Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complication Profiles of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction in Patients With Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications of distinct implant-based breast reconstruction modality for patients with postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on breast cancer patients with stage II-III disease who performed implant-based breast reconstruction following with PMRT between September 2016 and April 2022. The patients were categorized into two matched groups: (1) patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) or (2) subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) followed by PMRT. Following reconstruction, the patients were further compared for PMRT with the tissue expander (PMRT-TE) versus PMRT with permanent implant (PMRT-PI). PROs were measured with BREAST-Q questionnaire. Early and late complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 55 eligible patients were recruited. Patients who underwent PBR reported significantly higher satisfaction with breasts scores (P = 0.003) compared with the SBR group. The PMRT-TE group had higher satisfaction with breasts (P = 0.001) but lower physical well-being (P = 0.029) scores compared with PMRT-PI group. Moreover, patients in SBR cohort had a higher risk of capsular contracture (Baker grade III or IV) (20.5% vs 6.3%) and implant dislocation (48.7% vs 12.5%) than patients in PBR cohort. Patients in PMRT-PI group had a slightly higher rate of capsular contracture (Baker grade III or IV) than PMRT-TE group (20.8% vs 12.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

PBR was associated with lower rates of late complications, especially for implant dislocation, and higher satisfaction with breasts scores compared to SBR. In addition, compared to PMRT-TE with PMRT-PI, patients in PMRT-TE cohort reported superior PROs of satisfaction with breasts.

Early Complications after Prepectoral Tissue Expander Placement in Breast Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has become popularized with the concurrent use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). The authors sought to compare 3-month postoperative complication rates and explantation rates for first-stage, tissue-expander-based, prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without the use of ADM.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective chart review was performed to identify consecutive patients undergoing prepectoral tissue-expander-based breast reconstruction from August of 2020 to January of 2022. Chi-square tests were used to compare demographic categorical variables, and multiple variable regression models were used to identify variables associated with 3-month postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The authors enrolled 124 consecutive patients. Fifty-five patients (98 breasts) were included in the no-ADM cohort and 69 patients (98 breasts) were included in the ADM cohort. There were no statistically significant differences between the ADM and no-ADM cohorts with regard to 90-day postoperative outcomes. On multivariable analysis, there were no independent associations between seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, mastectomy skin flap necrosis, infection, unplanned return to the operating room, or explantation in the ADM and no-ADM groups after controlling for age, body mass index, history of diabetes, tobacco use, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and postoperative radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' results reveal no significant differences in odds of postoperative complications, unplanned return to the operating room, or explantation between the ADM and no-ADM cohorts. More studies are needed to evaluate the safety of prepectoral, tissue expander placement without ADM.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Technical Refinements and Outcomes Assessment in Prepectoral Pocket Conversion After Postmastectomy Radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Several studies show how submuscular breast reconstruction is linked to animation deformity, shoulder dysfunction, and increased postoperative chest pain, when compared to prepectoral breast reconstruction. In solving all these life-impairing side effects, prepectoral implant pocket conversion has shown encouraging results.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to propose a refinement of the prepectoral implant pocket conversion applied to previously irradiated patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on 42 patients who underwent previous nipple- or skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate submuscular reconstruction, followed by radiotherapy. We performed fat grafting sessions as regenerative pretreatment. Six months after the last fat graft, we performed the conversion, with prepectoral placement of micropolyurethane foam-coated implants. We investigated the preconversion and postconversion differences in upper limb range of motion, Upper Extremity Functional Index, and patient satisfaction with the breast and physical well-being of the chest.

RESULTS

We reported a resolution of animation deformity in 100% of cases. The range of motion and the Upper Extremity Functional Index scores were statistically improved after prepectoral implant pocket conversion. BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with the breast and physical well-being of the chest were also improved.

CONCLUSIONS

The refined prepectoral implant pocket conversion is a reliable technique for solving animation deformity and improving quality of life in patients previously treated with submuscular reconstruction and radiotherapy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Modifiable Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy Factors and Impact on Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy and other modifiable radiation factors have been associated with decreased radiation toxicity. These factors could allow for improved reconstructive outcomes in patients requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). However, they have not yet been well studied in implant-based breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate tissue expander placement followed by PMRT. Radiation characteristics were collected, including radiation technique, bolus regimen, x-ray energy, fractionation, maximum radiation hot spot, and tissue volume receiving more than 105% or more than 107% of the prescription dose. Reconstructive complications occurring after initiation of PMRT were analyzed with respect to these radiation characteristics.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients (70 breasts) were included in this study. The overall complication rate was 28.6%, with infection being the most common complication (24.3%), requiring removal of the tissue expander or implant in greater than half of infections (15.7%). Maximum radiation hot spot was greater in patients who required explantation after PMRT, and this approached statistical significance (114.5% ± 7.2% versus 111.4% ± 4.4%; P = 0.059). Tissue volume receiving more than 105% and 107% were also greater in patients who required explantation after PMRT (42.1% ± 17.1% versus 33.0% ± 20.9% and 16.4% ± 14.5% versus 11.3% ± 14.6%, respectively); however, this was not statistically significant ( P = 0.176 and P = 0.313, respectively). There were no significant differences in complication rates between patients with respect to radiation technique or other radiation characteristics studied.

CONCLUSION

Minimizing the radiation hot spots and volumes of tissue receiving greater than the prescription dose of radiation may improve reconstructive outcomes in patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction followed by PMRT.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Nipple necrosis rate with submuscular versus prepectoral implant-based reconstruction in nipple sparing mastectomy: Does it differ?

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the rate of nipple necrosis between the submuscular (SM) versus the prepectoral (PP) implant placement after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR).

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved database was reviewed of patients who underwent nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) with IBR at our institution between 2016 and 2019. Patients who had SM versus PP IBR were compared. Incidence of nipple necrosis was evaluated between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 525 NSM with IBR were performed in 320 patients with SM reconstruction in 61% (n ​= ​322) and PP in 39% (n ​= ​203) of the mastectomies. Overall, 43 nipples experienced some form of necrosis with 1% of mastectomies experiencing nipple loss. There was no difference between SM group and PP group at the rate of nipple necrosis (9 ​% vs 7 %, P ​= ​0.71).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing NSM with IBR, the rate of nipple necrosis, nipple loss or complications did not differ between groups whether the implant was placed SM or PP, supporting the safety of this newer procedure.

Early Complications in Prepectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant placement for postmastectomy breast reconstruction has increased in recent years. Benefits of prepectoral reconstruction may include lack of animation deformities and reduced postoperative pain, but its complication profile is currently unclear. This study aimed to examine the complication profile of prepectoral tissue expanders (TEs) to determine factors associated with TE loss.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed to identify all patients who underwent immediate prepectoral TE reconstruction from January 2018 to June 2021. The decision to use the prepectoral technique was based on mastectomy skin quality and patient comorbidities. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative details were evaluated. Outcomes of interest included TE loss, seroma, hematoma, infection/cellulitis, mastectomy skin flap necrosis requiring revision, and TE exposure. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with TE loss.

RESULTS

The study identified 1225 TEs. The most frequent complications were seroma (8.7%, n = 106), infection/cellulitis (8.2%, n = 101), and TE loss (4.2%, n = 51). Factors associated with TE loss in the univariate analysis included ethnicity, history of smoking, body mass index, mastectomy weight, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In the multivariate regression analysis, only mastectomy weight had a positive association with TE loss (odds ratio, 1.001; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction can be performed safely with an acceptable early complication profile. The study data suggest that increasing mastectomy weight is the most significant factor associated with TE loss. Further research examining the quality of the soft tissue envelope and assessing patient-reported outcomes would prove beneficial.

Minimizing Nipple-Areolar Complex Complications in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

PURPOSE

Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) viability remains a significant concern following prepectoral tissue expander (TE) reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). This study assesses the impact of intraoperative TE fill on NAC necrosis and identifies strategies for mitigating this risk.

METHODS

A chart review of all consecutive, prepectoral TEs placed immediately after NSM was performed between March 2017 and December 2022 at a single center. Demographics, mastectomy weight, intraoperative TE fill, and complications were extracted for all patients. Partial NAC necrosis was defined as any thickness of skin loss including part of the NAC, whereas total NAC necrosis was defined as full-thickness skin loss involving the entirety of the NAC. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients (83 breasts) with an average follow-up of 22 months were included. Women were on average 46 years old, nonsmoker (98%), and nondiabetic (100%) and had a body mass index of 23 kg/m2. All reconstructions were performed immediately following prophylactic mastectomies in 49% and therapeutic mastectomies in 51% of cases. Three breasts (4%) were radiated, and 15 patients (33%) received chemotherapy. Mean mastectomy weight was 346 ± 274 g, median intraoperative TE fill was 150 ± 225 mL, and median final TE fill was 350 ± 170 mL. Partial NAC necrosis occurred in 7 breasts (8%), and there were zero instances of complete NAC necrosis. On univariate analysis, partial NAC necrosis was not associated with any patient demographic or operative characteristics, including intraoperative TE fill. In multivariable models controlling for age, body mass index, mastectomy weight, prior breast surgery, and intraoperative TE fill, partial NAC necrosis was associated with lower body mass index (odds ratio, 0.53; confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.98; P < 0.05) and higher mastectomy weight (odds ratio, 1.1; CI, 1.01-1.20; P < 0.05). Prior breast surgery approached significance, as those breasts had a 19.4 times higher odds of partial NAC necrosis (95% CI, 0.88-427.6; P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Nipple-areolar complex necrosis following prepectoral TE reconstruction is a rare but serious complication. In this study of 83 breasts, 7 (8%) developed partial NAC necrosis, and all but one were able to be salvaged.

[Updated indications and techniques for immediate breast reconstruction, particularly in the case of adjuvant radiotherapy]

In 2023, 62,000 patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in France. Every year, 22,000 mastectomies are performed. Breast reconstruction (BR) should be an integral part of breast cancer management. Yet the MR rate in France is only 28% within 3 years of mastectomy, of which 14% are immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The number of contraindications to RMI has steadily declined over the last few decades, although some of them remain definitive, such as inflammatory cancer (T4d). Today, many specialists involved in the management of breast cancer consider that IBR can be proposed in cases where adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy is indicated, if it is not expected to delay carcinological management. The surgical team must then inform the patient of all available BR techniques. If a team does not offer a particular technique, the patient should be referred to a center that does. In all cases, the proposal for curative and reparative treatment should be the subject of a multidisciplinary discussion involving, in particular, a surgeon, a radiotherapist and a medical oncologist. When adjuvant radiotherapy is indicated, the patient must be informed of the increased risk of complications and deterioration of the aesthetic result. In this indication, RMI by prosthesis is a validated technique. However, if the patient has a history of radiotherapy, autologous techniques should be preferred. In a context of shared decision-making, the choice of whether or not to undergo MR and the type of technique must ultimately be made by the patient, in agreement with the multidisciplinary team.

Evaluating the Quality of Online Patient Information for Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Using Polyurethane-Coated Breast Implants

Background

An increasing number of patients are using online information regarding medical issues; however, the Internet is not subject to content ratings or filters. Unreliable information found on the web can heavily influence patients to the extent that it can lead to wrong decisions in the choice of treatment. In our daily experience we meet more informed patients and given the increasing use of polyurethane-coated implants in breast reconstruction in Europe, we wondered about the level of information available online. Our study aims to assess the quality of information available online on breast reconstruction with polyurethane-coated implants.

Materials and Methods

Assuming that the most used search engines are Google and Yahoo, we used a search strategy to identify online information regarding prepectoral breast reconstruction with polyurethane-coated implants. The selected websites were divided into 5 groups (practitioners, hospitals, healthcare portals, professional societies, and encyclopedias), and the quality of information was assessed by using an expanded version of the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool, which is a checklist applicable to all existing types of information.

Results

Fifty-six websites were selected and were categorized into 5 groups: 17 practitioners, 9 hospitals, 13 healthcare portals, 7 professional societies, 10 encyclopedias. The average score was 17 points (range: 12 - 25). We found 13 reliable websites with a score higher than 20 using the expanded version of the EQIP tool, whereas 43 were deemed unreliable, as they scored lower.

Conclusion

Proper communication between surgeon and patient is crucial in the therapeutic choice, as the available online information presently is scarce and can lead to wrong decisions if not properly verified.

Prepectoral versus Submuscular Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Comparison of Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common reconstructive approach after mastectomy. Prepectoral implants offer advantages over submuscular implants, such as less animation deformity, pain, weakness, and postradiation capsular contracture. However, clinical outcomes after prepectoral reconstruction are debated. The authors performed a matched-cohort analysis of outcomes after prepectoral and submuscular reconstruction at a large academic medical center.

METHODS

Patients treated with implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy from January of 2018 through October of 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were propensity score exact matched to control demographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative differences. Outcomes assessed included surgical-site occurrences, capsular contracture, and explantation of either expander or implant. Subanalysis was done on infections and secondary reconstructions.

RESULTS

A total of 634 breasts were included (prepectoral, 197; submuscular, 437). A total of 292 breasts were matched (146 prepectoral:146 submuscular) and analyzed for clinical outcomes. Prepectoral reconstructions were associated with greater rates of SSI (prepectoral, 15.8%; submuscular, 3.4%; P < 0.001), seroma (prepectoral, 26.0%; submuscular, 10.3%; P < 0.001), and explantation (prepectoral, 23.3%; submuscular, 4.8%; P < 0.001). Subanalysis of infections revealed that prepectoral implants have shorter time to infection, deeper infections, and more Gram-negative infections, and are more often treated surgically (all P < 0.05). There have been no failures of secondary reconstructions after explantation in the entire population at a mean follow-up of 20.1 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is associated with higher rates of infection, seroma, and explantation compared with submuscular reconstructions. Infections of prepectoral implants may need different antibiotic management to avoid explantation. Secondary reconstruction after explantation can result in long-term success.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Prepectoral Direct-To-Implant One-Stage Reconstruction With ADMs: Safety and Outcome in "Thin Patients"

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) represents a safe, fast, and successful option in breast reconstruction in a selected cohort of patients. Nowadays, this procedure is considered challenging in thin. Meanwhile, his cohort has not been accurately analyzed yet.

METHODS

A single institution retrospective cohort study was performed between January 2019 and March 2023 in all women who underwent mastectomy. Biometrical and clinical data were recorded. Also, surgical technique, operating room (OR) time, mastectomy weights, implant choice, and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) types were properly noted. Postoperative complications represented the main topic: these were classified into early and late ones based on onset time. At least 12-month follow-up was required. A comparison between thin and ideal body mass index (BMI) populations was performed.

RESULTS

Early complications did not seem to differ between the 2 groups with 37.8% and 38.9% of women having at least 1 early complication in thin and ideal-weight women, respectively (P = .919). In univariable regression analysis, compared with women with a BMI of 22.1 to 25.0, women with a BMI ≤ 22.0 were associated with an increased risk of late complications of 2.84 (1.13-7.14). Specifically, thin women appeared to have a 3-fold increased risk (OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.08-8.18) of ripples/wrinkles compared with women with ideal weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral reconstruction with ADM in thin patients may be considered as safe as in standard BMI patients. Rippling may be more frequent, but, whenever needed, easy to correct with a few sessions of lipo-grafts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Managing the animation deformity in breast reconstruction transposing the implant to a partial prepectoral pocket: Early experience and preliminary results with a new technique

BACKGROUND

Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction remains the most commonly used technique for rebuilding a breast. Subpectoral implant placement minimizes complications, such as capsular contracture, implant visibility, malposition, and extrusion. Nevertheless, it is associated with high animation deformity (AD). Prepectoral reconstruction eliminates AD but is subject to a higher risk of implant extrusion and visibility. In this prospective, single-center study we present a new technique aimed to create a new hybrid pocket in which the upper portion of the implant is placed subcutaneously, whereas its inferior pole is still covered by a pectoralis muscle sling reducing implant lower pole visibility and palpability.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In each case, the prosthesis was removed and a new hybrid pocket was created by splitting the muscle into two portions, separating its cranial part from the overlying subcutaneous tissue and anchoring it back to the chest wall. The caudal muscle sling was left adherent to the subcutaneous tissue of the central part of the breast. Patient outcomes were evaluated with a BREAST-Q questionnaire preoperatively and 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients with severe postoperative breast animation were enrolled (8 bilateral and 40 unilateral). No major complications occurred. After a 1-year follow-up, the aesthetic and functional satisfaction rate was high and a good implant coverage was achieved. No residual AD of the breast was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Changing the implant placement from the subpectoral to a partially subcutaneous plane, both severe AD and implant extrusion can be avoided, expanding the indications for safe prosthetic breast reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level of evidence IV.

How to convert a submuscular/dual plane reconstruction to a pre-pectoral pocket implant reconstruction

A conversion from subpectoral breast reconstruction to pre-pectoral breast reconstruction can help with animation resolution and improved patient satisfaction. We describe the conversion technique involving removal of the existing implant, creating a neo-pre-pectoral pocket and restoring the pectoral muscle to its natural position.

Optimizing Acellular Dermal Matrix Integration in Heterologous Breast Reconstructive Surgery: Surgical Tips and Post-Operative Management

Background and Objective: Prepectoral implant placement in breast reconstruction is currently a must-have in the portfolios of breast surgeons. The introduction of new tools and conservative mastectomies is a game changer in this field. The prepectoral plane usually goes hand-in-hand with the ADM wrapping of the implant. It is a cell-free dermal matrix comprising a structurally integrated basement membrane complex and an extracellular matrix. The literature reports that ADMs may be useful, but proper patient selection, surgical placement, and post-operative management are essential to unlock the potential of this tool, as these factors contribute to the proper integration of the matrix with surrounding tissues. Materials and Methods: A total of 245 prepectoral breast reconstructions with prostheses or expanders and ADMs were performed in our institution between 2016 and 2022. A retrospective study was carried out to record patient characteristics, risk factors, surgical procedures, reconstructive processes, and complications. Based on our experience, we developed a meticulous reconstruction protocol in order to optimize surgical practice and lower complication rates. The DTI and two-stage reconstruction were compared. Results: Seroma formation was the most frequent early complication (less than 90 days after surgery) that we observed; however, the majority were drained in outpatient settings and healed rapidly. Secondary healing of wounds, which required a few more weeks of dressing, represented the second most frequent early complication (10.61%). Rippling was the most common late complication, particularly in DTI patients. After comparing the DTI and two-stage reconstruction, no statistically significant increase in complications was found. Conclusions: The weakness of prepectoral breast reconstruction is poor matrix integration, which leads to seroma and other complications. ADM acts like a graft; it requires firm and healthy tissues to set in. In order to do so, there are three key steps to follow: (1) adequate patient selection; (2) preservative and gentle handling of intra-operative technique; and (3) meticulous post-operative management.

Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Risk-Reducing Mastectomy in BRCA Mutation Carriers: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Women with BRCA gene mutations have a higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Furthermore, cancer is usually diagnosed at a younger age compared to the wild-type counterpart. Strategies for risk management include intensive surveillance or risk-reducing mastectomy. The latter provides a significant reduction of the risk of developing breast cancer, simultaneously ensuring a natural breast appearance due to the preservation of the skin envelope and the nipple-areola complex. Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common technique after risk-reducing surgery and can be achieved with either a submuscular or a prepectoral approach, in one or multiple stages. This study analyzes the outcomes of the different reconstructive techniques through a retrospective review on 46 breasts of a consecutive, single-center case series. Data analysis was carried out with EpiInfo version 7.2. Results of this study show no significant differences in postoperative complications between two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction and direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, with DTI having superior aesthetic outcomes, especially in the prepectoral subgroup. In our experience, the DTI prepectoral approach has proven to be a safe and less time-consuming alternative to the submuscular two-stage technique, providing a pleasant reconstructed breast and overcoming the drawbacks of subpectoral implant placement.

Postoperative Complications Following Prepectoral Versus Partial Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of evidence comparing the safety of prepectoral and partial subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADM). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the postoperative complications of the two approaches.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The rates of the complications were, respectively, pooled, and relative risk (RR) was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the incidence between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

Ten articles reporting on 2667 breast reconstructions were eligible. The hematoma rate was lower in the prepectoral group (RR  =  0.590, 95% CI 0.351-0.992). No significant difference was observed in terms of seroma (RR = 1.079, 95% CI 0.489-2.381), skin flap necrosis (RR = 0.936, 95% CI 0.587-1.493), infection (RR = 0.985, 95% CI 0.706-1.375), tissue expander/implant explantation (RR  =  0.741, 95% CI 0.506-1.085), wound dehiscence (RR = 1.272, 95% CI 0.605-2.673), capsular contracture (RR = 0.939, 95% CI 0.678-1.300) and rippling (RR = 2.485, 95% CI 0.986-6.261). The RR of animation deformity for the prepectoral group compared with the subpectoral group was 0.040 (95% CI, 0.002-0.853).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggested that with appropriate patient selection, prepectoral breast reconstruction could avoid animation deformity without incurring higher risk of early wound complications, capsular contracture or rippling than partial subpectoral breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should complete a comprehensive assessment of the patients before choosing appropriate surgical approaches in clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 .

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q

BACKGROUND

Over the years, plastic surgery has acquired a central role in the integrated treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using the prepectoral approach has emerged as an alternative to reconstruction using the subpectoral technique to overcome the complications arising from this type of surgery resulting as a consequence of muscle elevation. The satisfaction and quality of life of patients undergoing DTI breast reconstruction were evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire, comparing the prepectoral and the subpectoral technique.

METHODS

A single-center cross-sectional study on patients who underwent mastectomy and DTI breast reconstruction at our institution between 2013 and 2021 was conducted. Eighty-one patients were included and mainly divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: 52 patients undergoing a subpectoral breast reconstruction approach and 29 patients receiving a prepectoral breast reconstruction. In order to assess the quality of life, the postoperative BREAST-Q module was administered electronically to the enrolled patients.

RESULTS

Higher scores in BREAST-Q domains were recorded from patients who underwent mastectomy and breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique: psychosocial well-being (P<0.0085), sexual well-being (P<0.0120), physical well-being: lymphoedema (P<0.0001) and satisfaction with information received (P<0.0045). There were further statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to postoperative complications (p<0.0465) and the need for reoperation (p<0.0275).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique were more satisfied in terms of psychosocial, sexual and also physical well-being. These patients also had statistically lower complications and reoperations compared to patients who received breast reconstruction with the subpectoral technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors 38 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 39 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 40 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 41 Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Multiplanar (4-Dimension) Breast Augmentation-A Personal Surgical Concept for Dynamic Implant-Tissue Interaction Providing Sustainable Shape Stability

BACKGROUND

In esthetic breast augmentation long-term shape stability and natural appearance remain an ongoing challenge. The authors found that to reduce the incidence of secondary deformity and increase the natural feel and appearance, a standard multiplanar procedure combining a subfascial and dual plane approach with fasciotomies will provide long-term stability and esthetic quality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The technique involves a submuscular dissection, release of the infranipple portion of the pectoralis muscle combined with the wide subfascial release of the breast gland, and scoring of the deep plane of the superficial glandular fascia. For long-term stability, a firm fixation of the glandular fascia at the inframammary fold to the deep layer of the abdomino-pectoral fascia is critical. Long-term results were analyzed for up to 10 years.

RESULTS

Postoperative measurements proved the intrinsic balance of the breasts without significant changes over time. The overall complication rate was <5%. Shape stability was observed over 10 years in more than 95% of the patients. Unsightly muscular animation could be avoided in almost every patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that a technique of multiplane breast augmentation provides long-term stability and esthetic quality. By combining the benefits of well-established techniques of a submuscular dual plane, additional shaping through a controlled deep fasciotomy and stable inframammary fold fixation some of the existing tradeoffs of the different methods can be avoided.

ADM-assisted prepectoral breast reconstruction is not associated with high complication rate as before: a Meta-analysis

Implant-related breast reconstruction can be divided into subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR) and prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) according to the different anatomical planes. The previous stereotype was that PPBR had a high complication rate and was not suitable for clinical use. However, with the emergence of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), the clinical effect of PPBR has been improved. To compare the outcomes difference between SPBR and PPBR, We conducted this meta-analysis. Articles on SPBR versus PPBR were searched in PubMed, Web of Sciences, Embase, and Cochrane databases, strictly following the PRISMA guidelines. According to the set criteria, we included the literature that met the requirements. Extracted data were the incidence of adverse events and the duration of drainage. Results show that SPBR has a higher incidence rate in capsular contracture, animation deformity, infection, hematoma and delayed healing wound than PPBR. There are no significant differences in skin flap necrosis, seroma, implant loss, reoperation and duration of drainage between the two groups. Hence, PPBR is no longer a high complication surgical method and can be used in the clinical practice. However, there are few large sample studies at present, so it is necessary to carry out further studies on PPBR.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of postmastectomy radiation therapy on prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction

Background

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has once again appealed, which attributes to the introduction of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), meanwhile, is crucial in the whole course of treatment for breast cancer patients with lymph node-positive. The impact of PMRT on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction has not been clearly defined to date. This study aimed to compare the impact of PMRT on outcomes after prepectoral vs. subpectoral breast reconstruction.

Methods

A comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature pertaining to prepectoral breast reconstruction from database inception to October 2021. All included studies evaluated the impact of PMRT on outcomes after breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral breast reconstruction were included. Data were analyzed using RevMan version 5.2.

Results

A total of 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 394 breasts. In the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy, 164 breasts were reconstructed with a prepectoral approach, whereas the remaining 230 breasts underwent subpectoral reconstruction. Overall, outcomes between PBR and SBR was no statistical significance in the overall complications (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.35-4.85), infection (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 0.90-2.91), seroma (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 0.48-5.27), skin flap necrosis (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.17-3.45), hematoma (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.10-1.41), wound dehiscence (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.36-1.85). But, included studies lacked data about the patient quality of life and satisfaction with the outcome of the reconstructed breast.

Conclusions

In the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy, prepectoral breast reconstruction is a safe and effective option.

A Comparative Study of Secondary Procedures after Subpectoral and Prepectoral Single-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most commonly used procedure to reconstruct the breast after mastectomy. The advantages and disadvantages of subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement remain a matter of debate. This study compares the need for secondary aesthetic procedures between prepectoral and subpectoral IBR.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent subpectoral or prepectoral IBR between 2015 and 2018 under a single surgeon at a tertiary breast unit. The primary endpoint was the number of secondary procedures performed to improve the aesthetic outcome. Secondary endpoints included the number of secondary procedures during the first year.

RESULTS

A total of 271 one-stage IBRs were performed (subpectoral, n = 128 in 74 patients; prepectoral, n = 143 in 84 patients). Overall, more patients required secondary procedures in the subpectoral group (36.5% versus 19%; P = 0.014), although through longer follow-up. The most common procedures were pocket revision and implant exchange [11.7% versus 3.5% ( P = 0.010); 11.7% versus 4.2% ( P = 0.021)], whereas fat grafting was similar between the two groups (46% versus 40.5%; P = 0.777). When adjusted for follow-up time, there was no significant difference in the number of secondary procedures undertaken in the subpectoral versus the prepectoral group (21% versus 16%, respectively; P = 0.288) at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The requirement for secondary procedures at 1 year was not different between groups. The need for fat grafting was not increased following prepectoral IBR.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

The influence of synthetic and biologic matrices on the choice of the implant plane during breast reconstruction. The modern state of the problem

Immediately after silicone implants were described, the technique of prepectoral implant placement dominated in breast reconstructive surgery. However, this plane soon had to be abandoned due to the high frequency of complications, such as infection, capsular contracture, explantation. For these reasons, surgeons soon had to switch to the subpectoral plane. Several decades later, thanks to the discovery of synthetic and biological meshes, surgeons returned to the prepectoral plane, but at a technically new level.

The purpose of this review was to analyze the role of biological and synthetic matrices as factors influencing the choice of the implant plane in one-stage breast reconstruction.

Single-stage Layered versus Nonlayered Mastopexy with Augmentation in Muscle Splitting Biplane: A Comparative Analysis

Single-stage layered mastopexy with augmentation is a modification of muscle-splitting pocket that reduces risk of complications and revision rate.

Evaluation of Breast Animation Deformity following Pre- and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background  The incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) is reported to be substantial after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with subpectoral implant placement. It has, however, never been examined if BAD can occur following prepectoral implant placement. Our primary aim was to compare the incidence and degree of BAD after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement. Secondary aim of this study was to assess and compare the level of pain between sub- and prepectoral reconstructed women. Methods  In this randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to reconstruction by either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines. The degree of BAD was assessed by the "Nipple, Surrounding skin, Entire breast (NSE)" grading scale 12 months after surgery. The level of postoperative pain was assessed on a numerical pain rating scale. Results  We found a significant difference in the degree of BAD favoring patients in the prepectoral group (23.8 vs. 100%, p  < 0.0001; mean NSE grading scale score: 0.4 vs. 3.6, p  < 0.0001). The subpectoral reconstructed group reported higher levels of pain on the three subsequent days after surgery. No significant difference in pain levels could be found at 3 months postoperatively. Conclusion  The incidence and degree of BAD was significantly lower in women reconstructed by prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Unexpectedly, we found mild degrees of BAD in the prepectoral group. When assessing BAD, distortion can be challenging to discern from rippling.

Evaluation of the Safety of a GalaFLEX-AlloDerm Construct in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is gaining in popularity. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are an integral part of prepectoral reconstruction. However, large quantities of ADM are required for total implant coverage and the cost of ADMs could be a deterrent to reconstruction. To minimize the cost, the authors have resorted to the use of a bioabsorbable mesh, GalaFLEX, as a partial replacement to ADMs. This study evaluates the comparative safety of using a GalaFLEX-AlloDerm construct versus AlloDerm alone in prepectoral reconstruction.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent immediate, expander-implant, prepectoral breast reconstruction were included in this retrospective study. Patients were stratified into two groups: those who received GalaFLEX-AlloDerm combination versus AlloDerm alone. In GalaFLEX-AlloDerm reconstructions, the lower third of the expander was covered by the AlloDerm while the rest of the expander was covered by GalaFLEX. Complications following reconstruction were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

AlloDerm alone was utilized in 128 patients (249 breasts) and GalaFLEX-AlloDerm in 135 patients (250 breasts). Rate of any complication was 7.6% in the AlloDerm alone group and 6.4% in the GalaFLEX-AlloDerm group. Rate of infection, major skin necrosis, seroma, capsular contracture, prosthesis exposure/extrusion, and prosthesis loss were ≤3.0% in the GalaFLEX-AlloDerm group and did not differ significantly from those in the AlloDerm only group.

CONCLUSIONS

GalaFLEX bioabsorbable matrix is a less costly alternative to ADMs in two-staged, prepectoral reconstruction with comparable safety outcomes. Further long-term data and clinical experience are needed to better understand the safety of this matrix for use in breast reconstruction.

The Use of Alloderm® Coverage to Reinforce Tissues in Two-Stage Tissue Expansion Placement in the Subcutaneous (Prepectoral) Plane: A Prospective Pilot Study

Purpose: Two-stage tissue expander (TE) to implant breast reconstruction is commonly performed by plastic surgeons. Prepectoral implant placement with acellular dermal matrix (ADM, e.g., AlloDerm®) reinforcement is evidenced by minimal postoperative pain. However, the same is not known for TE-based reconstruction. We performed this study to explore the use of complete AlloDerm® reinforcement of breast pocket tissues in women undergoing unilateral or bilateral mastectomies followed by immediate, two-stage tissue expansion in the prepectoral plane.

Methods: Patients (n = 20) aged 18-75 years were followed prospectively from their preoperative consult to 60 days post-TE insertion. The pain visual analog scale (VAS), Patient Pain Assessment Questionnaire, Subjective Pain Survey, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) survey, BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module, and short-form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires were administered. Demographic, intraoperative, and 30- and 60-day complications data were abstracted from medical records. After TE-to-implant exchange, patients were followed until 60 days postoperatively to assess for complications.

Results: Pain VAS and BPI-SF pain interference scores returned to preoperative values by 30 days post-TE insertion. Static and moving pain scores from the Patient Pain Assessment Questionnaire returned to preoperative baseline values by day 60. The mean subjective pain score was 3.0 (0.5 standard deviation) with seven patients scoring outside the standard deviation; none of these seven patients had a history of anxiety or depression. Median PONV scores remained at 0 from postoperative day 0 to day 7. Patient-reported opioid use dropped from 89.5% to 10.5% by postoperative day 30. BREAST-Q: Sexual well-being scores significantly increased from preoperative baseline to day 60 post-TE insertion. Changes in SF-36 physical functioning, physician limitations, emotional well-being, social functioning, and pain scores were significantly different from preoperative baseline to day 60 post-TE insertion. Five participants had complications within 60 days post-TE insertion. One participant experienced a complication within 60 days after TE-to-implant exchange.

Conclusions: We describe pain scores, opioid usage, patient-reported outcomes data, and complication profiles of 20 consecutive patients undergoing mastectomy followed by immediate, two-stage tissue expansion in the prepectoral plane. We hope this study serves as a baseline for future research.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Without the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix: A 3-Year Review

INTRODUCTION

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently used during prepectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction. However, there has been a paucity of literature describing the experience of prepectoral reconstruction without the accompanying use of ADM. We seek to highlight our institutional experience with immediate prepectoral tissue expander placement without the use of ADM in breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-institution review of patient records was performed to identify all patients who underwent either skin sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate tissue expander placement without the use of ADM. Demographics including age, body mass index, comorbidities, history of smoking or steroid use, perioperative radiation or chemotherapy, intraoperative details, and complication profiles during the tissue expander stage were retrospectively collected and analyzed. At the time of tissue expander placement, all mastectomy flaps were evaluated clinically and with indocyanine green laser angiography. Postoperative outcomes were tracked.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2020, 63 patients (for a total of 108 breasts) underwent either skin sparing (16%) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (84%) with immediate prepectoral tissue expander without ADM placement. Fourteen percent of breasts developed postoperative cellulitis, 19% of breasts developed skin compromise, and 5% required a postoperative revisional procedure that did not result in immediate expander explant. There was a 13% (n = 14 breasts) explant rate occurring at a mean time of 74 days. Of those breasts that developed skin compromise, 45% went on to require eventual explant. Patients in the study were followed for an average of 6.3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction using tissue expanders without ADM offers a viable alternative to established reconstructive paradigms. The major complication rate for prepectoral reconstruction without the use of ADM (17%) was found to be comparable with our historical subpectoral tissue expander reconstruction with ADM use. Tissue expander explant rates were also comparable between the prepectoral without ADM (13%) and the subpectoral with ADM cohorts. These preliminary data suggest that immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expander placement without accompanying ADM is viable alternative in the breast reconstructive algorithm.

The Inferior-Based Dermoglandular Flap with Partial Subpectoral Implant Transposition and Revision Mastopexy for Subglandular Breast Augmentation Complications

BACKGROUND

Revision augmentation-mastopexy is a complex procedure that aims to correct the complications of a previous surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the inferior-based dermoglandular flap with partial subpectoral implant coverage to correct implant- and tissue-related complications associated with primary subglandular breast augmentation and its influence on improving outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study in which a total of 53 patients (106 breasts) underwent revision augmentation-mastopexy using the double coverage technique for an implant with an inferior-based dermoglandular flap and superior-based pectoralis major muscle (biplane) as the first layer and a nipple-areolar flap with breast pillars as the second layer. This technique provides a suspensory reconstruction that acts as hammock to minimize the pressure on the inframammary fold and maintain position integrity.

RESULTS

The follow-up period ranged from 2.3 to 4 years (mean 3.6 years), and the recorded complications were minor wound dehiscence less than 1 cm² at the "T" junction in three breasts (2.83 %) and mild hypertrophic scarring in five breasts (4.72%).

CONCLUSION

The use of an inferior-based dermoglandular flap with partial subpectoral biplane implant reinforcement allows autologous support and double coverage to decrease the incidence of implant- and tissue-related complications, especially pseudoptosis, lower pole widening, capsular contracture, rippling, and implant visibility. It achieves enhanced upper pole fullness, medial cleavage, projection, and breast volume.

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 .

Hybrid Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant and Autologous Fat Graft Simultaneously in Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Single Surgeon's Experience with 25 Breasts in 15 Consecutive Cases

BACKGROUND

The direct-to-implant method depends on the quality of the mastectomy flaps and can be used only when the flaps are adequately perfused. Even though the method was designed to be a definitive reconstruction procedure, it has been associated with an increased likelihood that additional operative revision will be required in order to achieve the expected final cosmetic outcome. The authors describe a hybrid prepectoral direct-to-implant method that combines autologous fat grafting in the superior medial pole with immediate reconstruction.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 15 patients (25 reconstructed breasts) underwent simultaneous hybrid prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction together with autologous fat grafting performed by a single senior plastic surgeon (Y.G).

RESULTS

The mean quantity of autologous fat grafted in the superior medial aspect of the breast was 59.4 ± 12.8 cc. The mean total volume of the hybrid reconstructed breast, including implant and autologous fat graft, was 497.2 ± 89.1 cc. Satisfying final outcomes were achieved in all cases. There were no major complications, although minor complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' hybrid approach allows the surgeon to achieve a more satisfying outcome with regard to the cleavage area. It results in a better natural appearance, an improved contour, and reduced upper pole rippling and deflation, with a lower likelihood that an additional operative revision will be required to achieve the desired final aesthetic outcome. The authors believe that their hybrid approach should be implemented as an integral part of the direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction procedure.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh reopened the possibility for the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction (PBR). The complications of single-stage breast reconstruction after PRB are controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction. Our aim was to evaluate the different postoperative complications between patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) on single-stage breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature evaluating the effect of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2020. All included studies were evaluated the complications after single-stage breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1724 patients. In general, compared with SBR group, the PBR significantly reduced the risk of total complications (including seroma, hematoma, necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, capsular contraction, implant loss/remove, and rippling) after single-stage breast reconstruction (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.67, p < 0.001). Compared with the SBR group, the PBR had remarkably decreased capsular contracture (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58, p < 0.001) and postoperative infection (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.95, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

The PBR is a safe single-stage breast reconstruction with fewer postoperative complications. It is an alternative surgical method for SBR.

Biomechanical Principles of Breast Implants and Current State of Research in Soft Tissue Engineering for Cosmetic Breast Augmentation

Currently there are limited implant-based options for cosmetic breast augmentation, and problems associated with those have been increasingly appreciated, most commonly capsular contracture, which occurs due to a chronic foreign body reaction against non-degradable implant materials such as silicone and polyurethane leading to scar tissue formation, pain, and deformity. The underlying biomechanical concepts with implants create a reciprocal stress-strain relationship with local tissue, whilst acting as a deforming force. This means that with time, as the implant continues to have an effect on surrounding tissue the implant and host's biomechanical properties diverge, making malposition, asymmetry, and other complications more likely. Research directed towards development of alternative therapies based on tissue engineering and regenerative medicine seeks to optimize new tissue formation through modulation of tissue progenitors and facilitating tissue regeneration. Scaffolds can guide the process of new tissue formation by providing both an implant surface and a three-dimensional space that promotes the development of a microenvironment that guides attachment, migration, proliferation, and differentiation of connective tissue progenitors. Important to scaffold design are the architecture, surface chemistry, mechanical properties, and biomaterial used. Scaffolds provide a void in which vascularization, new tissue formation, and remodelling can sequentially occur. They provide a conduit for delivery of the different cell types required for tissue regeneration into a graft site, facilitating their retention and distribution. Whilst recent research from a small number of groups is promising, there are still ongoing challenges to achieving clinical translation. This article summarizes the biomechanical principles of breast implants, how these impact outcomes, and progress in scaffold-guided tissue engineering approaches to cosmetic breast augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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 .

Prepectoral and Subpectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of 90-Day Clinical and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral placement of tissue expanders for two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction potentially minimizes chest wall morbidity and postoperative pain. The authors explored 90-day clinical and health-related quality-of-life outcomes for prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors conducted a propensity score-matching analysis (nearest neighbor, 1:1 matching without replacement) of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral or subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction between December of 2017 and January of 2019. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, race/ethnicity, smoking status, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and laterality of reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were perioperative analgesia use, 90-day postoperative patient-reported pain, complication rates, and BREAST-Q physical well-being of the chest scores.

RESULTS

Of the initial cohort of 921 patients, 238 were propensity-matched and included in the final analysis. The matched cohort had no differences in baseline characteristics. Postoperative ketorolac (p = 0.048) use was higher in the subpectoral group; there were no other significant differences in intraoperative and postoperative analgesia use. Prepectoral patients had lower pain on postoperative days 1 to 2 but no differences on days 3 to 10. BREAST-Q physical well-being of the chest scores did not differ. Prepectoral patients had higher rates of seroma than subpectoral patients (p < 0.001). Rates of tissue expander loss did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

This matched analysis of 90-day complications found lower early postoperative pain in prepectoral tissue expander patients but no longer-term patient-reported differences. Although prepectoral reconstruction patients experienced a higher rate of seroma, this did not translate to a difference in tissue expander loss. Long-term analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes is needed to understand the full profile of the prepectoral technique.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction with the use of biological and synthetic meshes in one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Biological and synthetic meshes were used to cover the damaged muscle and augment the subpectoral pocket in breast reconstruction. However, few studies have directly compared the effects of biological and synthetic meshes. This study analyzed postoperative complications and assessed the patient-reported outcomes with the use of BioDesign® Surgisis and TiLOOP Bra/TiMesh® in one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients undergoing one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction were enrolled in this study. Post-mastectomy breast reconstructions were facilitated with either Surgisis mesh or TiLOOP mesh. Complications were examined and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes were evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire (ver 2.0). The multivariate linear regression models were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 79 of 116 patients (68%) received breast reconstruction with Surgisis mesh and 37 (32%) with TiLOOP mesh. There was no difference in complication rates between the two groups postoperatively. But patient-reported satisfaction was higher with the use of Surgisis mesh than with TiLOOP mesh (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study reported no difference between the Surgisis group and the TiLOOP group in either complication rates or most patient-reported outcomes postoperatively. Yet the assessment of patient-reported satisfaction showed preference toward Surgisis mesh, a finding with a potential implication for mesh selection.

A Comparison of BREAST-Q Scores between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Subpectoral breast implant placement has in recent history predominated in breast reconstruction, but there has been more recent adoption of prepectoral implant reconstruction. There has been limited study to date of patient-reported outcomes comparing the two techniques.

METHODS

Patients who underwent direct-to-implant breast reconstruction between 2013 and 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients were asked to complete BREAST-Q domains comparing quality of life and satisfaction. Descriptive, t test, chi-square test, and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to compare BREAST-Q scores. Significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

There were 64 patients (114 breasts) who underwent prepectoral reconstruction and 37 patients (68 breasts) who underwent subpectoral reconstruction. Among the 101 women (182 breasts), there were no significant differences between BREAST-Q scores and implant position for the Satisfaction with Breasts domain (adjusted p = 0.819), Psychosocial Well-being domain (adjusted p = 0.206), or Physical Well-being Chest domain (adjusted p = 0.110). The subpectoral implant cohort was associated with higher scores, 53 versus 47, for the Sexual Well-being module (adjusted p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction had comparable BREAST-Q satisfaction scores for most modules regardless of implant plane. The subpectoral implant cohort scored higher for sexual well-being.

Muscle-Splitting Transaxillary Revision Breast Augmentation-A Single Surgeon's Experience

BACKGROUND

Well discussed in a previous article published by the senior author, primary transaxillary breast augmentation drawbacks include the need to correct complications arising from reuse of the axillary incision which the literature is sparse on. We here discuss a technique in patients who underwent a secondary transaxillary breast augmentation procedure.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to present a technique for transaxillary revision breast augmentation with conversion to a muscle-splitting plane which has the advantage of good upper and medial pole coverage and adequate lower pole expansion.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of 41 women with previous silicone gel implants placed through a transaxillary incision who presented with rippling or a desire for larger implants (January 2016-July 2020). Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older and having undergone breast augmentation surgery. Exclusion criteria were active smoking and body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². At one year postoperatively patients were asked a "yes or no" question regarding satisfaction with the overall result and with the scar quality.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients were included in this study; no patients were excluded. The patients' age ranged from 32 to 47 years, the average being 38 years old. All participants were female. Mean BMI was 21.9 kg/m² and all patients had a pinch test <2cm. Indications for surgery included rippling (all patients) and a desire for larger implant size (n = 5). Size of new implants ranged from 325cc to 430cc; all were of a larger size than those used in the primary surgery. Operative time was on average 53 min. [4483 min.]. Mean follow-up was 13 months, ranging from 12 to 15 months. There was no additional cost related to operative time. Regarding patient satisfaction, 100% replied they were pleased with the overall results and scar quality. There were no major complications.

CONCLUSION

The transaxillary approach for muscle splitting breast augmentation revision surgery offers a safe and reproducible technique. Despite having a mean follow-up of only 13 months, we demonstrate a low rate of complication as well as high degree of patient satisfaction with no extra cost when compared to other techniques.

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 .

Short- to Medium-term Outcome of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Direct-to-implant Reconstruction using Acellular Dermal Matrix

Subpectoral implant reconstruction (SIR) is associated with animation deformity and increased postoperative pain. The aim of our study was to compare the short- to medium-term outcome of prepectoral implant reconstruction (PIR) and SIR with acellular dermal matrix.

Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (OPBC-02/ PREPEC): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial

INTRODUCTION

The emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life (QoL) has motivated surgeons to develop skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy (SSM/ NSM) for breast cancer treatment or prevention. During the same operation, a so-called immediate breast reconstruction is performed. The breast can be reconstructed by positioning of a breast implant above (prepectoral) or below (subpectoral) the pectoralis major muscle or by using the patients' own tissue (autologous reconstruction). The optimal positioning of the implant prepectoral or subpectoral is currently not clear. Subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is still standard care in many countries, but prepectoral IBBR is increasingly performed. This heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice is calling for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to guide treatment decisions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

International, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial. The primary objective of this trial is to test whether prepectoral IBBR provides better QoL with respect to long-term (24 months) physical well-being (chest) compared with subpectoral IBBR for patients undergoing SSM or NSM for prevention or treatment of breast cancer. Secondary objectives will compare prepectoral versus subpectoral IBBR in terms of safety, QoL and patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes and burden on patients. Total number of patients to be included: 372 (186 per arm).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will be conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval has been obtained for the lead investigator's site by the Ethics Committee 'Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz' (2020-00256, 26 March 2020). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, independent of the results, following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials standards for RCTs and good publication practice. Metadata describing the type, size and content of the datasets will be shared along with the study protocol and case report forms on public repositories adhering to the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse) principles.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04293146.

Comparative Analysis of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Recent advances in mastectomy and reconstruction have allowed for an evolution in implant-based breast reconstruction to a muscle-sparing, prepectoral approach. Advantages of this technique may include reductions in postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, less narcotic usage, and improved aesthetic outcomes. Postoperative complication rates are described as comparable to subpectoral techniques; however, little comparative data exist to adequately assess prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement.

Methods

To address this knowledge gap, we performed a single institution retrospective review of 186 (83 prepectoral, 103 subpectoral) consecutive immediate breast reconstructions. All cases were tracked for a minimum of 2 years between 2016 and 2021.

Results

Prepectoral patients demonstrated an overall higher seroma rate (P = 0.001), with all other postoperative complications being comparable. Prepectoral patients tolerated higher intraoperative tissue expander fill volumes (P < 0.001), shorter hospital stays (P = 0.007), fewer clinic visits for tissue expansion (P < 0.001), and experienced less animation deformity (P = 0.005). Both groups demonstrated similar pain scores (P = 0.65) and needs for narcotics (P = 0.8) as well as comparable scores of capsular contracture (P = 0.791).

Conclusions

Our comparative analysis of consecutive immediate implant-based breast reconstructions finds prepectoral reconstruction to be safe and effective. Compared with subpectoral reconstruction, the prepectoral approach may offer quicker tissue expansion, less postoperative office visits, less need for muscle relaxants, and a shorter hospital stay with a comparable complication profile.

A Critical Appraisal of Late Complications of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers improved aesthetics without compromising oncologic safety. Subpectoral breast reconstruction has long been standard practice, although prepectoral reconstruction has recently resurged in popularity. Due to this recent paradigm shift, studies comparing long-term outcomes by reconstructive plane are lacking.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive NSMs with implant-based reconstruction in either the prepectoral or subpectoral plane from 2014 to 2018. Patient demographics, implant specifications, and operative details were collected to evaluate primary outcomes of prosthetic failure and unplanned reoperations by reconstructive plane. Secondary outcomes included animation deformity, capsular contracture, rippling, plane change, and minor revisions, including fat grafting. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 405 NSMs were performed on 228 women (subpectoral = 202, prepectoral = 203), with a mean follow-up of 2.1 years (standard deviation 1.1). During the study period (2014-2018), a shift from subpectoral to predominantly prepectoral mastectomies occurred in 2017. Prepectoral reconstructions were more often direct-to-implant (DTI) compared with subpectoral (73.9% vs. 33.2%, p < 0.001). Prepectoral reconstruction demonstrated significantly reduced prosthetic failure (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.65) and unplanned reoperations (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.77) compared with subpectoral reconstruction after controlling for implant characteristics and other possible confounders. Prepectoral patients experienced decreased animation deformity overall (19.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), with plane changes seen in 10.6% of subpectoral reconstructions for animation deformity correction. Prepectoral patients experienced an increase in rippling (15.3% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.003) without a significant increase in fat grafting (subpectoral = 11.6% vs. prepectoral = 12.3%, p = 0.829).

CONCLUSIONS

This single-institution experience compares late complications of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based reconstruction following NSM. Prepectoral reconstruction can be safely performed with improved understanding of mastectomy planes, readily affords DTI reconstruction, and reduces animation deformity at the expense of rippling.

The nerve supply to the pectoralis major: An anatomical study and clinical application of the denervation in subpectoral breast implant surgery

BACKGROUND

Using the subpectoral approach, animation deformity or breast distortion due to pectoralis muscle contraction is common. Although the anatomy of the pectoral nerves has been extensively studied, only few studies have related the location of these nerves to bony landmarks.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim is to clarify the anatomy and possible variations of the innervation of the pectoralis major in relation to bony landmarks useful for surgery and to identify the preferred level for (selective) denervation by 1) transecting the nerves and 2) splitting the muscle in subpectoral breast implant surgery in cadavers.

METHODS

Fourteen pectoral regions (both left and right side) were dissected on 7 formaldehyde-fixed cadavers. The origin, locations, and course were mapped and (distances to) landmarks were reported.

RESULTS

The lateral pectoral nerve, medial pectoral nerve, and ansa pectoralis were identified in all cadavers. Nerve branches pierce the pectoralis minor or run along its upper or lower border. The piercing nerves vary from one to three branches and were consistently located lateral to the midclavicular line. The horizontal and vertical distances to bony landmarks varied greatly and depended on the size and location of the pectoralis minor, except for the nerve running along the upper border of the PMin, which was located consistently around 30% of the clavicular line from the acromioclavicular joint to the sternoclavicular joint.

CONCLUSION

We were unable to define a fixed landmark to mark pre- or peroperatively. However, we could define guidelines that help to identify and excise or preserve nerves of interest.

Impact of Radiation on Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction in Prepectoral Versus Submuscular Planes

BACKGROUND

Postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) in the setting of radiation (XRT) comes with a high risk of perioperative complications regardless of reconstruction method. The aim of study was to identify the effects of XRT on IBR using a prepectoral versus submuscular approach.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed after institutional review board approval was obtained. Patients at a single institution who had 2-stage IBR from June 2012 to August 2019 were included. Patients were separated into 4 groups: prepectoral with XRT (group 1), prepectoral without XRT (group 2), submuscular with XRT (group 3), and submuscular without XRT (group 4). Patient demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty-seven breasts among 213 patients underwent 2-stage IBR. The average age and body mass index were 50.10 years and 29.10 kg/m2, respectively. One hundred nine breasts underwent prepectoral reconstruction (44 in group 1, 65 in group 2), and 278 breasts underwent submuscular reconstruction (141 in group 3, 137 in group 4). Prepectoral tissue expander placement was associated with higher complication rates in the radiated group (38.6% compared with 34.0% submuscular) and lower complication rates in the nonradiated group (26.2% compared with 29.2% submuscular), although significantly less explants were performed in prepectoral group, regardless of XRT status. The 3 most common complications overall were contracture (15.1% radiated, 10.4% nonradiated), infection (18.4% radiated, 11.9% nonradiated), and seroma (15.7% radiated, 10.9% nonradiated).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-stage, prepectoral tissue expander placement performs clinically better than submuscular in nonradiated patients compared with radiated patients; however, no statistical significance was identified. Prepectoral had a significantly less incidence of reconstructive failure than submuscular placement regardless of XRT status. Future larger-scale studies are needed to determine statistically significant difference in surgical approach.

Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Historically Controlled, Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The rising popularity of prepectoral tissue expander placement with acellular dermal matrices in immediate breast reconstruction has prompted many studies on the safety of this technique. However, a comprehensive propensity-matched, historically controlled trial comparing perioperative outcomes following prepectoral versus partial subpectoral (dual-plane) placement of tissue expanders is lacking.

METHODS

Retrospective propensity-matched cohort analysis was performed on all patients of two senior reconstructive surgeons who underwent bilateral tissue expander placement following a mastectomy with one of three breast surgeons at a single academic institution from 2012 onward (n = 260). Two matched groups (prepectoral and partial subpectoral) each consisted of 102 patients. Univariate and multivariable analyses were also performed to contextualize the risks associated with prepectoral reconstruction relative to demographic characteristics and other clinical factors.

RESULTS

Compared to dual-plane subpectoral placement, prepectoral placement resulted in similar rates of overall perioperative complications (32 percent versus 31 percent; p = 1.00) and perioperative complications that required operative treatment (21 percent versus 21 percent; p = 1.00). There were no significant differences between the groups in complication rates for hematomas, seromas, impaired wound healing, and infection. Although prepectoral placement was associated with prolonged time to drain removal, those patients completed the expansion process twice as fast, were expanded further in the operating room, and were more than twice as likely to forgo clinic-based expansion. Prepectoral reconstruction was not associated with increased risk for any complications in univariate or multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral tissue expander placement permitted greater intraoperative filling of expanders and a reduced likelihood of clinic-based expansion, with no increase in adverse outcomes compared to partial subpectoral placement. Adoption of this technique may reduce unnecessary clinic visits; shorten the delay before adjuvant therapy; and minimize patient apprehension, pain, and discomfort related to clinic-based expansion.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Breast Animation Deformity: A Retrospective Study on Long-Term and Patient-Reported Breast-Q Outcomes

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the aesthetic outcomes and quality of life of patients who underwent neurotomy of the lateral and medial branch of the pectoralis nerve for animation deformity after breast reconstruction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Health-related quality of life questionnaire and cosmetic outcome evaluation were conducted using the preoperative and the postoperative BREAST-Q modules for reconstructive surgery. An external author also assessed the general aesthetic outcome before and after surgery.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients with animation deformity after breast reconstruction were enrolled: 43 in group 1 (second-stage breast reconstruction), 10 in group 2 (permanent breast prosthesis), and 9 in group 3 (Baker III-IV capsular contraction). Patients scored high level of satisfaction with outcome concerning all aspects of the survey. Overall satisfaction with breast was significantly increased after surgery in all the 3 groups, whereas physical well-being was improved in group 1 and group 3 and psychosocial well-being was improved in group 1. General outcome evaluation by an external author, compared with the preoperative condition, also showed significant improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Section of the lateral and medial branches of the pectoralis nerve represents an easy and reproducible technique, associated with low morbidity and very good results in terms of patient satisfaction, comfort, and hospitalization.

Implant-based multiplane breast augmentation—a personal surgical concept for dynamic implant–tissue interaction providing sustainable shape stability

Background

The aesthetic long-term stability in shape, symmetry, and natural appearance of an aesthetically augmented breast remains a constant challenge. It has become clear that the results depend strongly on the technique applied and the experience of the surgeon. An ongoing controversy concerns the positioning of the implants. Subglandular, submuscular, partial submuscular, and subfascial pockets have different tradeoffs and advantages. However, secondary deformity, unnatural feel, and appearance are not addressed uniformly. The aim of the following study was to establish a standard procedure allowing for the desired and reproducible results to provide long-term stability and aesthetic quality.

Methods

The authors have developed a standardized dissection of a dynamic implant pocket. In this approach, a submuscular dissection with lower and medial release of the pectoralis muscle is combined with a wide subfascial release of the breast gland and a scoring of the deep plane of the superficial glandular fascia. In the final step, the deep layer of the glandular fascia is sutured tightly and firmly to the deep layer of the abdomino-pectoral fascia. A total of 867 patients received a 4D pocket–based breast implant by the authors. A subset of 33 patients was further analyzed for long-term results. Retrospectively, all data were analyzed from the electronic patient information system and files of patients using GraphPad 8. For comparison of multiple experimental groups, one-way ANOVA was performed where indicated.

Results

The concept not only addresses the biplanar approach of submuscular implant placement (3D) but adds the 4th dimension (4D) of an aesthetically pleasing dynamic shape of the augmented breast providing long-term stability. Measurements—taken at 3 months, and 1, 2, 3, 5, and ≥ 7 years post augmentation—for SN-N, N-IMF, N-ML, and MC-N distances did not show any significant changes over time. In the patient cohort of 867 patients (1734 implants), the overall complication rate was < 5%. Revisions for bleeding were below 0.5%. Shape stability was observed over 7 years in more than 95% of the patients.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that our technique of multiplane breast augmentation provides long-term stability and aesthetic quality. It may solve some of the existing tradeoffs of the different methods by combining the benefits of each technique supported by an additional shaping through a controlled deep fasciotomy.

Level of evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.