Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with complete ADM or synthetic mesh coverage – 36-Months follow-up in 200 reconstructed breasts

A Comparison of Capsular Contracture Rates after Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Using Biologic versus Synthetic Mesh

Background

Capsular contracture is one of the most common reasons for reoperation after implant-based breast reconstruction. Prior investigations have suggested that biologic mesh may mitigate capsular contracture development. This study sought to compare capsular contracture rates between patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with biologic versus synthetic mesh.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of the senior author's primary implant-based breast reconstructions between 2008 and 2023. Demographics and the incidence of clinically significant Baker grade III or IV capsular contractures were compared between biologic and synthetic mesh cohorts. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were then performed to assess potential risk factors for the development of capsular contracture.

Results

A total of 772 breasts underwent immediate reconstruction, of which 689 (89.2%) used biologic and 83 (10.8%) used synthetic mesh. Capsular contracture occurred in 15 (2.2%) biologic mesh breasts and three (3.6%) synthetic mesh breasts with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.430). Logistic regression showed that radiation was a borderline significant risk factor for developing capsular contracture, but the use of either biologic or synthetic mesh was not significant (P = 0.351).

Conclusions

Biologic and synthetic meshes function as effective tools in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Our long-term data suggest that the risk of capsular contracture with these devices is low, and there does not seem to be a difference between the two materials. However, there does need to be a shift in how capsular contracture is assessed and discussed in the reconstruction population.

Breast reconstruction with TiLOOP® Bra: Another arrow in plastic surgeons' quiver?

BACKGROUND

The use of lower-pole sling products has made immediate breast reconstruction a feasible option in women undergoing skin-nipple sparing and skin-reducing mastectomies. To date, available data on the comparative efficacy of biological and synthetic meshes regarding postoperative complications are scattered and limited.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to screen three different databases (PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Embase) using the following keywords: "breast reconstruction" AND "TiLOOP®" OR "Titanium-Coated Polypropylene Mesh" OR "TCPM". The perioperative and demographic characteristics of patients, complications profiles, and patient-reported outcomes were considered.

RESULTS

We initially identified 234 articles, of which only 41, including 3923 patients and 5042 reconstructed breasts, fully satisfied the inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSION

TiLOOP® Bra could be considered a safe and aesthetically valid alternative to Acellular Dermal Matrices (ADMs) in non-smokers patients undergoing skin-nipple sparing and skin-reducing mastectomies and immediate reconstruction. In such populations, complications are more likely to develop in patients with extreme body mass index values. The incidence of seroma with TiLOOP® Bra is comparable to that of ADMs as it is the beneficial effect in radiated patients, where TiLOOP® Bra seems superior to implant alone reconstruction. It has a good bio-integration with host tissues and resistance to infections in patients with a weakened immune system as a consequence of oncologic perioperative treatments.

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.

Impact of polyurethane versus acellular dermal matrix coating on prepectoral reconstruction outcomes: Interface does matter

BACKGROUND

Interfaces continue to be used in prepectoral breast reconstruction to refine breast appearance, but more clinical data are required to assess their effectiveness. This study compares the rates of capsular contracture, breast esthetics, and patient satisfaction between two commonly used interface materials, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and polyurethane (PU) foam.

METHODS

A cross-sectional assessment was conducted on all patients who underwent prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction with an interface material between June 2018 and June 2022. We compared capsular contracture rates (assessed in-person), esthetic outcomes (evaluated by a three-member panel using a specially designed scale), and patient satisfaction (measured using the Breast-Q questionnaire) among the members of the interface groups.

RESULTS

Among the 79 reconstructed breasts (20 bilateral cases), 35 were reconstructed using ADM and 44 using PU implants. The ADM group had a significantly higher frequency of Baker III/IV capsular contracture compared with the PU group (14.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.014) and lower ratings from the panel in terms of capsular contracture (median 3.7 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001). PU reconstructions scored worse in implant visibility (median 2.3 vs. 3.3, p < 0.001) and rippling (median 3.0 vs. 3.7, p < 0.001). However, after appropriate adjustment for confounders, no significant differences in overall appearance and patient satisfaction were found.

CONCLUSIONS

ADM reconstructions are prone to capsular contracture with all their related esthetic issues, but PU implants have certain cosmetic flaws, such as implant visibility and malposition. Since each technique has its own limitations, neither the experienced surgeons nor patients exhibited a clear preference for either approach.

Clinical Outcomes of Transaxillary Reverse-Sequence Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study of Initial 68 Procedures

BACKGROUND

Minimal access breast surgery improves cosmetic outcomes over conventional breast surgery but still faces barriers in becoming standard procedure for breast reconstruction. This report introduces a novel technique of transaxillary reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-E-NSM) followed by direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction (DTI-PBR) and describes its clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled patients who underwent R-E-NSM and DTI-PBR from March 2021 to December 2021 at a single institution. Perioperative data, surgical complications, oncologic outcomes, and patient- and surgeon-reported cosmetic results were noted.

RESULTS

The 60 patients in this study who underwent 68 R-E-NSM and DTI-PBR had a mean age was 40.4 ± 10.3 years. The average durations of uni- and bilateral operations were 156.5 ± 48.3 min and 191.3 ± 36.1 min, respectively. The overall surgical complication rate was 13.3%, including 10.0% of patients with minor complications and 3.3% of patients with major complications. The study had one case (1.7%) of implant loss and one case (1.7%) of skin flap necrosis treated by reoperation. During the median follow-up period of 24 months, one patient (1.7%) who discontinued chemotherapy for myelosuppression experienced liver metastases 5 months postoperatively, and one patient experienced new-onset contralateral ductal carcinoma in situ 24 months postoperatively. The preoperative and 18-month postoperative Breast-Q scores for satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and chest well-being did not differ significantly, and the Scar-Q was 81.2 ± 14.5 points. The good-to-excellent rate in surgeon-reported cosmetic results reached 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

Transaxillary R-E-NSM followed by DTI-PBR is a safe and efficient technique with high cosmetic outcomes and reliable medium-term oncologic results.

Outcomes after tissue expander exchange to implant in two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix: A retrospective cohort study

As prepectoral implant placement becomes widely adopted, recent studies investigating the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) during tissue expander placement have demonstrated no major benefit with regard to postoperative outcomes. We sought to evaluate second-stage outcomes 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant with and without ADM. Consecutive patients who underwent prepectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction with and without ADM were identified. Patients were followed up for 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest including implant rippling, capsular contracture, implant explantation, additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported outcomes were collected and compared. Sixty-eight breasts in the ADM cohort and sixty-one breasts in the no ADM cohort underwent tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest were similar between the ADM and no ADM cohorts with no statistically significant differences identified regarding incidences of implant rippling (24.6% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.08), capsular contracture (4.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 1.00), and explantation (6.6% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.67) between the two cohorts. BREAST-Q scores were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of physical wellbeing and satisfaction in terms of implant rippling, as can be seen, which improved in the no ADM cohort (p = 0.04). Our study reports no major benefit for the inclusion of ADM with respect to implant rippling, capsular contracture, explantation, need for additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported satisfaction in prepectoral second-stage implant-based breast reconstruction.

Transaxillary Single-Port Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Not: A Comparative Study with Analysis of Surgical Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In most cases, transaxillary single-port endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (E-NSM-IIBR) is conducted in patients with early-stage breast cancer, ensuring surgical safety while achieving improved breast aesthetics. However, whether E-NSM-IIBR is appropriate in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is still unclear. The aim of this study was to report the surgical safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of breast cancer patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with NAC in comparison to those who did not receive NAC.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with or without NAC at a single center between January 2021 and July 2022. Patient demographics, postoperative complications, and PROs evaluated using the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire were compared between the two groups. Factors associated with PROs at 9 months after surgery were assessed with linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 92 patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR were included in the study, with 27 patients receiving NAC and 65 patients not receiving NAC. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. The BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire was completed by 24 out of 27 patients (88.9%) in the NAC group and 59 out of 65 patients (90.8%) in the non-NAC group at 9 months after surgery. The patient-reported outcomes in various domains of the BREAST-Q did not show a significant difference between the two cohorts. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis indicated that in the both groups age (β = - 0.985, 95% CI - 1.598 to - 0.371, p = 0.003 in the NAC group; β = - 0.510, - 1.011 to - 0.009, p = 0.046 in the non-NAC group) and rippling (β = - 21.862, - 36.768 to - 6.955, p = 0.006 in the NAC group; β = - 7.787, - 15.151 to - 0.423, p = 0.039 in the non-NAC group) significantly impacted the patients' satisfaction with breasts, and PMRT was negatively associated with patients' physical well-being of chest (β = - 13.813, - 26.962 to - 0.664, p = 0.040 in the NAC group; β = - 18.574, - 30.661 to - 6.487, p = 0.003 in the non-NAC group). Our findings revealed that patients with larger implant volumes had higher scores in psychosocial well-being (β = 0.082, 0.001 to 0.162, p = 0.047), whereas implant displacement (β = - 14.937, - 28.175 to - 1.700, p=0.028) had a negative impact on patients' psychological well-being in the non-NAC group. However, our results did not demonstrate any significant influencing factors on patients' psychosocial well-being within the NAC group.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary experiences confirm that E-NSM-IIBR is a safe option for selected patients even after NAC, with favorable patient-reported outcomes comparable with those in the primary surgery setting. The postoperative long-term outcomes of patients who undergo radiation therapy after NAC merit further investigation in the future.

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 .

Immediate post-mastectomy prepectoral breast reconstruction with animal derived acellular dermal matrices: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Animal-derived acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are increasingly being used in prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction. However, the indications and complication profile associated with this type of reconstruction remain unclear. This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the available literature on the use of animal-derived ADM in prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Three different literature databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Embase were screened using the following keywords: "immediate" AND "pre-pectoral" OR "prepectoral" AND "ADM breast reconstruction." Animal-derived ADM used (porcine - Braxon® and non-Braxon® - and bovine - Surgimend®) anthropometric information, clinical data, and complications profile were considered.

RESULTS

A total of 340 articles were initially identified, of which only 45 articles (5089 patients and 6598 reconstructed breasts) satisfied our inclusion criteria. The most widely used ADM was Braxon® in the context of conservative mastectomies. In most studies, a subcutaneous layer > 1 cm and lack of previous radiotherapy were considered prerequisites for this type of reconstruction. An increased risk of complications was found in smokers, patients who underwent radiation treatment, patients with high breast volumes, and patients with cancers requiring axillary dissection. Data related to the role of diabetes, high body mass index, and breast implant size on surgical outcomes were instead inconcludent. Age was not directly proportional to the complications.

CONCLUSION

The complications associated with different animal-derived ADMs are generally comparable. The profile of patients required for eligibility for this type of reconstruction appears to have been identified and is in line with current recommendations.

Interest of acellular dermal matrices in immediate breast reconstruction: Comparison of quality of life and complications with and without matrix

INTRODUCTION

Since 2001, acellular dermal matrices have been increasingly used in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) because they allow for the placement of the ideal-sized definitive implant in one step. They are used in both retropectoral and prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstructions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of dermal matrices on the quality of life and on complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two surveys were used to evaluate the quality of life: the BREAST-Q V2.0© and the QuickDASH. The surveys were sent to all patients who had an immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction at a University Hospital Center from 2010 to 2020. A case-control study was performed for comparison of responses between the "Matrix+" and "Matrix-" groups.

RESULTS

Seventeen IBR with matrix (23.6%) and 55 IBR without matrix (76.4%) were analyzed. Patients in the "Matrix+" group had a better quality of life in terms of sexual well-being (p = 0.038) and a significantly lower QuickDASH (p < 0.01). They had better breast satisfaction (p = 0.016) and better implant satisfaction (p < 0.01). The likelihood of encountering major complications later in time was more important in the group with matrix (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

We found a satisfactory quality of life with scores of sexual well-being and satisfaction with the breast and the implants, and a better satisfaction with care thanks to the use of the matrices. However, due to a higher number of major late complications and a lack of follow-up, we believe that immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction with matrix should be discussed according to the comorbidities, medical treatments, and the vitality of the skin flaps of each patient.

A Comparative Study of Wraparound versus Anterior Coverage Placement of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral direct-to-implant insertion (DTI) with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is the currently preferred operation for breast reconstruction. There are different placements of ADM, which are largely classified as wraparound placement or anterior coverage placement. Because there are limited data comparing these two placements, this study aimed to compare the outcomes of these two methods.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of immediate prepectoral DTI breast reconstructions performed by a single surgeon between 2018 and 2020. Patients were classified depending on the ADM placement type used. Surgical outcomes and breast shape changes using nipple position during follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients were included in the study, with 87 in the wraparound group and 72 in the anterior coverage group. Demographics were similar between the two groups, excluding ADM amount used (154.1 cm 2 versus 137.8 cm 2 ; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the overall rate of complications between the two groups, including seroma (6.90% versus 5.56%; P = 1.0), total drainage amount (762.1 mL versus 805.9 mL; P = 0.45), and capsular contracture (4.6% versus 1.39%; P = 0.38). The wraparound group had a significantly longer distance change than that of the anterior coverage group in the sternal notch-to-nipple distance (4.44% versus 2.08%; P = 0.03) and midclavicle-to-nipple distance (4.94% versus 2.64%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Wraparound and anterior coverage placement of ADM in prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction showed similar complication rates, including seroma, drainage amount, and capsular contracture. However, wraparound placement can make the breast more ptotic in shape compared with anterior coverage placement.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Comparison of the Characteristics of Three Acellular Dermal Matrices Subjected to Distinct Processing Methods Using Five Types of Histochemical Staining

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is treated using various devitalization and aseptic processing methods. The processing effects on ADM were evaluated by histochemical tests.

METHODS

From January 2014 to December 2016, 18 patients [average age, 43.0 (range, 30-54) years] who underwent breast reconstruction with an ADM and tissue expander were prospectively enrolled. During the permanent implant replacement, a biopsy of the ADM was performed. We used three different human-derived products, namely, Alloderm®, Allomend®, and Megaderm®. Hematoxylin and eosin, CD68, CD3, CD31, and smooth muscle actin were used to evaluate the collagen structure, inflammation, angiogenesis, and myofibroblast infiltration. Each ADM was semi-quantitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

Significant differences in collagen degradation, acute inflammation, and myofibroblast infiltration were observed among the ADMs. Collagen degeneration (p<0.001) and myofibroblast infiltration (smooth muscle actin-positive, p=0.018; CD31-negative, p=0.765) were the most severe in Megaderm®. Acute inflammation, represented by CD68, was most severe in Alloderm® (p=0.024). Both radiation and freeze-drying treatment physically damaged the collagen structure. Collagen degeneration was most severe in Megaderm®, followed by Allomend® and Alloderm®. Since Alloderm® is treated using chemicals, an assessment of the chemical irritation is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

The biopsy results were inconclusive. Therefore, to better interpret processing, more large-scale, serial, histochemical studies of each ADM are needed.

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 .

Ptotic versus Nonptotic Breasts in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

In recent years, nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity due to improved cosmetic and psychological benefits. However, patients with ptotic breasts remain the main challenge for surgeons, owing to the potential risk of postoperative complications.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy and prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction between March 2017 and November 2021. Patient demographics, incidence of complications, and quality of life assessed using the BREAST-Q questionnaire were compared between the two different incisions [inverted-T for ptotic versus inframammary fold (IMF) for nonptotic breasts].

Results

A total of 98 patients were examined: 62 in the IMF cohort and 36 in the inverted-T cohort. The results demonstrated equivalence in the safety metrics between the two groups, including hematoma (p=0.367), seroma (p=0.552), infection (P = 1.00), skin necrosis (P = 1.00), local recurrence (P = 1.00), implant loss (P = 0.139), capsular contracture (P = 1.00), and nipple-areolar complex necrosis (P = 0.139). The BREAST-Q scores were equally high in both groups.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that inverted-T incision for ptotic breasts is a safe modality with similar complication rates and high aesthetic results compared with IMF incision for nonptotic breasts. A higher rate of nipple-areolar complex necrosis in the inverted-T group, although not significant, should be considered during careful preoperative planning and patient selection.

Comparing the Outcomes and Complication Rates of Biologic vs Synthetic Meshes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluates all published studies comparing biologic and synthetic meshes in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), to determine which category of mesh produces the most favorable outcomes.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women globally. Implant-based breast reconstruction is currently the most popular method of postmastectomy reconstruction, and recently, the use of surgical mesh in IBBR has become commonplace. Although there is a long-standing belief among surgeons that biologic mesh is superior to synthetic mesh in terms of surgical complications and patient outcomes, few studies exist to support this claim.

METHODS

A systematic search of the EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases was performed in January 2022. Primary literature studies comparing biologic and synthetic meshes within the same experimental framework were included. Study quality and bias were assessed using the validated Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria.

RESULTS

After duplicate removal, 109 publications were reviewed, with 12 meeting the predetermined inclusion criteria. Outcomes included common surgical complications, histological analysis, interactions with oncologic therapies, quality of life measures, and esthetic outcomes. Across all 12 studies, synthetic meshes were rated as at least equivalent to biologic meshes for every reported outcome. On average, the studies in this review tended to have moderate Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scores.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review offers the first comprehensive evaluation of all publications comparing biologic and synthetic meshes in IBBR. The consistent finding that synthetic meshes are at least equivalent to biologic meshes across a range of clinical outcomes offers a compelling argument in favor of prioritizing the use of synthetic meshes in IBBR.

Comparing Polyurethane and Acellular Dermal Matrix Implant Cover in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Short-term Complications

Implant covering with an interface material is the standard in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently used, but it is expensive and associated with complications. Alternatively, we have been using integrated devices consisting of a silicone implant coated with polyurethane (PU) foam. We aimed to compare both techniques in terms of acute complications.

Methods

The authors retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction from June 2018 to January 2022. Two cohorts were defined based on the interface material used: ADM versus PU. Total drainage volume, time to drain removal, and acute complications (hematoma, seroma, infection, and explantation) were analyzed.

Results

Forty-four breast reconstructions were performed in 35 patients (10 bilateral); implants were covered with ADM in 23 cases and with PU foam in 21. Median total drainage volume (500 versus 515 cc for ADM and PU, respectively) and time to drain removal (9 versus 8 days) were not affected by the interface material used, but seromas and infections occurred exclusively in the ADM cohort (seromas in four of 23 of cases, P = 0.109; infections in three of 23 cases, P = 0.234). Overall complications occurred more often in cases reconstructed with ADM, but the difference was nonsignificant (P = 0.245).

Conclusions

The use of interface materials is generally considered a prerequisite for state-of-the-art prepectoral breast reconstruction for a variety of reasons, including the prevention of capsular contracture. In this study, PU coating tended to be associated with fewer short-term complications than ADM, including seroma and infection.

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 .

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.

"Tear-Drop Appearance" Wrap: A Novel Implant Coverage Method for Creating Natural Contour in Prepectoral Prosthetic-Based Breast Reconstruction

Various implant wrapping methods with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) have been introduced, but most focus on random trimming and suturing aimed to maximize implant coverage. Here we present our clinical experience using a “tear-drop appearance” wrapping method to achieve natural contours through upper pole volume replacement. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 56 consecutive cases of prepectoral prosthetic-based breast reconstruction (PPBR) using this wrapping method following nipple-sparing mastectomy between March 2020 and June 2021. The “tear-drop appearance” wrapping design creates an anatomical tear-drop–shaped pocket to encourage lower pole fullness and create a natural contour through upper pole volume replacement by ADM. Patients’ baseline characteristics, operative data, and complications were analyzed. Aesthetic outcomes were measured using the BREAST-Q and Aesthetic Item Scale (AIS). A successful reconstruction was achieved without major complications and using a single ADM sheet. Four types and three sizes of ADMs were used. The mean resected breast tissue weight was 274.3 g, while the mean implant volume was 230.0 cc. The average BREAST-Q and AIS scores were 4.6 ± 0.8 and 4.5 ± 0.7, respectively. Owing to its simplicity, reproducibility, and effectivity, this method is an excellent implant coverage option that achieves a natural contour in PPBR.

A Retrospective Study Assessing the Outcomes of Immediate Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant and Mesh-Based Breast Reconstruction

(1) Introduction: In response to patient concerns about breast cancer recurrence, increased use of breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing, and advancements in breast reconstruction techniques, mastectomy rates have been observed to rise over the last decade. The aim of the study is to compare the outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral implants and long-term, dual-stage resorbable mesh-based breast reconstructions in mutation carriers (prophylactic surgery) and breast cancer patients. (2) Patients and methods: This retrospective, two-center study included 170 consecutive patients after 232 procedures: Prepectoral surgery was performed in 156 cases and subpectoral was performed in 76. (3) Results: Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with more frequent minor late complications (p < 0.001), but not major ones (p = 0.101), while postoperative chemotherapy was related to more frequent serious (p = 0.005) postoperative complications. Postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of minor complications (31.03%) than no-radiotherapy (12.21%; p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression found complications to be significantly associated with an expander (OR = 4.43), skin-reducing mastectomy (OR = 9.97), therapeutic mastectomy vs. risk-reducing mastectomy (OR = 4.08), and postoperative chemotherapy (OR = 12.89). Patients in whom prepectoral surgeries were performed demonstrated significantly shorter median hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and lower minor complication rates (5.77% vs. 26.32% p < 0.001), but similar major late complication rates (p = 0.915). (4) Conclusions: Implant-based breast reconstruction with the use of long-term, dual-stage resorbable, synthetic mesh is a safe and effective method of breast restoration, associated with low morbidity and good cosmesis. Nevertheless, prospective, multicenter, and long-term outcome data studies are needed to further evaluate the benefits of such treatments.

Implant Malposition in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Experience with Natrelle® Cohesive Implants over 6.5 Years

Implant malposition has been reported to be a common reason for revision surgery after implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). With the recent increase in the use of smooth implants due to concerns for breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma with textured implants, we compared and reported the rates of malposition in prepectoral IBR and identified risk factors. A retrospective review of patients who underwent prepectoral IBR with Natrelle® (Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) implants at our institution between January 2014 and May 2020 was performed. Clinical characteristics, implant types, and the rate of malposition, defined as implant flipping or rotation, were recorded. Univariate and multivariable time-to-event analyses using the Cox proportional-hazards model were performed to identify predictors of malposition. Three hundred seventy-five patients (660 breasts) were included. Four hundred forty-one (66.8%) breasts had smooth round implants whereas 219 (33.2%) had textured anatomical devices. Malposition requiring either a manual correction or surgical intervention occurred in 26 (5.9%) smooth round implants versus 3 (1.4%) textured anatomical. Multivariable analysis showed that having a smooth round implant (aHR: 7.19, 95% CI: [2.04 - 25.4]) and an increase in implant volume (aHR: 1.003, 95% CI: [1.001 - 1.006]) were associated with having a malposition requiring intervention. Among smooth round implants; INSPIRA® Cohesive implants were more likely to result in a malposition requiring intervention (p<0.0001) compared to other smooth round implants. Overall, malposition requiring intervention occurred in 5.9% of smooth round implants and 1.4% of textured anatomical implants. Statistical analysis demonstrates that smooth round implants and an increase in implant volume both are associated with a malposition requiring intervention.

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.

The Failed Breast Implant in Postmastectomy Reconstruction: A Systematic Literature Review of Complications of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most diagnosed malignant neoplasia of female patients worldwide in 2019. Survival has increased making it necessary to offer breast reconstructive procedures to improve quality of life and self-esteem. Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common approach, making it necessary to quantify the associated complications.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was performed. A total of 9608 citations were identified, and 44 studies met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Studies included reported the incidence of complications either per patient or per breast leading consequently to 2 complication rates depending on the type of reporting. A total of 14.3% of patient-related and 28.8% of breast-related complications while undergoing implant-based reconstruction were reported.Among total complications reported, 72.6% of patient-related and 48.5% of breast-related complications were classified as major complications.A total of 37.6% of patients respectively 15.1% of breasts required prosthesis explantation due to severe complications. Depending on reporting, 9.7% of patients and 4% of breasts required autologous flap reconstruction due to reconstructive failure.

CONCLUSIONS

High complication and failure rates are associated with implant-based breast reconstruction. Lacking randomized controlled trials, the choice between implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction has to be made individually for each patient.

Early Clinical Outcomes of Polydioxanone Mesh for Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

Many biologic matrices and synthetic meshes are available as adjuncts for prosthetic and autologous breast reconstructions to help control implant position and to reinforce abdominal flap donor sites. Absorbable synthetic meshes may have advantages over biologic matrices and permanent meshes, such as lower cost and better long-term biocompatibility. We present a prospective case series of patients undergoing two-stage, prepectoral breast reconstruction with polydioxanone (PDO) mesh.

Outcome Assessment According to the Thickness and Direction of the Acellular Dermal Matrix after Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Purpose

The acellular dermal matrix plays an important role in reinforcing thin mastectomy skin and repositioning the implant in prosthetic breast reconstruction. As the concept of prepectoral plane has become widespread, the role of the acellular dermal matrix has become increasingly important. However, evidences and standards for appropriate thickness and direction during placement remain insufficient. This study is aimed at testing the assumption that differences in the acellular dermal matrix thickness and orientation during placement may affect surgical outcomes including the incidence of postoperative complications.

Methods

This was a retrospective single-centered analysis of 43 patients (50 breasts) who underwent implant-based reconstruction with MegaDerm® (L&C Bio, Seoul, Korea) and 23 patients (23 breasts) who underwent implant-based reconstruction with DermACELL® (LifeNet Health, Virginia Beach, VA, USA), two types of human-derived acellular dermal matrix. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon. Demographic variables, surgery-related factors, and complications were compared between a thick matrix group (1.5–2.3 mm) and a thin matrix group (1.0–1.5 mm). The same processes were performed in the nonreverse and reverse matrix insertion groups.

Results

Baseline demographics and surgery-related data were summarized according to matrix thickness and direction. There were no significant intergroup differences in the demographic variables such as history of smoking, radiation, or chemotherapy. The mean drain volume was significantly higher in the thick matrix group than that in the thin matrix group (p = 0.0445). However, there were no significant differences in overall complication rates by matrix thickness (p = 0.3139). Additionally, there were no significant differences in complications between the nonreverse and reverse matrix insertion groups (p = 0.538).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that patients with a thick acellular dermal matrix need a prolonged period for engraftment. However, the thickness did not directly affect the surgical outcomes between the thick and thin matrix groups. Likewise, the orientation in which the acellular dermal matrix was inserted did not affect the surgical outcomes including postoperative complications.

The First Use of Human-Derived ADM in Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction after Skin-Reducing Mastectomy

INTRODUCTION

Large and ptotic breasts always represented a great reconstructive challenge for plastic surgeons. In order to deal with these patients, we started performing Wise-pattern skin-reducing mastectomies (SRM) followed by direct-to-implant breast reconstructions (DTI-BR) in the prepectoral space where the implants were covered with the autologous adipo-dermal flap and a human acellular dermal matrix called MODA.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed all patients that underwent Wise-pattern SRM followed by MODA-assisted, prepectoral, DTI-BR between January 2017 and November 2019 at our Institution. Inclusion criteria were large ptotic breast and pinch test >2cm, while exclusion criteria were smoking >10 cigarettes/day, history of prior radiotherapy, patients supposedly requiring breast implants bigger than 550cc or post-mastectomy radiotherapy. Patients' data were collected through their electronic medical records. Both short- and long-term outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients underwent Wise-pattern SRM followed by MODA-assisted, prepectoral, DTI-BR for a total of twenty-one breast reconstruction and fourteen matching procedures. Mean follow-up was 13.4 months (SD= ±3.67). No major complication was reported. Three (14.3%) reconstructed breasts had minor complications: 2 (9.5%) minimal (<1cm²) wound dehiscence and 1 (4.8%) de-epithelization of the skin at the T junction that were treated conservatively. Drainages gave mean output of 410.59 ml (SD= ±214.83) and were kept in place on average for 8.59 days (SD= ±3.45).

CONCLUSION

Few are the reports in the literature regarding DTI-BR following SRM and even fewer are those where BR was performed in the prepectoral space. Our work demonstrated the safety of prepectoral DTI-BR following SRM in selected patients in accordance with the "conservative reconstruction" principles. Furthermore, we confirmed the reliability of MODA in accordance with previously published works.

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 .

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with TiLOOP® Bra Pocket - a single-centre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant-based reconstruction using synthetic meshes is feasible with good outcomes. We present our data using TiLOOP® Bra Pocket, a novel ready-to-use mesh pocket which acts as an internal bra and prevents the implant from dislocating or twisting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-centre retrospective cohort study was performed to assess short-term complication rates and cosmetic outcomes in patients with prepectoral implant-based reconstruction using the TiLOOP® Bra Pocket. The primary endpoint was complication rates during the first 6 months. The secondary endpoint was the cosmetic outcome after 6 to 12 months, which was judged by two breast surgeons using the Harvard score.

RESULTS

A total of 63 breasts (43 patients) were reconstructed using the TiLOOP® Bra Pocket between 2018 and 2020, 57 were immediate reconstructions. The overall complication rate was 30,2% (n = 19/63). Major complications occurred in seven breasts (n = 7/63; 11,1%) and minor complications occurred in 12 breasts (12/63; 19,0%). The unplanned revision rate was 12,7%. The cosmetic outcome was good (Harvard score: mean 3, range 1-4; SD 0,75). Seventeen cosmetic complications were observed (17/63; 27,0%) and six cosmetic revision surgeries were performed (6/63; 9,5%).

CONCLUSION

The use of the TiLOOP® Bra Pocket is convenient and standardized because the pocket is preformed and does not require to be sewn first. Cosmetic outcome is good; however, the surgical morbidity needs to be addressed in future reconstructions. Careful patient selection and preparation techniques are vital in order to achieve acceptable complication rates and satisfying cosmetic results.

Postoperative Complications in Breast Reconstruction With Porcine Acellular Dermis and Polypropylene Meshes in Subpectoral Implant Placement

AIM

This research compares postoperative complication rates with Strattice™, SERAGYN^® BR, and TiLOOP^® Bra interposition devices for subpectoral implant placement after skin or nipple sparing mastectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

188 breast reconstructions in 157 patients after primary (n=96), secondary (n=71), or prophylactic (n=21) surgery were analyzed regarding major and minor complications.

RESULTS

With acellular dermal matrix (ADM) Strattice™, 27.5% major and 27.5% minor complications occurred. Implant loss rates were 27.3% in primary and 30.8% in secondary reconstructions. With SERAGYN^® BR, 11.1% major and 13,0% minor complications occurred. Implant losses (6.1%) occurred exclusively in primary reconstructions. With TiLOOP^® Bra, 14.9% major and 9.6% minor complications occurred. Implant loss rates were 7.7% in primary and 7.1% in secondary reconstructions.

CONCLUSION

ADM was associated with high complication rates in primary and secondary reconstructions. Low complication rates were seen with mesh interposition devices in primary, secondary, and prophylactic reconstructions.

Robot-assisted breast reconstruction using the prepectoral anterior tenting method

PURPOSE

Prosthetic breast reconstruction in the prepectoral plane with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) support has been gaining popularity and the use of robotic assistance could enhance this procedure. This study introduces robot-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction using the anterior tenting method.

METHODS

Sixteen patients (16 breasts) undergoing surgery from July 2019 to April 2020 were included in this study. The breast oncology team performed mastectomies with direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using the da Vinci Xi^TM (Intuitive Surgical Corp., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) system. The prepectoral plane anterior tenting method using ADM was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 16 patients, 14 underwent a nipple-sparing mastectomy and two underwent a skin-sparing mastectomy. The average patient age was 44.9 years, body mass index (BMI) was 22.9 kg/m², and mastectomy weight was 367.6 g. The breast oncology team had an average operating time of 194.7 minutes, and the plastic surgery team had an average operating time of 80.8 minutes. The average postoperative drainage was 943.6 mL, and minor complications occurred in two patients.

CONCLUSION

With the robot, only a small incision of approximately 4.5 cm is necessary and areas that are not readily visible, such as the side of the axilla, can be accessed during the surgery. Using a smaller ADM size, the implant pocket under the ADM can be easily created under a magnified view. Inframammary fold (IMF) restoration is also possible with robotic surgery and delayed bleeding from the pocket can be easily controlled.

Direct to Implant Breast Reconstruction With Prepectoral Micropolyurethane Foam-Coated Implant: Analysis of Patient Satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Immediate implant reconstruction after mastectomy with submuscular implant placement is widely used in order to avoid implant exposure, capsular contracture and poor aesthetic result. Postoperative complications can be reduced by maintain mastectomy flap thickness and asses flap vascularity with near infrared imaging. The prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane implants has been utilized with encouraging results. Postoperative patient satisfaction was assessed with the BREAST-Q scores in patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane implants. Additionally the impact of mastectomy flap thickness on breast reconstruction was investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Breast Q-scores of satisfaction with the breast, the postoperative outcome and physical well-being of the chest in 70 patients underwent immediate implant breast reconstructions with prepectoral polyurethane implant were retrospectively reviewed. The correlation between mastectomy flap thickness and satisfaction with breast was analyzed.

RESULTS

At 12-month follow-up the mean Q-score for satisfaction with breast was 71.73 (standard deviation: 13.31), and for physical well-being chest was 70.73 (standard deviation: 7.94). A positive linear correlation between mastectomy flap thickness and satisfaction with the breast was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative Q-scores are encouraging in the use of polyurethane prepectoral implants in immediate breast reconstruction, especially in patients with "thick" mastectomy flaps.

The largest multicentre data collection on prepectoral breast reconstruction: The iBAG study

Background and Objectives

In the last years, prepectoral breast reconstruction has increased its popularity, becoming a standard reconstructive technique by preserving pectoralis major anatomy and functionality. Nevertheless, the lack of solid and extensive data negatively impacts on surgeons’ correct information about postoperative complication rates and proper patient selection. This study aims to collect the largest evidence on this procedure.

Methods

A multicentre retrospective audit, promoted by the Barcelona Hospital, collected the experience of 30 centers on prepectoral breast reconstruction with Braxon ADM. The study had the scientific support of INPECS and IIB societies which provided the online database Clinapsis.

Results

A total of 1450 procedures were retrospectively collected in a 6‐year period. Mean age 52.4 years, BMI 23.9, follow‐up 22.7 months. Reconstruction was carried out after a tumor in 77.1% of the cases, 20.1% had prophylactic surgery, 2.8% had revisions. Diabetes, smoke, and immunosuppression had an influence on complications occurrence, as well as implant weight. Capsular contracture was associated with postoperative radiotherapy, but the overall rate was low (2.1%). Complications led to implant loss in 6.5% of the cases.

Conclusions

The international Braxon Audit Group multicentre data collection represents a milestone in the field of breast reconstruction, extensively improving the knowledge on this procedure.

Meta-analysis of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: guide to patient selection and current outcomes

PURPOSE

 This meta-analysis provides a large-scale comparison of prepectoral vs. subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction, with primary outcomes of patient safety and efficacy.

METHODS

Literature review was performed via PRISMA criteria, 33 studies met inclusion criteria for prepectoral review and 13 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Patient characteristics and per-breast complications were collected. Data were analyzed using Cochrane RevMan and IBM SPSS.

RESULTS

In 4692 breasts of 3014 patients that underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction, rippling was observed as the most common complication, followed by seroma and skin flap necrosis. Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant decrease in odds of skin flap necrosis and capsular contracture in prepectoral groups compared to subpectoral groups. Odds of infection, seroma, and hematoma were equal between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has surged in popularity in recent years. This review and large-scale analysis corroborates current literature reporting a favorable safety profile with emphasis on patient selection. Variability in skin flap thickness and vascularity mandates thoughtful selection of patients whose overall health and intra-operative skin flap assessment can tolerate a muscle-sparing reconstruction.