Comparing post-surgical outcomes of pre-pectoral versus dual-plane direct-to-implant breast reconstruction without increasing the use of acellular dermal matrix

Immediate prepectoral versus submuscular breast reconstruction in nipple-sparing mastectomy: a retrospective cohort analysis

Objective

To evaluate early complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study including 180 consecutive cases of nipple-sparing mastectomy, comparing immediate breast reconstruction with subpectoral to prepectoral mammary implants in 2012-2022. Clinical and demographic characteristics and complications in the first three months following surgery were compared between the two techniques.

Results

The prepectoral technique was used in 22 cases (12.2%) and the subpectoral in 158 (87.8%). Median age was higher in the prepectoral group (47 versus 43.8 years; p=0.038), as was body mass index (25.1 versus 23.8; p=0.002) and implant volume (447.5 versus 409 cc; p=0.001). The prepectoral technique was more associated with an inframammary fold (IMF) incision (19 cases, 86.4% versus 85, 53.8%) than with periareolar incisions (3 cases, 13.6% versus 73, 46.2%); (p=0.004). All cases in the prepectoral group underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction compared to 54 cases (34.2%) in the subpectoral group. Thirty-eight complications were recorded: 36 (22.8%) in the subpectoral group and 2 (9.1%) in the prepectoral group (p=0.24). Necrosis of the nipple-areola complex/skin flap occurred in 27 patients (17.1%) in the subpectoral group (prepectoral group: no cases; p=0.04). The groups were comparable regarding dehiscence, seroma, infection, and hematoma. Reconstruction failed in one case per group (p=0.230). In the multivariate analysis, IMF incision was associated with the prepectoral group (aOR: 34.72; 95%CI: 2.84-424.63).

Conclusion

The incidence of early complications was comparable between the two techniques and compatible with previous reports. The clinical and demographic characteristics differed between the techniques. Randomized clinical trials are required.

Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Capsular contracture after implant-based breast reconstruction is not an uncommon problem and affects reconstruction outcomes. It can be influenced by various factors, such as the plane of implant placement, implant surface and implant type. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate how the abovementioned risk factors can affect capsular contracture rates.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane Library were searched. Comparison groups included subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement, smooth versus textured implants and saline versus silicone implants. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for capsular contracture for each group. The level of evidence was evaluated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies compared subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement, with no statistically significant differences in capsular contracture rates [OR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.75-1.95; P = 0.44]. Five studies compared smooth versus textured implants, with no statistically significant differences in capsular contracture rates (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.50-1.93; P = 0.97). Two studies compared saline versus silicone implants for capsular contracture. Patients receiving saline implants had significantly lower capsular contracture rates than silicone implants (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.43; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant-based breast reconstruction using saline implants demonstrated reduced capsular contracture rates compared to silicone implants. However, no significant differences were observed in capsular contracture rates between subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement and smooth versus textured implants.

Anesthesia for gender-affirming surgery: a practical review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gender-affirming surgery (GAS) is an effective, well studied, and often necessary component of gender-affirming care and mitigation of gender dysphoria for transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals. GAS is categorized as chest surgeries, genitourinary surgeries, facial feminization/masculinization, and vocal phonosurgery. Despite increased incidence of GAS during recent years, there is a gap in knowledge and training on perioperative care for TGD patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Our review discusses the relevant anesthetic considerations for the most common GAS, which often involve highly specialized surgical techniques that have unique implications for the anesthesia professional.

SUMMARY

Anesthesiology professionals must attend to the surgical and anesthetic nuances of various GAS procedures. However, as many considerations are based on common practice, research is warranted on anesthetic implications and outcomes of GAS.

Inframammary versus Periareolar Incision: A Comparison of Early Complications in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy

Background

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), either used therapeutically or prophylactically, may yield more complications than conventional mastectomy. The incision may affect aesthetic outcome and complication rates, with periareolar incisions being associated with nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis.

Methods

Early complications were compared between NSM performed in 2015-2022 using inframammary fold (IMF) or periareolar incisions.

Results

Overall, 180 procedures in 152 patients (bilateral NSM = 28) were included (IMF = 104; periareolar = 76). Mean age (47 versus 43.9 years; P < 0.038), mastectomy weight (312.7 versus 246.8 grams; P < 0.001), implant volume (447.5 versus 409.0 mL; P = 0.002), and use of tissue expanders (68.4% versus 50.0%; P = 0.013) were all greater with periareolar incisions. Prepectoral reconstruction was more common with IMF (18.3% versus 3.9%; P = 0.004). Forty-three complications (23.9%) were recorded (periareolar n = 27, 35%; IMF n = 16, 15.3%; P = 0.0002). NAC necrosis accounted for 17 complications (22.4%) in the periareolar group versus nine (8.5%) in the IMF group (P = 0.002). Necrosis was predominantly moderate (n = 6, 8.3% versus n = 1, 1.0%, respectively) (P = 0.014). Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) for complications [3.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27-7.26] and necrosis (3.04; 95% CI: 1.27-7.27) were higher in the periareolar group. In the multivariate analysis, necrosis was associated with periareolar incisions [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 2.92; 95% CI: 1.14-7.44]. Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with IMF incisions (aOR: 25.51; 95% CI: 3.53-184.23; P = 0.001) and with body mass index of more than 25-30 (aOR: 37.09; 95% CI: 5.95-231.10; P < 0.001). Therapeutic mastectomies (aOR: 68.56; 95% CI: 2.50-188.36; P = 0.012) and tissue expanders (aOR: 18.36; 95% CI: 1.89-178.44; P = 0.026) were associated with seromas.

Conclusions

Both incisions are viable options; however, the risk of NAC necrosis increased with the periareolar approach. Further research is required.

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 .

Prepectoral vs. Submuscular Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Our Early Experience

Background: Conservative mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) is an oncologically accepted technique that offers improved esthetic results and patient quality of life. Traditionally, implants have been placed in a submuscular (SM) plane beneath the pectoralis major muscle (PMM). Recently, prepectoral (PP) placement of the prosthesis has been increasingly used in order to avoid morbidities related to manipulation of the PMM. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of SM vs. PP IPBR after conservative mastectomy in patients with histologically proven breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed two cohorts of patients that underwent mastectomy with IPBR after NAC in our institution from January 2018 to December 2021. Conservative mastectomy was performed in 146 of the 400 patients that underwent NAC during the study period. Patients were divided into two groups based on the positioning of implants: 56 SM versus 90 PP. Results: The two cohorts were similar for age (mean age 42 and 44 years in the SM and PP group respectively) and follow-up (33 and 20 months, respectively). Mean operative time was 56 min shorter in the PP group (300 and 244 min in the SM and PP group). No significant differences were observed in overall major complication rates. Implant loss was observed in 1.78% of patients (1/56) in the SM group and 1.11% of patients (1/90) in PP group. No differences were observed between the two groups in local or regional recurrence. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience, which represents one of the largest series of patients undergoing PP-IPBR after NAC at a single institution documented in the literature, seems to confirm that PP-IPBR after NAC is a safe, reliable and effective alternative to traditional SM-IPBR with excellent esthetic and oncological outcomes; it is easy to perform, reduces operative time and minimizes complications related to manipulation of PPM. However, this promising results need to be confirmed in prospective trials with longer follow-up.