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

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.

Examination of Outcome Disparities in Reports of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are mixed results in surgical complications regarding the usage of prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive synthesis of surgical complications between the subpectoral and prepectoral reconstructive method.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for literature published up until December 2022. Studies that compared subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction and reported at least one postoperative complication were included. The following 8 major outcomes were included: revision and reoperation, capsular contracture, explantation, seroma, hematoma, infection, skin necrosis, and animation deformity. Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare outcomes of the 2 techniques. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare whether practice differences in different countries may have an impact on outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were identified in our literature search. Two thousand three hundred sixty patients were included, representing a total of 3135 breasts. Our analysis demonstrated that prepectoral reconstruction had significantly lower odds of developing postoperative hematoma [odds ratio (OR), 0.62; P = 0.05], seroma (OR, 0.67; P = 0.01), infection (OR, 0.64; P = 0.03), revision and reoperation (OR, 0.44; P < 0.00001), and animation deformity (OR, 0.01; P < 0.00001), compared with the subpectoral method. Subgroup analysis showed that differences between 3 countries (United States, Korea, Italy) are low (all subgroup heterogeneity test P > 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

While both subpectoral and prepectoral are safe methods for breast reconstruction, the prepectoral technique may lead to lower odds of developing multiple major postoperative complications.

Direct-to-Implant Subcutaneous Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Complications and Patient's Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

The use of direct-to-implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction has increased over the last years. The goal of this systematic review is to deliver an updated review of the safety of this technique and its impact on quality of life. We also compare subcutaneous vs submuscular complications, through meta-analysis.

METHODS

Literature review through PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were performed by PRISMA criteria. Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria for subcutaneous review and 15 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. All included studies were evaluated for complications and answers to the BREAST-Q. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel, IBM SPSS, and Cochrane RevMan.

RESULTS

In 2863 patients and 3988 breasts that undergone direct to implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction, 8,21% had rippling, 5,64% seroma, 1,74% hematoma, 3,40% infection, 3,01% wound dehiscence, 3,93% skin necrosis, 3,34% nipple-areolar-complex (NAC) necrosis, 3,07% capsular contracture, 0,00% animation deformity, and 3,83% an implant removal. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in the odds ratio of animation deformity, a but statistically significant higher odds ratio of rippling. Subcutaneous and submuscular reconstructions had similar BREAST-Q scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct-to-implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction does not harm the patient's quality of life, comparatively with submuscular, saving the pectoral muscle from dissection and preventing animation deformity, but increasing the risk of rippling.

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 .

The Impact of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on the Outcomes of Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction is the mainstay treatment choice for patients subjected to a mastectomy. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is deemed to be a promising alternative to subpectoral reconstruction. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is necessary for locoregional recurrence control and to improve the disease-free survival rate in locally advanced breast cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was designed to reveal the surgical, aesthetic, and oncological outcomes of prepectoral IBBR after PMRT.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed from inception to March 28, 2022. All clinical studies that included patients who were subjected to prepectoral IBBR and PMRT were included. Studies that included patients who received radiation therapy before prepectoral IBBR were excluded.

RESULTS

This systematic review included six articles encompassing 1234 reconstructed breasts. Of them, 391 breasts were subjected to PMRT, while 843 breasts were not subjected. Irradiated breasts were more susceptible to develop wound infection (RR 2.49; 95% 1.43, 4.35; P = 0.001) and capsular contracture (RR 5.17; 95% 1.93, 13.80; P = 0.001) than the non-irradiated breasts. Furthermore, irradiated breasts were more vulnerable to losing implants (RR 2.89; 95% 1.30, 6.39; P = 0.009) than the non-irradiated breast. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the risk of implant extrusion (RR 1.88; 95% 0.20, 17.63; P = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with prepectorally IBBR and PMRT were more vulnerable to developing poor outcomes. This included a higher risk of breast-related and implant-related adverse events.

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 .