduced for breast reconstruction, with encouraging results, but with conflicting reports too. The present paper aims to summarize the current data on breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the literature regarding the use of ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction. Results: The main techniques were analyzed and described. Conclusions: Several authors have recently reported positive results. Nevertheless, an increased complications' rate has been reported by other authors. Higher cost compared to not-ADM-assisted breast reconstruction is another concern.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Reduces Wound Breakdown and Implant Loss in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Single-use negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been shown to encourage wound healing. It is often used when patient factors impair wound healing, or in more complex wounds, such as in implant-based breast reconstruction. We report the findings of a prospective cohort study comparing the use of NPWT with standard dressings in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Methods:

A prospective database of implant-based reconstruction from a single institution was mined to identify patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction. Patient demographics, operative data, surgical complications, and 90-day outcomes were compared between patients who had NPWT and those who had standard dressings.

Results:

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction was performed on 307 breasts. NPWT dressings were used in 126 cases, with standard dressings used in 181 cases. Wound breakdown occurred in 10 cases after standard dressings versus 1 where NPWT was utilized. Of the standard dressing cases, only 3 implants were salvaged, while 7 cases led to implant loss. The 1 case of wound breakdown in the NPWT cohort settled with conservative measures. The cost of a reconstructive failure was £14,902, and the use of NPWT resulted in a cost savings of £426 per patient.

Conclusions:

The utilization of single-use NPWT reduces the rate of wound breakdown and implant loss in prepectoral implant-based reconstruction. In addition to the significant clinical benefits, this approach is cost-saving compared with standard dressings. These data suggest that prepectoral implant reconstruction should be considered as an indication for the use of NPWT.

The Pre-BRA (pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction EvAluation) feasibility study: protocol for a mixed-methods IDEAL 2a/2b prospective cohort study to determine the safety and effectiveness of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most commonly performed reconstructive technique worldwide. Subpectoral reconstruction with mesh is the current standard of care but new prepectoral techniques have recently been introduced. Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) may improve outcomes for patients but robust evaluation is required. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are ideally needed but the short-term safety of PPBR is yet to be established; the technique and its indications are evolving and it has yet to be adopted by a sufficient number of surgeons for an RCT to be feasible.The Pre-BRA study aims to determine the feasibility of using mixed-methods within an IDEAL 2a/2b (IDEAL, Idea-Development-Exploration-Assessment-Long-term) study to explore the short-term safety of PPBR and determine when the technique is sufficiently stable for evaluation in a pragmatic RCT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b prospective multicentre cohort study with embedded qualitative research.Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating centres will be invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology and complication data will be collected and patient-reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3 and 18 months postoperatively. The primary safety endpoint will be implant loss at 3 months.Surgeons performing PPBR will be asked to complete questionnaires regarding their practice and report any modifications made to the procedure or learning arising from complications via free-text response fields on electronic case-report forms. Semistructured will explore surgeons' experiences in detail to identify emerging best practice. This will be fed back to participating surgeons to promote shared learning.The Pre-BRA study will aim to recruit 341 patients from 30 to 40 UK centres over a 12-month period. Recruitment will commence Spring 2019.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has full ethical approval from OXFORD-B South Central Committee Ref:19/SC/0129. Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11898000; Pre-results.

Improving Cost-efficiency in Bilateral Direct-to-Implant Reconstructions with Acellular Dermal Matrix

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for bilateral breast reconstruction has increased in recent years. Detection of BCRA mutation and therefore bilateral risk-reduction mastectomy is one of the main reasons for this increase. High cost of ADM is considered a major drawback for its use. The authors present a new technique which allows the use of only one unit of ADM for both breasts. After assessing the viability of the skin of mastectomy flaps, a musculofascial pocket formed superiorly by pectoralis major, laterally by serratus fascia and inferiorly by rectus fascia, is performed. Then, the ADM is divided in two halves. We propose two different ways to divide the matrix, cutting it vertically or diagonally in two. The way in which the matrix should be cut depends on the distensibility of the pocket. Afterwards, the implant is inserted and the exposed area of the implant is covered by the ADM sutured to the edges of the musculofascial pocket. Using only one ADM unit for bilateral reconstruction, the procedure becomes not only more cost-effective but also can reduce complications such as seroma, rippling, wrinkling, and visibility by means of a better coverage with lesser foreign body load. Furthermore, the lesser the matrix used, the faster the integration is achieved.

Multicentre study of prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix

Background

Single‐stage reconstruction is used widely after mastectomy. Prepectoral implant placement is a relatively new technique. This multicentre audit examined surgical outcomes following prepectoral reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix (ADM).

Methods

All patients who had a mastectomy with prepectoral breast reconstruction and ADM in the participating centres between January 2015 and December 2017 were included. Demographic and treatment details, and short‐ and long‐term operative outcomes were recorded. Factors affecting complications and implant loss were analysed: age, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, vascular disease, laterality of surgery, previous ipsilateral breast surgery or radiotherapy, indication for surgery (invasive versus in situ carcinoma, or risk reduction), type of mastectomy, axillary clearance, breast volume, implant volume, and neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

A total of 406 reconstructions were performed across 18 centres. Median follow‐up was 9·65 months. Median hospital stay was 1 day. The 90‐day unplanned readmission rate was 15·7 per cent, and the return‐to‐theatre rate 16·7 per cent. Some 15·3 per cent of patients had a major complication, with a 90‐day implant loss rate of 4·9 per cent. A further six patients had delayed implant loss. In multivariable analysis, no factor was significantly associated with complications or implant loss.

Conclusion

Prepectoral breast reconstruction with ADM has satisfactory surgical outcomes. The duration of follow‐up needs to be extended to examine outcomes in patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy.

Considerations for patient selection: Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

Background

In recent years, breast implants have been frequently placed in the subcutaneous pocket, in the so-called prepectoral approach. We report our technique of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR), as well as its surgical and aesthetic outcomes, in comparison with subpectoral IBR. We also discuss relevant considerations and pitfalls in prepectoral IBR and suggest an algorithm for the selection of patients for IBR based on our experiences.

Methods

We performed 79 immediate breast reconstructions with a breast implant and an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) sling, of which 47 were subpectoral IBRs and 32 were prepectoral IBRs. Two-stage IBR was performed in 36 cases (20 subpectoral, 16 prepectoral), and direct-to-implant IBR in 43 cases (27 prepectoral, 16 subpectoral). The ADM sling supplemented the inferolateral side of the breast prosthesis in the subpectoral group and covered the entire anterior surface of the breast prosthesis in the prepectoral group.

Results

The postoperative pain score was much lower in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (1.78 vs. 7.17). The incidence of seroma was higher in the prepectoral group (31.3% vs. 6.4%). Other postoperative complications, such as surgical site infection, flap necrosis, implant failure, and wound dehiscence, occurred at similar rates in both groups. Animation deformities developed in 8.5% of patients in the subpectoral group and rippling deformities were more common in the prepectoral group (21.9% vs. 12.8%).

Conclusions

The indications for prepectoral IBR include moderately-sized breasts with a thick well-vascularized mastectomy flap and concomitant bilateral breast reconstruction with prophylactic mastectomy.

The Importance of Tissue Perfusion in Reconstructive Breast Surgery

Immediate breast reconstruction relies on healthy mastectomy flaps for success. Tissue perfusion of these mastectomy flaps is dependent on multiple patient-, operative-, and surgeon-specific factors, which must be optimized. Unfortunately, tissue perfusion is also notoriously difficult to accurately assess and investigate. In this review, we discuss the importance of tissue perfusion in successful reconstructive breast surgery with an emphasis on perfusion assessment and techniques to ensure that anatomic mastectomy flap perfusion is maintained for immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Preoperative and patient-specific factors should be considered with operative plans modified to minimize ischemic risk. Intraoperatively, incision planning and mastectomy dissection will dictate skin flap perfusion. Most importantly, mastectomy dissection in a plane at the breast capsule will maximize preservation of the subdermal plexus and subcutaneous perforators that supply the breast skin envelope while also maximizing oncologic parenchymal resection. Such anatomic dissection has been demonstrated to decrease risk of ischemic complications in immediate breast reconstruction. Postoperatively, any potential or actual areas of impaired perfusion and ischemia must be diagnosed appropriately and managed proactively to ensure a successful reconstruction. It is also important for surgeons to be aware of imaging modalities and adjunctive technologies that can help promote and assess optimal mastectomy flap tissue perfusion. Plastic surgeons and breast surgeons must actively and collaboratively work together to ensure their mutual goals are met, and optimal outcomes are attained for patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy.

Acellular Dermal Matrix Reduces Myofibroblast Presence in the Breast Capsule

Background

Capsular contracture remains a common complication after implant-based breast reconstruction. Previous work has suggested that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) reduces the rate of capsular contracture, though little is understood about the underlying mechanism. As myofibroblasts are believed to be the key cells implicated in contracture formation, we hypothesized that ADM would result in a reduction in periprosthetic myofibroblast concentration.

Methods

Five patients who underwent immediate prepectoral tissue expander placement with anterior ADM coverage and an inferior cuff were included. At the second stage, tissue samples were obtained of both ADM and capsule from each reconstructed breast. Samples were then prepared for hematoxylin and eosin staining and immunohistochemistry for myofibroblast identification (alpha smooth muscle actin and vimentin positive and desmin negative) and analysis. Experimental values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise stated. Statistical significance was determined using unpaired t test.

Results

Successful incorporation of ADM was noted in all cases. A significant reduction in myofibroblast concentration was noted in the ADM versus the capsule (P = 0.0018). This was paralleled by significantly thicker periprosthetic capsule formation overlying the formerly raw pectoralis major muscle, that is, not covered by ADM (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

In the presence of ADM, there are significantly fewer myofibroblasts in breast capsules and thinner capsules on histology. Given the central role of myofibroblasts in the development of clinically significant capsular contracture, this study unmasks a possible mechanism for the protective effect of ADM with respect to capsular contracture development.

Comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomies: A systematic review and meta analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) after mastectomies as compared to subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) were unclear, so we conducted a systematic review to analyze their differences.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to retrieve studies that compared PBR with SBR after mastectomies. The outcomes were complications, oncological safety, patient-reported outcomes and postoperative pain. Revman software version 5.30 and stata vesion 12 was used to conduct meta-analysis where possible.

RESULTS

16 comparative studies (12 articles and four abstracts) were included. The meta analysis showed no statistical differences in overall complications, implant loss, seroma, nipple or skin flap necrosis, hematoma, reoperation, wound dehiscence, and wound-skin infection, rippling between PBR and SBR. PBR might be associated with fewer nipple or skin flap necrosis for those who received tissue expander placement, and fewer capsular contracture rates for those who received implant. PBR might be associated with better Breast Q scores and less postoperative pain without increasing the risk of local recurrence and metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

Although available evidence is limited, PBR might be as safe as subpectoral approach. Future well designed multicenter randomized controlled trial that compare postmastectomy PBR with SBR is needed.

Surgical Outcomes of Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in Young Women

Background:

Two-staged implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is the most common breast reconstructive modality. Recently, technological and surgical advances have encouraged surgeons to revisit prepectoral IBR. Data comparing prepectoral against subpectoral IBR in women under the age of 40 are lacking.

Methods:

Retrospective chart review of patients under the age of 40 years old, who underwent immediate 2-staged IBR at our institution, was performed. Patient’s demographics, clinical characteristics, operative details, and early surgical outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction were compared. Data with values of P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results:

Between 2012 and 2016, 100 patients (187 breasts) who underwent prepectoral and 69 patients (124 breasts) who underwent subpectoral IBR were included. Median follow-up was 17.9 and 17.5 months in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Total number of complications including both stages of reconstruction was 20 (10.7%) and 19 (15.3%) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively (P = 0.227). Specific complications, including hematoma, seroma, skin flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, and breast infections, were not significantly different among groups. Ten (5.4%) devices, including implants and tissue expander, required explantation in the prepectoral group and 8 (6.5%) in the subpectoral group (P = 0.683). Explantation was most commonly due to infection (n = 14), and all of them occurred during the first stage (P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

Early complications and implant explantation rates are comparable among prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction in women under 40 years old. Based on these results, we believe that prepectoral IBR is a safe, reliable, and promising reconstructive option.

Comparison of Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Immediate Implant Reconstruction after Skin- and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in Breast Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Hospital-Based Cohort Study

Introduction

Implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is a common surgical procedure in breast cancer patients. Comparative analysis concerning the placement of implants is still lacking. Hence, we aimed to analyze pre- versus subpectoral IBR in breast cancer patients.

Patients

A single-center experience with implant-based IBR following skin/nipple-sparing mastectomy was evaluated. Patient demographics, incidence of major complications, and quality of life assessed with BREAST-Q were compared between the pre- and subpectoral cohort.

Results

A total of 63 patients were included in this analysis of whom 29 underwent subpectoral and 34 underwent prepectoral IBR. Median duration of surgery was prolonged in the subpectoral versus the prepectoral group (104 ± 28 vs. 80 ± 91 min; p < 0.05). The mean number of major complications was significantly increased in the subpectoral group (1.41 ± 1.76 vs. 0.47 ± 0.75 per patient; p < 0.05). Detailed analysis showed a significantly increased incidence of implant dislocation (p < 0.05) and a trend concerning capsular contracture (p = 0.086, not significant) and necrosis (p = 0.092, not significant) in the subpectoral group. Quality of life was equal in both groups.

Conclusion

The mean number of major complications in the subpectoral group should be considered when IBR is indicated. Prepectoral IBR seems to be a feasible alternative surgical treatment option with less major complications in selected patients.

Strategies and considerations in selecting between subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction

Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved through advances in mastectomy and reconstruction techniques to offer excellent outcomes with both prepectoral and subpectoral implant placement. Proper patient selection and surgical technique are key for optimizing outcomes and minimizing complications regardless of implant location. Therefore, familiarity with the benefits and limitations of each technique is vital. Several patient characteristics, such as history of significant comorbidities, radiation or active smoking, portend higher risk of complications with prepectoral reconstruction, in which case subpectoral implant placement may be a safer option. Oncologic consideration such as location and size of tumors also play an important role in determining the appropriate technique. The most critical factor in the success of prepectoral reconstruction is the quality of mastectomy flaps. Thorough intraoperative evaluation of mastectomy flap perfusion and viability will determine whether immediate prepectoral reconstruction is possible or other alternatives such as subpectoral or delayed prepectoral techniques should be considered. Discussing these factors with patients preemptively as well as developing a coordinated plan with the patient and oncologic surgeon will maximize success in both subpectoral and prepectoral implant-based reconstruction.

Single stage, direct to implant pre-pectoral breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Given the current trends in skin preservation during mastectomy, improved biofilm reduction algorithms, and advancements in tissue bioengineering and perfusion assessment, acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-reinforced single stage, direct to implant insertion in the pre-pectoral space has become a viable alternative to two-stage expander-based, sub-pectoral reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of their pre-pectoral cases evaluating outcomes for all single stage, direct to implant procedures. Outcomes reviewed included hematoma, seroma, infection, device loss or change, animation deformity and revisional procedures such as fat grafting. The anterior tenting surgical technique is also reviewed.

RESULTS

The authors have carried out 305 direct to implant pre-pectoral breast reconstructions using an anterior tenting technique with low complication rates and superior clinical and functional outcomes. The benefits of this technique include less patient discomfort, no need for postoperative expansion, virtually no subjective negative impact on upper extremity function and elimination of animation deformity. Longer-term follow-up demonstrates maintenance of the integrity and quality of the reconstructions over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors consider single stage, pre-pectoral direct to implant breast reconstruction to be a state-of-the-art breast reconstruction technique and have found it to be safe and reproducible. This technique is their primary choice for immediate implant-based reconstruction following mastectomy.

Optimizing perioperative strategies to maximize success with prepectoral breast reconstruction

Implant based reconstruction is still the most commonly employed method of post mastectomy reconstruction in the United States and internationally. Mastectomy techniques are improving, and adjuncts such as tissue perfusion technology and biologic implants allow for re-evaluation of traditional reconstructive methods. Subpectoral implant placement is used in a large majority of patients undergoing implant based reconstruction. However, with the advent of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), a "sling" for the expander and implant can be placed with surgical precision to create the optimal breast pocket. This has allowed for placement of the breast prosthesis in a prepectoral anatomic plane. The benefits are clear: avoidance of animation deformities and a significant decrease in pain that results from pectoralis mobilization and spasm. Here, we discuss specific techniques to avoid pitfalls and optimize aesthetic results with prepectoral breast reconstruction. Patient selection, intra-operative mastectomy flap evaluation, modifications in expander and implant fill, and technique specifics all play a critical role in this new, and rapidly growing method for implant based breast reconstruction.

Robotic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Gel Implant: Technique, Preliminary Results and Patient-Reported Cosmetic Outcome

BACKGROUND

Experience with application of a robotic surgery platform in the management of breast cancer is limited. The preliminary results of the robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-NSM) and immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with Gel implant procedure are reported.

METHODS

The medical records of patients from a single institution who underwent an R-NSM and IBR with Gel implant procedure for breast cancer during the period March 2017 to February 2018 were assessed. Data on clinicopathologic characteristics, type of surgery, complications, and recurrence were analyzed to determine the effectiveness and oncologic safety of R-NSM. Patient-reported cosmetic outcome results were obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients who received 23 R-NSM and IBR with Gel implant procedures were analyzed. The mean operation time for R-NSM was 118.8 ± 50.6 min, and 74.5 ± 26.6 min for Gel implant reconstruction. Docking time quickly dropped from 20 to 6-8 min, and the time needed to complete R-NSM was usually completed within 100 min after accumulation of case experience. Mean blood loss was 37 ± 38.2 mL, and the positive surgical margin rate was 0%. Three (13%) patients had transit nipple ischemia change, and no total nipple-areolar complex necrosis cases were observed. No local recurrence or mortality was found during a mean 6.9 ± 3.5 months of follow-up. All 22 patients were satisfied with the postoperative aesthetic outcome.

CONCLUSION

From our preliminary experience, R-NSM and IBR with Gel implant is a safe procedure, with good cosmetic results, and could be a promising new technique for breast cancer patients indicated for mastectomy.