A Guide to Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A New Dimension to Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Prompts Revisiting the Anatomical Boundaries of the Breast: A Radiographic and Cadaveric Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the location of superficial fascial system condensations in relation to classic anatomical breast boundaries. Cadaveric studies have provided some understanding, but knowledge about the precise location of these condensations remains limited.

METHODS

Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was conducted to assess the fascial condensations defining the breast footprint relative to landmarks such as the latissimus, clavicle, sternal border, and inframammary fold. Concurrently, cadaveric mastectomies were performed to measure the breast borders in relation to these landmarks for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 290 breasts underwent preoperative MRI. Eight cadaveric breast dissections were completed. Radiographically, the lateral breast fascial condensation was 3.9 cm medial to the latissimus dorsi, whereas cadaveric measurements were 4.5 cm. The medial condensation was 2.1 cm lateral to the sternal border radiographically and 4.8 cm to the midline in cadavers. The superior fascial condensation was 2.3 cm inferior to the clavicle radiographically and 5.5 cm by dissection. The inferior condensation was above the inframammary fold in 82.7% of breasts by MRI and 100% of cadaveric breasts. MRI and cadaveric investigation showed similar patterns of breast tissue fascial condensations relative to standard breast boundaries. Breast skin flap thickness was greater peripherally (MRI, 11.5 mm; cadaver, 11.1 mm) than centrally (MRI, 6.6 mm; cadaver, 5.5 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI and cadaveric analysis demonstrated a close correlation between the superficial fascial system and standard breast boundaries, although variations existed between subjects. Collaborating with breast oncologists and using preoperative imaging to identify individual fascial condensations may enhance the camouflage of prepectoral implants after mastectomy.

Anatomical assessment of local recurrence site in breast cancer patients after breast reconstruction and post-mastectomy radiotherapy: implications for radiation volumes and techniques

INTRODUCTION

Post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) improves local control rates and survival in patients with adverse prognostic features. The dose coverage to target volumes is critical to yield maximum benefit to treated patients, increasing local control and reducing risk of toxicity. This study aims to assess patterns of breast cancer relapse in patients treated with mastectomy, breast reconstruction and PMRT.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients treated with PMRT between 1992 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical and pathological characteristics of patients were collected. Recurrences were defined as "in field," "marginal" or "out of field." Survival analyses were performed in relation to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Correlation between baseline features was explored.

RESULTS

Data of 140 patients are collected. After a median follow-up time of 72 months, median PFS and OS of 63 and 74 months were detected, respectively. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lympho-vascular space invasion (LVI) and size of primary tumor were all significantly associated with worst PFS and OS. Ten patients developed local recurrence: 30% "in field," 30% marginal recurrences, 20% "out of field" and 20% both "in field" and "out of field." No recurrence was detected under the expander, 80% above the device and 20% patients relapsed on IMN chain. The mean distant relapse-free survival was 39 months. Overall, 39 of 140 patients developed distant metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

The onset of local-regional relapses occurred mainly above the expander/prosthesis, underlying the importance of inclusion of the subcutaneous tissues within the target volume. In order to refine new contouring recommendations for PMRT and breast reconstruction, future prospective studies are needed.

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.

Implant Based Breast Reconstruction Using a Titanium-Coated Polypropylene Mesh (TiLOOP® Bra): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) can be performed using a variety of biological and synthetic meshes. However, there has yet to be a consensus on the optimal mesh. This study investigates the safety and patient satisfaction of using TiLOOP® Bra in IBBR and compares its postoperative complication risk with that of porcine acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and SERAGYN® BR.

METHODS

The literature review was performed via PRISMA criteria, 23 studies met the inclusion criteria for the TiLOOP® Bra review, and 5 studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Patient characteristics and per-breast complications were collected. Data were analyzed using Cochrane RevMan and IBM SPSS.

RESULTS

In 3175 breasts of 2685 patients that underwent IBBR using TiLOOP® Bra, rippling was observed as the most common complication, followed by seroma and capsular contracture. No significant difference in the overall complication rate between pre- and sub-pectoral IBBR using TiLOOP® Bra. However, the meta-analysis showed that the TiLOOP® Bra group had significantly lower odds of implant loss, seroma, wound dehiscence, and the need for reoperation or hospitalization than the ADM group. Additionally, the TiLOOP® Bra group had a significantly lower seroma rate compared to the SERAGYN® BR group, while the other outcome indicators were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

TiLOOP® Bra has become increasingly popular in IBBR in recent years. This review and meta-analysis support the favorable safety profile of TiLOOP® Bra reported in the current literature. The meta-analysis revealed that TiLOOP® Bra has better safety than ADM and a comparable risk of complications compared to SERAGYN® BR. However, as most studies had low levels of evidence, further investigations are necessary.

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 .

Single Stitch Vicryl Mesh Wrap for Prepectoral Implant Breast Reconstruction

Acellular dermal matrices are commonly used in prepectoral breast reconstruction for implant coverage and support, but they are associated with significant costs. The authors describe a technique for prepectoral breast reconstruction in which the implant is completely wrapped in a knitted Vicryl mesh and then positioned on the chest, without the need for any tacking sutures. A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive prepectoral breast reconstructions, using this technique at a single institution. A separate cohort undergoing prepectoral reconstruction with a conventional acellular dermal matrix technique was also reviewed for comparison. Patient demographics, oncologic and reconstruction characteristics, outcomes, complications, and materials cost were analyzed. Twelve patients (23 breasts) underwent prepectoral reconstruction with Vicryl mesh, and 34 patients (55 breasts) underwent prepectoral reconstruction with acellular dermal matrices. Overall complication rates in the Vicryl group were low (two infections, one case of skin necrosis, one hematoma) and did not differ statistically from the acellular dermal matrix group. Operative time per breast was nearly twice as fast (35.7 versus 68.0 min, P < 0.01). Calculated materials cost savings was $8273 per breast. Prepectoral breast reconstruction with Vicryl mesh only is a safe technique that is much faster and significantly cheaper compared with conventional reconstructive techniques utilizing acellular dermal matrices.

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 .

Braxon®-assisted prepectoral breast reconstruction: A decade later

We are sitting on the cusp of the bioengineered breast era, in which implant-based breast reconstruction is seeing a growing trend and biotechnology research progressively empowers clinical practice. As never before, the choice of biomaterials has acquired great importance for achieving reconstructive outcomes, and the increase in the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in the field of senology tells us a story of profound upheaval and progress. With the advent of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR), plenty of devices have been proposed to wrap the silicone prosthesis, either completely or partially. However, this has caused a great deal of confusion and dissent with regard to the adoption of feasible reconstructive strategies as well as the original scientific rationale underlying the prepectoral approach. Braxon^® is the very first device that made prepectoral implant positioning possible, wrapping around the prosthesis and exerting the proven ADM regenerative potential at the implant–tissue interface, taking advantage of the body's physiological healing mechanisms. To date, the Braxon^® method is among the most studied and practiced worldwide, and more than 50 publications confirm the superior performance of the device in the most varied clinical scenarios. However, a comprehensive record of the working of this pioneering device is still missing. Therefore, our aim with this review is to lay a structured knowledge of surgery with BRAXON^® and to provide a decision-making tool in the field of PPBR through a complete understanding on the very first device for prepectoral, one decade after its introduction.

A prospective comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral methods for immediate breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: the cogwheel-shaped anterior wrapping method

Background Prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently gained wide recognition for its advantages, such as rapid recovery and less pain. This study compared the effectiveness of and differences between the prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction techniques.Methods Eighty-three patients (90 breasts) who underwent prepectoral or subpectoral breast reconstruction surgery between January 2019 and December 2020 were prospectively recruited. Patient demographics, comorbidities, oncological treatment, and intraoperative and postoperative data were evaluated to investigate the validity and stability of each surgical technique. The follow-up period was a minimum of 18 months.Results The surgical cohorts (22 prepectoral and 68 subpectoral) had comparable demographics. No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the two groups. The prepectoral group showed shorter operation times than the subpectoral group (mean: 97.27 and 127.63 minutes, respectively; P<0.001). Fewer days elapsed until drain removal and the total amount of drainage was less in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (mean: postoperative day [POD] 8.95 and 10.06, respectively; P=0.048) and (501.72 mL and 671.19 mL, respectively; P=0.009). The numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) scores at POD 7 were significantly lower in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (mean: 0.41 and 1.82, respectively; P=0.029). There were no statistically significant differences in the NPRS scores at POD 1 or the BREAST-Q questionnaire scores at 3 months.Conclusions Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix can feasibly replace the conventional subpectoral breast reconstruction technique and has the advantages of reducing operation time, length of hospitalization, and long-term postoperative pain.

"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.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction with complete anterior implant coverage using a single, large, square-shaped acellular dermal matrix

BACKGROUND

Several studies have discussed various methods of prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction using an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) prosthesis to achieve full coverage. However, methods for anterior coverage have rarely been reported. In this study, prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction with complete anterior implant coverage was performed using a square piece of ADM. This study aimed to introduce our prepectoral DTI technique and determine its functional and cosmetic outcomes as well as compare them with those of existing subpectoral DTI techniques.

METHODS

This prospective comparative study focused on 29 patients (35 breasts) and 34 patients (35 breasts) who underwent breast reconstruction via subpectoral implant insertion (control group) and anterior coverage prepectoral implant insertion (anterior coverage group), respectively. Postoperative complications were noted, and breast symmetry was evaluated using the Vectra H2 three-dimensional scanner. The modified Kyungpook National University Hospital Breast-Q (KNUH Breast-Q) scale was used to assess the patient's subjective satisfaction with the reconstruction and postoperative quality of life.

RESULTS

No remarkable differences in terms of complications (seroma, skin necrosis, nipple-areola complex necrosis, hematoma, capsular contracture, and infection) were noted in both groups. Compared with controls, considerably better results were observed among those in the anterior coverage group in terms of the mean drain removal period. Furthermore, those in the anterior coverage group showed greater symmetry on three-dimensional scans than the controls; however, this was not statistically significant. Subjective satisfaction and postoperative quality of life measured using the KNUH Breast-Q scale were not significantly different between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering its stability, faster recovery time, and cosmetic benefit, prepectoral breast reconstruction with anterior implant coverage using a single, large ADM is a good choice to perform breast reconstruction with implant insertion in patients who have undergone mastectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction is safe in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

Many breast reconstruction patients undergo post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), which is well known to increase the risk of complications. There is limited data on outcomes and safety of prepectoral breast reconstruction in this setting. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage breast reconstruction in patients undergoing PMRT.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of two-stage breast reconstructions performed at our institution during a 22-month period. Patients who received PMRT were identified, and two cohorts were created: those who underwent prepectoral versus subpectoral reconstruction. We collected data including patient characteristics, operative variables, and clinical outcomes. Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted.

RESULTS

We captured 313 patients (492 breasts) that had undergone two-stage reconstruction. A total of 69 breasts received PMRT; 28 were reconstructed prepectorally, and 41 breasts subpectorally. The two cohorts were well matched. We detected no differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups after a median follow-up time of 24 months. There, however, were differences in perioperative variables. Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with a shorter operative time, shorter length of hospital stay, higher cost, and shorter time to final reconstruction. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that prepectoral reconstruction is not an independent predictor of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Although radiation is a known risk factor for many complications following breast reconstruction, prepectoral device placement is safe in this high-risk population. Although the rate of capsular contracture is reported to be higher in the general prepectoral population, this was not found in our radiated prepectoral population.

Abnormal Ultrasonographic Findings of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Correlations with Histopathology

Background: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstruction can show various ultrasound (US) findings. However, there are limited reports on the US features of the ADM. The aims of this study were to evaluate US findings of the ADM in implant-based breast reconstruction and correlate them with histopathological findings. Methods: Between January 2015 and August 2020, 250 women who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction with ADM and a breast US examination at 6 months to 1 year after reconstruction were retrospectively analyzed. Abnormal US findings were classified as type 1 (focal thickening with decreased echogenicity), 2 (diffusely hyperechoic), or 3 (bright echogenic spots). ADM biopsy was performed in 33 patients who underwent second stage or revisional surgeries. Results: In total, 176 consecutive women with 207 US findings were analyzed. The US findings were normal in 52.2% of the women. The percentages of type 1, 2, and 3 patients were 13.5%, 11.1%, and 23. 2%, respectively. These patients had microscopic findings that showed patchy areas with chronic inflammatory infiltrates, dense collagen bundles without degenerative or inflammatory changes, and empty spaces or degenerated foci unaccompanied by inflammation. Conclusion: Knowing the various ADM presentations on US can help avoid unnecessary invasive procedures.

From Salvage to Prevention: A Single-Surgeon Experience with Acellular Dermal Matrix and Infection in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Increasing amounts of acellular dermal matrix are being used with the adoption of prepectoral breast reconstruction. Postoperative infection remains a challenge in breast reconstruction, and the contribution of acellular dermal matrix type, processing, and sterility assurance level to risk of complications in prepectoral reconstruction is not well studied.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction from February of 2017 to July of 2020. Because of an increase in the rate of infection, the drain protocol was changed and acellular dermal matrix type was switched from AlloDerm (sterility assurance level, 10-3) to DermACELL (sterility assurance level, 10-6) in January of 2019. Demographic and surgical variables were collected, in addition to details regarding development and management of infection.

RESULTS

Despite higher rates of direct-to-implant reconstruction and bilateral procedures and increased implant volumes, the rate of infection was significantly lower in patients who received DermACELL instead of AlloDerm [two of 38 (5.3 percent) versus 11 of 41 (26.8 percent); p = 0.014]. Drain duration was slightly longer in the DermACELL group, consistent with the change in drain protocol. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics remained similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With increased reliance on large amounts of acellular dermal matrix for prepectoral breast reconstruction, it directly follows that the properties of acellular dermal matrix with respect to incorporation, sterility, and implant support are that much more important to consider. There have been few studies comparing different types of acellular dermal matrix in prepectoral breast reconstruction, and further research is required to determine the contribution of acellular dermal matrix type and processing techniques to development of postoperative infection.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently experienced a resurgence in popularity because of its lower levels of postoperative pain and animation deformity. BREAST-Q, a well-validated patient-reported outcomes tool, was used to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life. The goal of this study was to assess patient-reported outcomes at 6-month and 1-year follow-up after direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Sixty-nine consented adult patients undergoing a total of 110 direct-to-implant, prepectoral, postmastectomy breast reconstructions completed BREAST-Q questionnaires immediately preoperatively, and at 6 and 12 months thereafter.

RESULTS

Mean breast satisfaction decreased nonsignificantly from 61.3 preoperatively to 58.6 at 12 months after reconstruction (p = 0.32). Psychosocial well-being improved nonsignificantly from 67.1 preoperatively to 71.1 at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.26). Physical well-being of the chest was insignificantly different, from 74.4 to 73.3 at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.62). Finally, sexual well-being similarly remained nonsignificantly changed from 60.2 preoperatively, to 59.1 at 12 months (p = 0.80). The use of acellular dermal matrix and postmastectomy radiotherapy did not have any significant effects on patient-reported outcomes. Through regression analysis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, increased age, and incidence of rippling were found to negatively influence BREAST-Q results.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction demonstrated an overall satisfaction with their outcomes. As prepectoral breast reconstruction continues to advance and grow in popularity, patient-reported outcomes such as those presented in this study become of paramount importance in practice.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

A Retrospective Study of Latissimus Dorsi Flap in Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Background

There are many different methods used for immediate breast reconstruction, but the advantages and disadvantages between distinct methods are not reported and compared directly.

Methods

We collected the data of patients who underwent breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2015 and classified a total of 103 patients into three groups: i) skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant and partial latissimus dorsi flap (MIPLD); ii) skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy with the whole latissimus dorsi flap (MWLD); and iii) breast-conserving surgery and partial latissimus dorsi flap (BCSPLD). The outcome, safety, and cosmetic outcome of the latissimus dorsi muscle flap with or without implant were reported and compared.

Results

The procedures were successful in all cases. None of the patients had severe complications. The 5-year distant metastasis-free survival is 94.2%. All the patients exhibited good arm and back function. Based on the evaluation of the BREAST-Q score, the cosmetic outcome of Satisfaction with Breasts was excellent or good in 97.8% of the cases.

Conclusions

MIPLD, MWLD, and BCSPLD stand for three distinct methods for immediate breast reconstruction with good outcome and aesthetic effect. They were safe, were easy to perform, and provided quick recovery and good quality of life. Therefore, these three breast reconstructive methods are worthy of widespread use in clinical practice and provide different ways to reconstruct the breast according to the patients’ conditions and preferences.

Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: early and long-term safety evaluation of 146 unselected cases of the early pre-pectoral era of a single-institution, including cases with previous breast irradiation and post-mastectomy radiation therapy

We re-evaluated acute and early-late toxicity-related factors among pre-pectoral immediate tissue expander/implant (TE/I) breast reconstruction (BR) unselected, first-era, cases, including previous breast radiation treatment and post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). A retrospective analysis of 146 (117 therapeutic and 29 prophylactic) pre-pectoral reconstructions, between 2012 and 2016, considered patient-related (age, body mass index [BMI], smoke-history, comorbidity, BRCA mutation), and treatment-related characteristics (previous irradiation, axillary surgery, PMRT, pre- and postoperative chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and target-therapy). Safety was evaluated as acute and early-late complications, and TE/I failures. At multivariate analysis of the 146 cases (117 patients submitted to BR) a significant factor related to acute toxicity was: BMI ≥ 25 (31.3% [≥ 25] vs 8.8% [< 25]; OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.56-12.6; p = 0.003), while previous breast surgery on ipsilateral side presented a borderline significance (31.6% [previous surgery] vs 7.4% [no previous surgery]; OR 3.74, 95% CI 0.97-14.40; p = 0.055). Factors significantly related to TE/I failure were: current or previous smoking exposition (13.8% [smokers] vs 2.6% [non-smokers]; OR 7.32, 95% CI 1.37-39.08; p = 0.02) and preoperative chemotherapy (18.8% [yes] vs 3.5% [no]; OR 8.16, 95% CI 1.29-51.63; p = 0.026). At 4-year median follow-up, 3 deaths, 5 locoregional recurrences, and 14 distant metastases occurred. Immediate pre-pectoral BR is safe and effective, with low rates of acute and early-late complications. BMI and previous breast surgery were related to higher complications but not failure; smoking and preoperative chemotherapy were related to TE/I explant. Previous RT and PMRT were related neither to early-late toxicity nor failure.

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

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction when performed using the dual-plane technique can be associated with increased postoperative pain, longer recovery, functional impairment, and animation deformity. These issues can be avoided by using the pre-pectoral technique that traditionally uses larger pieces of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and results in increased costs. It is unclear how these two methods compare when the technique is modified to avoid the use of additional ADM.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction using a dual-plane or pre-pectoral technique between January 2014 and December 2019. Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction was performed using a partial anterior coverage technique, and therefore no additional ADM was used per case as compared to the dual-plane technique. Rates of post-surgical complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 77 patients, 48 (86 breasts) underwent dual-plane reconstruction, whereas 29 (48 breasts) underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction. Mean follow-up time for the dual-plane and pre-pectoral groups was 23.3 and 8.7 months, respectively (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in the rates of any of the short-term post-surgical outcomes between the two groups: seroma (14% vs 6.3%, p = 0.175); hematoma (2.3% vs 4.2%, p = 0.617); skin/nipple necrosis (7% vs 10.4%, p = 0.522); wound skin infection (2.3% vs 2.1%, p = 1.0); wound dehiscence (4.7% vs 2.1, p = 0.654); and implant loss (1.2% vs 8.3%, p = 0.055).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-pectoral reconstruction using a partial anterior coverage technique appears to be a safe alternative to dual-plane reconstruction when considering short-term post-surgical complications.

Partial Latissimus Dorsi Muscle Flap With Implant for Immediate Breast Reconstruction

PURPOSE

Latissimus dorsi flap is a widely used technique in breast reconstruction. Here we describe a modified method, the partial latissimus dorsi muscle flap with vertical incision for immediate implant-based breast reconstruction which has been used at our institution since 2014. Our primary objective is to determine the safety, prognostic benefit, and cosmetic outcome of this surgical procedure.

METHODS

The study included a cohort of 31 breast cancer patients who underwent unilateral breast reconstruction with detailed follow-up information at Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology from January 2014 to March 2015. All procedures were performed by the same surgical team at the department of breast surgery. The data for selecting the appropriate implant and evaluating the surgical outcome were collected. The cosmetic outcome was evaluated by the BREAST-Q 1 y after surgery.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 69 mo, none of the patients showed local recurrence (although two patients had distant metastasis). The 5-y distant metastasis-free survival was 93.5%. The median duration of surgical procedure was 2 h and 24 min with few surgical and functional complications. Based on BREAST-Q, the outcome of Satisfaction with Breasts was "excellent" or "good" in 96.7% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Partial latissimus dorsi muscle flap with the vertical incision is a safe, effective, time-saving, and feasible alternative to the whole latissimus dorsi flap which has superior cosmetic outcome and reduces recovery time. It is, therefore, worth advocating for application in clinical practice.

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.

Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM

Background:

The majority of two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction has been described utilizing acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Although reports of prepectoral breast reconstruction without ADM exist, there is a paucity of comparative studies.

Methods:

A single-institution retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients undergoing immediate prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from 2017 to 2019. Short-term reconstructive and aesthetic complications were compared between cases that utilized ADM for support and those that did not.

Results:

In total, 76 cases (51 patients) were identified, of which 35 cases utilized ADM and 41 did not. Risk factors and demographics were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of body mass index, which was higher in the ADM cohort (29.3 versus 25.4, P = 0.011). Average follow-up length was also longer in patients who received ADM (20.3 versus 12.3 months, P < 0.001). Intraoperative expander fill was higher in patients who did not receive ADM (296.8 cm³ versus 151.4 cm³, P < 0.001) though final implant size was comparable in both cohorts (P = 0.584). There was no significant difference in the rate of any complication between the ADM and no ADM cohorts (25.7% versus 17.1%, respectively P = 0.357), including major mastectomy flap necrosis (P = 0.245), major infection (P = 1.000), seroma (P = 0.620), expander explantation (P = 1.000), capsular contracture (P = 1.000), implant dystopia (P = 1.000), and rippling (P = 0.362).

Conclusions:

Immediate two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with tissue expanders has comparable rates of short-term complications with or without ADM support. Safety of prepectoral expander placement without ADM may warrant more selective ADM use in these cases.

Splitting the Difference: Using Synthetic and Biologic Mesh to Decrease Cost in Prepectoral Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction

SUMMARY

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has minimized morbidity and dynamic deformities associated with submuscular implant-based breast reconstruction. However, reliance on implant coverage with acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant reconstruction remains limited by high material costs. The authors describe a technique in which anterior implant coverage in prepectoral reconstruction is split into acellular dermal matrix inferolaterally and synthetic, absorbable mesh superiorly. Use of acellular dermal matrix inferiorly provides coverage and reinforces the inframammary fold, whereas the absorbable mesh is trimmed and sutured to the acellular dermal matrix at the appropriate tension to support the implant and relieve pressure on mastectomy flaps. A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive prepectoral one-stage breast reconstructions using this technique at a single institution. Patient demographics, mastectomy and reconstruction characteristics, reconstructive outcomes, and cost of support materials were queried and analyzed. Eleven patients (21 breasts) underwent prepectoral immediate implant reconstruction with Vicryl and acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage. Average mastectomy weight was 775.8 g. Smooth, round cohesive implants were used in all cases and average implant size was 514.5 ml. Overall complication rates were low and included one minor infection (4.8 percent) and one case of minor mastectomy flap and partial nipple necrosis each (4.8 percent). Calculated cost savings of Vicryl and acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage was up to $3415 in unilateral and $6830 in bilateral cases. Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix inferiorly and Vicryl mesh superiorly is a safe technique that decreases material costs associated with support materials and allows the surgeon to precisely control the implant pocket and position.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Innovations for the future of breast surgery

BACKGROUND

Future innovations in science and technology with an impact on multimodal breast cancer management from a surgical perspective are discussed in this narrative review. The work was undertaken in response to the Commission on the Future of Surgery project initiated by the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

METHODS

Expert opinion was sought around themes of surgical de-escalation, reduction in treatment morbidities, and improving the accuracy of breast-conserving surgery in terms of margin status. There was emphasis on how the primacy of surgical excision in an era of oncoplastic and reconstructive surgery is increasingly being challenged, with more effective systemic therapies that target residual disease burden, and permit response-adapted approaches to both breast and axillary surgery.

RESULTS

Technologies for intraoperative margin assessment can potentially half re-excision rates after breast-conserving surgery, and sentinel lymph node biopsy will become a therapeutic procedure for many patients with node-positive disease treated either with surgery or chemotherapy as the primary modality. Genomic profiling of tumours can aid in the selection of patients for neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies as well as prevention strategies. Molecular subtypes are predictive of response to induction therapies and reductive approaches to surgery in the breast or axilla.

CONCLUSION

Treatments are increasingly being tailored and based on improved understanding of tumour biology and relevant biomarkers to determine absolute benefit and permit delivery of cost-effective healthcare. Patient involvement is crucial for breast cancer studies to ensure relevance and outcome measures that are objective, meaningful, and patient-centred.

Examining the Effects of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Autologous Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is known to increase the risk of multiple adverse outcomes after breast reconstruction. In the context of delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction, PMRT is typically conducted after placement of subpectoral (SP) tissue expanders. With the re-emergence of prepectoral (PP) reconstruction, there are little data assessing the outcomes of PP reconstruction in breasts receiving PMRT. We compared postoperative outcomes of PMRT patients undergoing delayed-immediate, autologous breast reconstruction with placement of tissue expanders in either the PP or SP plane.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on all consecutive patients who underwent delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction and received PMRT at either the Stanford University or the Johns Hopkins University Hospitals between January 2009 and December 2018. Demographics, comorbidities, perioperative information, and oncologic data were collected for all patients. Complications were collected and analyzed after stage 1 surgery, between 30 days of stage 1 and up to stage 2 surgery, and after stage 2 surgery. Multivariable regressions were used to determine predictors of 1 or more complications.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients (73 breasts) were included. Prepectoral reconstruction comprised of 52.2% of the cohort, and the remaining 47.8% were SP reconstructions. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between groups, except for premastectomy radiation, which was more prevalent in the PP cohort (P = 0.010). Complications were similar between cohorts after stage 1 surgery (P = 0.420), between stages 1 and 2 (P = 0.100), and after stage 2 (P = 0.570). There were higher rates of skin necrosis in the SP cohort between stages 1 and 2 (PP: 2.6%, SP: 20%, P = 0.004). Multivariable analysis revealed body mass index to be the only predictor of complication (P = 0.041). The mean number of revisionary surgeries was higher in the SP cohort (PP: 0.8 vs SP: 1.9, P = 0.002). The mean follow-up was 385.5 days and similar between groups (P = 0.870).

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of overall complication were similar between PP and SP expander placement. However, in SP reconstructions, skin necrosis was significantly higher between stages 1 and 2. The patients in the SP cohort also underwent a greater number of revisionary surgeries, although overall rates of pursuing any revisionary surgery were similar between groups.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Development and Psychometric Validation of the BREAST-Q Animation Deformity Scale for Women Undergoing an Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

To assess the impact of animation deformity on health-related quality of life, a content-specific, valid, and reliable patient-reported outcome measure is needed. This report describes the development and validation of the BREAST-Q Animation Deformity scale.

METHODS

Women with breast cancer who had an implant-based reconstruction provided data. In phase 1 (January 2017 and December 2018), qualitive and cognitive patient interviews and expert input were used to develop and refine scale content. In phase 2 (March to June 2019), a field test study with members of the Love Research Army (LRA) was conducted. Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) analysis was used to examine psychometric properties.

RESULTS

In phase 1 of the study, qualitative (n = 11) and cognitive (n = 4) interview data and expert input (n = 9) led to the development of a 12-item scale measuring animation deformity. In phase 2, 651 LRA members provided data and 349 participated in a test-retest study. In the RMT analysis, the data fit the Rasch model (X²(96) = 104.06; p = 0.27). The scale's reliability was high, with person separation index and Cronbach alpha values with/without extremes of ≥ 0.84 and ≥ 0.92 respectively, and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.94). Mean scores on the Animation Deformity scale varied as predicted across subgroups of participants who reported differing amounts of change in breast appearance when their arms were lifted overhead or when they lifted something heavy, and for increasing happiness with the overall outcome of their breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

The 12-item Animation Deformity scale forms a new scale in the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module that can be used in comparative effectiveness research or to inform clinical care.

Immediate prepectoral implant reconstruction using TiLOOP Bra Pocket results in improved patient satisfaction over dual plane reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction accounts for the majority of breast reconstructive procedures performed in Australia. More recently, immediate prepectoral implant reconstruction using the TiLOOP Bra Pocket has gained popularity. This study compares post-surgical complications and patient-reported quality of life outcomes between immediate prepectoral and dual plane implant reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 80 consecutive patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomies and immediate implant reconstruction was conducted. Implants were either completely covered with TiLOOP Bra and/or TiLOOP Bra Pocket (pfm medical, Cologne, Germany) and secured in the prepectoral space (prepectoral group) or placed in the subpectoral plane with inferolateral mesh coverage (dual plane group). Data surrounding patient demographics, clinical details and post-surgical outcomes were compared. Patient-related quality of life outcomes were assessed with the Breast-Q questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients (109 breasts) operated on between June 2016 and December 2018 were included. The prepectoral and dual plane groups comprised of 40 patients each, including 50 and 59 operated breasts, respectively. Post-operative complications were comparable with 11 (22%) overall complications in the prepectoral group and eight (14%) in the dual plane group (P = 0.313). Implant loss was uncommon with four (8%) cases in the prepectoral group and five (8.5%) in the dual plane group (P = 0.929). Patient-reported quality of life outcomes were superior after prepectoral reconstruction with patients reporting a significantly higher score in the satisfaction with breasts domain (68.9 versus 57.5; P = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

Immediate prepectoral implant reconstruction with the TiLOOP Bra Pocket was associated with improved patient satisfaction and demonstrated no difference in early post-operative outcomes.

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

Background:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Next-generation surgical meshes for drug delivery and tissue engineering applications: materials, design and emerging manufacturing technologies

Abstract

Surgical meshes have been employed in the management of a variety of pathological conditions including hernia, pelvic floor dysfunctions, periodontal guided bone regeneration, wound healing and more recently for breast plastic surgery after mastectomy. These common pathologies affect a wide portion of the worldwide population; therefore, an effective and enhanced treatment is crucial to ameliorate patients’ living conditions both from medical and aesthetic points of view. At present, non-absorbable synthetic polymers are the most widely used class of biomaterials for the manufacturing of mesh implants for hernia, pelvic floor dysfunctions and guided bone regeneration, with polypropylene and poly tetrafluoroethylene being the most common. Biological prostheses, such as surgical grafts, have been employed mainly for breast plastic surgery and wound healing applications. Despite the advantages of mesh implants to the treatment of these conditions, there are still many drawbacks, mainly related to the arising of a huge number of post-operative complications, among which infections are the most common. Developing a mesh that could appropriately integrate with the native tissue, promote its healing and constructive remodelling, is the key aim of ongoing research in the area of surgical mesh implants. To this end, the adoption of new biomaterials including absorbable and natural polymers, the use of drugs and advanced manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printing and electrospinning, are under investigation to address the previously mentioned challenges and improve the outcomes of future clinical practice. The aim of this work is to review the key advantages and disadvantages related to the use of surgical meshes, the main issues characterizing each clinical procedure and the future directions in terms of both novel manufacturing technologies and latest regulatory considerations.

Graphic abstract

Outcome of complete acellular dermal matrix wrap with polyurethane implant in immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction

Background

Polyurethane implants have been used on and off in breast reconstruction since 1991 while prepectoral breast reconstruction has gained popularity in recent times. In this study, we present our outcomes from the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) complete wrap with polyurethane implants in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of prospectively maintained database from 41 patients receiving complete ADM wrap with prepectoral polyurethane implants over a 3-year period. Selection criteria were adapted from a previous study (4135 Trust Clinical Audit Database) evaluating prepectoral reconstruction with Braxon matrices. Patient demographics, operative data, surgical complications, and outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 52 implant reconstructions were performed in 41 patients with a mean follow-up of 14.3 months (range, 6–36 months). The overall reported complication rates including early (less than 6 weeks) and late complications. Early complications included two patients (4.9%) with wound dehiscence. One of which had an implant loss that was salvageable. Another patient (2%) developed red-breast syndrome and two women (4.9%) developed with seroma treated conservatively. Late complications included one patient (2%) with grade II capsular contraction, 12 patients with grade I-II rippling and two patients (4.9%) with grade III rippling.

Conclusions

We present our experience of prepectoral polyurethane implant using complete ADM wrap. This is one of the few papers to report on the outcome of the prepectoral use of polyurethane in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. Our early observational series show satisfactory outcome and long-term results are warranted by a large multicenter study.

Optimizing the Mastectomy Flap to Improve Aesthetic Outcomes

The aesthetics of breast reconstruction inherently rely on both the ablative and reconstructive procedures. Mastectomy flap quality remains one of the most critical factors in determining the success of a reconstruction and its aesthetic outcome. Maintaining the segmental perfusion to the nipple and skin envelope during mastectomy requires preserving the subcutaneous tissue superficial to the breast capsule. Because this layer of tissue varies in thickness among different patients and within each breast, anatomic dissection along the appropriate planes is required rather than a "one-size-fits-all" mentality. A team-based approach between the breast surgeon and plastic surgeon will optimize both the ablative and reconstructive procedures while engaging in a process of shared decision-making with the patient. Preoperative clinical analysis and utilization of imaging to assess individual breast anatomy will help guide mastectomies as well as decisions on reconstructive modalities. Critical assessment of mastectomy flaps is paramount and requires flexibility to adapt reconstructive paradigms intraoperatively to minimize the risk of complications and provide the best aesthetic result.

Comprehensive management of breast augmentation with polyacrylamide hydrogel injection based on 15 years of experience: a report on 325 cases

Background

As a permanent soft tissue filler, the use of polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAAG) has been banned due to its myriad complications. However, a large number of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients whose breasts were augmented with the gel injection have continued to seek medical advice. This study aimed to explore standardized clinical management of breast augmentation with PAAG.

Methods

The authors retrospectively collected the data of a total of 325 patients following PAAG injection for breast augmentation from 2003 to 2018. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed preoperatively to disclose the general distribution of the gel and its infiltration into the muscle and gland. Debridement surgery, including the PAAG evacuation, pathologic tissue excision, and pocket irrigation via the periareolar incision, was performed. Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) using silicone prostheses was carried out on 86 patients and delayed breast reconstruction (DBR) was performed on 35 patients.

Results

Most of the patients in the group were satisfied with their surgical outcome, their symptoms disappeared after the debridement surgery, and they experienced no relapse or recurrence. Unfortunately, for most of the cases, it was extremely difficult to remove the PAAG completely-however, improved quality of life as seen through the BREAST-Q evaluation.

Conclusions

With the guidance of MRI images, surgery, including PAAG evacuation, pathologic tissue excision, and pocket irrigation via the periareolar incision, was a reliable method to ensure the maximal removal of the PAAG. Immediate or secondary breast reconstruction with sub-glandular placement of silicone prostheses showed a satisfactory mid-term effect.

Surgeon's preference of subcutaneous tissue resection: most important factor for short-term complications in subcutaneous implant placement after mastectomy-results of a cohort study

Purpose

Little is known about the reason of high short-term complication rates after the subcutaneous placement of breast implants or expanders after mastectomy without biological matrices or synthetic meshes. This study aims to evaluate complications and their risk factors to develop guidelines for decreasing complication rates.

Methods

We included all cases of mastectomy followed by subcutaneous implant or expander placement between 06/2017 and 05/2018 (n = 92). Mean follow-up time was 12 months.

Results

Explantation occurred in 15 cases (16.3%). The surgeon’s preference for moderate vs. radical subcutaneous tissue resection had a significant influence on explantation rates (p = 0.026), impaired wound healing or infection (requiring surgery) (p = 0.029, p = 0.003 respectively) and major complications (p = 0.018).

Multivariate analysis revealed significant influence on complication rates for radical subcutaneous tissue resection (p up to 0.003), higher implant volume (p up to 0.023), higher drain volume during the last 24 h (p = 0.049), higher resection weight (p = 0.035) and incision type (p = 0.011).

Conclusion

Based on the significant risk factors we suggest the following guidelines to decrease complication rates: favoring thicker skin envelopes after surgical preparation, using smaller implants, removing drains based on a low output volume during the last 24 h and no use of periareolar incision with extension medial or lateral. We should consider ADMs for subcutaneous one-stage reconstructions.

The individual surgeon’s preference of subcutaneous tissue resection is of highest relevance for short-term complications—this has to be part of internal team discussions and should be considered in future trials for comparable results.

Prepectoral Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix: Do We See a Difference?

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity because of advantages over the subpectoral technique. Acellular dermal matrix use with implant-based breast reconstruction has become common because of its perceived superior aesthetic outcome. Matrices are expensive, however, and recent evidence has pointed to several potential complications. This article reports a series of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions with and without acellular dermal matrix and compared their outcomes.

METHODS

This is a single-surgeon retrospective review of patients who underwent staged prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy over two periods. Patients with well-perfused mastectomy skin flaps with a homogeneous thickness underwent reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix initially. On evolution of the practice, it was not used. Patient demographics, operative data, and complications were analyzed. Aesthetic outcome was measured by the BREAST-Q survey and the Aesthetic Item Scale. A cost analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included (acellular dermal matrix group, n = 19; non-acellular dermal matrix group, n = 21). The nonmatrix group had one case (5 percent) of seroma and one case (5 percent) with hematoma; there were none in the acellular dermal matrix group. Average BREAST-Q and Aesthetic Item Scale scores were 82.3 versus 81.6 (p = 0.954) and 20.98 versus 20.43 (p = 0.640) for the matrix and nonmatrix groups, respectively. The direct cost savings for the authors' institution over 1 year if matrix was not used in all cases of implant-based breast reconstruction would be estimated at $3,105,960 to $6,211,920 for unilateral and bilateral cases, respectively, for Medicare reimbursement.

CONCLUSIONS

With adequate patient selection, acellular dermal matrix is not always required during two-stage prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction for good aesthetic outcomes. The economic burden on patients and the health care system could be lessened with selective matrix use.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction with complete implant coverage using double-crossed acellular dermal matrixs

Background

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction involving full implant coverage with an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is more convenient, provides better aesthetic results, and carries lower risk of complications than does the traditional dual-plane method with an ADM. However, the recently reported technique usually involves full wrapping of the implant using a single, large ADM. We aimed to clarify the usefulness of an implant covering technique using two double-crossed ADMs.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated the records of 23 breast cancer patients who, between February 2017 and March 2018, received skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate prepectoral implant-breast reconstruction. We assessed preoperative characteristics, cancer treatment parameters, incidence of postoperative complications (necrosis, capsular contracture, infection), and patient satisfaction at 12 months postoperatively.

Results

This cohort (mean age, 45.5 years; body mass index, 22.1 kg/m²; preoperative breast volume, 315.7 cc, excised mass weight, 291.4 g; silicone implant size, 252.4 cc) included 11 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ and 12 with invasive ductal carcinoma. Postoperatively, one patient received radiotherapy and nine received chemotherapy. Among postoperative complications, we noted capsular contracture (1/23, 4.3%), wound dehiscence (2/23, 8.7%), and seroma (3/23, 13.0%). Good patient satisfaction (mean score, 4.2-4.8 on the KNUH Breast Reconstruction Satisfaction Questionnaire) was obtained in all categories (breast symmetry, reconstructed breast size, shape, feel, pain, scar, self-confidence, sexual attractiveness, and overall satisfaction).

Conclusions

Prepectoral breast reconstruction involving complete implant coverage with double-crossed ADMs represents a good alternative to the traditional dual-plane subpectoral method, providing good patient satisfaction without adverse outcomes.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most commonly used reconstruction technique after mastectomy. This is because skin-sparing mastectomy has become possible with advancements in oncology. In addition, the development of breast implants and the advent of acellular dermal matrices have reduced postoperative complications and resulted in superior cosmetic results. The most frequently performed surgical breast reconstruction procedure for the past 20 years was the insertion of an implant under the pectoralis major muscle by means of the dual plane approach. However, some patients suffered from pain and animation deformity caused by muscle manipulation. Recently, a prepectoral approach has been used to solve the above problems in select patients, and the results are similar to subpectoral results. However, this technique is not always chosen due to the number of considerations for successful surgery. In this article, we will discuss the emergence of prepectoral breast reconstruction, indications and contraindications, surgical procedures, and outcomes.

Complications Following Subpectoral Versus Prepectoral Breast Augmentation: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Subpectoral and prepectoral planes have commonly been used in implant-based breast augmentation. The effect of implant plane on complication rate was still unclear. This meta-analysis demonstrated current evidence with regard to comparison of complication rates between subpectoral and prepectoral breast augmentation.

METHODS

Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane library were searched to December 2018. The results of selected studies were meta-analyzed to obtain a pooled odds ratio of the effect of subpectoral versus prepectoral breast augmentation on rates of complications.

RESULTS

There were significantly lower rates of capsular contracture and hematoma but higher rates of implant displacement and animation deformity in the subpectoral group compared with the prepectoral group. There was no significant difference with regard to rates of reoperation, seroma, rippling, infection and implant rupture between these two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Subpectoral and subglandular breast augmentations both have their merits and demerits with regard to complications. The pros and cons of each procedure should be fully explained to patients and selection of implant plane should be considered more comprehensively.

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 bioengineered prosthetic breast reconstruction: advancements, evidence, and outcomes

Recent advancements in prosthetic breast reconstruction have provided the foundation for the bioengineered breast. These advancements include improved mastectomy techniques, autologous fat grafting, acellular dermal matrices (ADMs), and improved devices. Device-based breast reconstruction has evolved from subcutaneous, partial or total subpectoral, and now to prepectoral placement of devices. The evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the bioengineered breast continues to increase. This manuscript will review the fundamental components of the bioengineered breast and provide an update of the current evidence.

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: a joint consensus guide from UK, European and USA breast and plastic reconstructive surgeons

Advances in implantable biologic and synthetic products over the last decade have enabled surgeons to replace traditional submuscular implant-based breast reconstruction techniques with a prepectoral or muscle-sparing technique. Prepectoral breast reconstruction is becoming increasingly popular among surgeons and patients due to the preservation of normal chest wall anatomy, with the restoration of body image with minimal morbidity. In this article, we have described a guide to prepectoral or muscle-sparing breast reconstruction with a particular emphasis on patient selection, technique and postoperative outcomes. Hence, a joint consensus guide from European and USA breast and plastic reconstructive surgeons has been agreed, and a crowd-writing method has been adopted to produce this guide.

A systematic review of complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction

The use of implants for breast reconstruction began over four decades ago, with implants initially placed in the prepectoral space. Concerns arose regarding the high incidence of capsular contracture and complication rates. With the introduction of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), plastic surgeons are again considering the advantages of prepectoral implant placement. A systematic review was conducted to examine complication profiles in prepectoral breast reconstruction alone versus prepectoral with ADM or mesh. A systematic review of the PubMed database was performed from inception to March 2017 to identify literature on postmastectomy patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without ADM or mesh. Study characteristics, complication rates, and outcomes were extracted for analysis. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and complication profiles were analyzed using the random-effects model. Twenty-seven studies met criteria for inclusion out of 550 identified for review. For 1881 total breasts, the complication rate with ADM was 23.4%, while the rate without an additional implant material was 27.5%. The difference in the capsular contracture rate with and without ADM was 2.3% and 12.4%, respectively. The use of ADM in prepectoral breast reconstruction correlated with lower capsular contracture and overall complications rates; however, rates of implant loss, infection, and mastectomy flap necrosis were higher with the use of ADM. Results were variable across studies, and in general, the quality of evidence reported was low. Because the methodology for outcome assessment was inconsistent, there is a need for further investigation with comparative studies and standardized outcome reporting.

Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Early Outcomes and Analysis of Postoperative Pain

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction provides high-quality aesthetic results in appropriate candidates. Most commonly, implants are placed in the subpectoral space which can lead to pain and breast animation. Surgical and technological advances have allowed for successful prepectoral implant placement which may eliminate these trade-offs.

OBJECTIVES

Here we present early outcomes from 153 reconstructions in 94 patients who underwent prepectoral DTI. We sought to determine whether these patients have less postoperative pain and narcotic use than subpectoral implant or expander placement.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for all prepectoral DTI reconstructions at our institution from 2015 to 2016. Data were collected on postoperative pain and narcotic use while in hospital.

RESULTS

The average follow-up time was 8.5 months (range, 3-17 months) and the overall complication rate was 27% (n = 41) with the most common complications being skin necrosis (9%, n = 13) and infection (7%, n = 11). No statistically significant difference in complications was found in patients who underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy. Patients who underwent prepectoral DTI reconstruction did not have a statistically significant difference in postoperative pain and narcotic use while in-hospital compared with other techniques.

CONCLUSION

Prepectoral DTI reconstruction provides good results with similar complication rates to subpectoral techniques. Prepectoral DTI eliminates the problem of breast animation. Although our series did not reach statistical significance in pain scores or requirement for postoperative narcotics, we believe that it is an important preliminary result and with larger numbers we anticipate a more definitive conclusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Technical Algorithm

Despite falling out of favor in the 1970s, prepectoral breast reconstruction has resurfaced in the recent years as a safe and effective alternative to subpectoral/partial subpectoral breast reconstruction in carefully selected patients. This article outlines an algorithmic technical approach to prepectoral breast reconstruction for new patients and revision patients.

Strategies and considerations in selecting between subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction

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

Subcutaneous Prosthetic Breast Reconstructions following Skin Reduction Mastectomy

Background:

Prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction is gaining popularity, offering muscle preservation and outcomes similar to subpectoral implant placement in small or moderate size breasts. This study compares the complications of prepectoral and subpectoral immediate prosthetic breast reconstructions following skin reduction mastectomy in large and ptotic breasts.

Methods:

All consecutive patients who underwent immediate tissue expander-based reconstruction following Wise pattern skin reduction mastectomy from November 2011 through August 2017 by a single surgeon were reviewed. The collected data included patient demographics and complications (eg, skin necrosis, hematoma, infection, seroma, implant loss, capsular contracture).

Results:

A total of 54 patients underwent 87 immediate breast reconstructions including 45 subpectoral and 42 prepectoral tissue expander placements. The subpectoral patients had greater body mass indexes (32.5 ± 6.6 versus 29.9 ± 5.4, P = 0.026), higher initial (518 ± 168 ml versus 288 ± 140 ml, P < 0.001) and final (694 ± 123 ml versus 585 ± 122 ml, P = 0.014) implant volumes, more skin flap necrosis (40.0% versus 16.7%, P = 0.044) and infections (37.8% versus 11.9%, P = 0.01) than their prepectoral counterparts, whereas seromas were more common in the prepectoral group (4.4% versus 26.2%, P = 0.015). The overall complication rate, although higher in the subpectoral group compared with the prepectoral group, was not significantly different (62.2% versus 40.5%, P = 0.072).

Conclusions:

Prepectoral tissue expander placement after skin reduction mastectomy is an appealing reconstructive option in patients with large and ptotic breasts. Prosthetic reconstruction following Wise-pattern skin reduction mastectomy is invariably associated with high complication rates irrespective of the plane of implant placement. Greater emphasis should be placed on patient counseling and complication prevention in this challenging patient population.

Breast Reconstruction Actualized in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-implant, Prepectoral Polyurethane Positioning: Early Experience and Preliminary Results

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy has been the most common breast reconstruction procedure performed, for both breast cancer treatment and prophylactically. Subpectoral implant placement with partial detachment of the pectoralis major muscle has been the procedure of choice for staged reconstruction and direct-to-implantation. Prepectoral implant placement has recently increased in popularity among plastic surgeons owing to the high rates of animation deformity, loss of muscle function, and chronic pain observed with submuscular implant placement. Acellular dermal matrices or synthetic meshes have been used for implant coverage and support to avoid capsular contracture and implant visibility. In the present study, we have introduced breast reconstruction actualized in nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant with prepectoral polyurethane positioning (BRAND4P).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 34 nipple-sparing mastectomies and immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstructions with prepectoral polyurethane-coated implant placement were performed in 21 patients (13 bilateral and 8 unilateral). The implant was placed subcutaneously in the exact place of the excised breast parenchyma with no further coverage.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 4 months, no major complications had been observed. No patient presented with animation deformity or grade III-IV capsular contracture. Patient satisfaction, assessed using the BREAST-Q, was excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

The BRAND4P method represents a novel prepectoral approach and a feasible alternative to subpectoral implant placement among the available implant-based breast reconstruction techniques.