A retrospective comparative analysis of risk factors and outcomes in direct-to-implant and two-stages prepectoral breast reconstruction: BMI and radiotherapy as new selection criteria of patients

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 Seroma Treatment Protocol Based on US-Guided Aspiration in DTI Prepectoral Reconstruction: A Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Seroma is a common complication after prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction with ADM, leading to wound dehiscencse, infection, and even loss of reconstruction at last. A new ultrasound (US) guided follow-up protocol has been applied to compare primary and secondary complications incidence and their treatment, and evaluate the effect of precocious seroma detection and its evacuation in reducing secondary complications.

METHODS

We enrolled 406 patients from January 1st, 2021 to July 1st, 2023 who underwent mastectomy and 1-stage prepectoral reconstruction with ADM. Experimental group counted 96 patients, whom have been treated as protocol fashion, therefore with multiple US-guided evaluations and eventual evacuations along with postoperative period; control group (310 patients) has exclusively been clinically evaluated.

RESULTS

Seroma incidence detected rate among experimental group, after 1-year follow-up, was 32.2%, compared to 16.8% in control cohort, additionally no other secondary complications were detected in the first group. Referring to the wound dehiscence incidence, a statistically significant higher frequency was observed in control group compared with treatment 1 (21.2% vs. 0%; P = .0027).

CONCLUSIONS

Seroma and correlated secondary complications may lead to additional surgeries, higher sanitary costs and even reconstructive failure. With a seriated US follow-up protocol application, the surgeon could promptly manage and treat seroma, decreasing additional complications rate, particularly wound dehiscence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Less is more? One-stage versus two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Most breast reconstructions are implant-based and can be performed either in a one-stage, direct-to-implant or in a two-stage, expander-implant-based reconstruction. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the safety and patient satisfaction of the two reconstruction approaches.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on 27 September 2022 using various databases. Studies comparing one-stage and two-stage implant reconstructions and reporting the following outcomes were included: patient satisfaction, aesthetics, complications, and/or costs. Reviews, case reports, or series with less than 20 patients and letters or comments were excluded. Comparisons were made between the one-stage reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction groups. The data extracted from all articles were analysed using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 1381 records identified, a total of 33 articles were included, representing 21529 patients. There were no significant differences between the one-stage and two-stage groups, except for the costs. The one-stage operation without ADM had lower costs than the two-stage operation without ADM, although the use of an ADM substantially increased the price of the operation to more than a two-stage reconstruction.

DISCUSSION

Equal patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes, and complication rates with lower costs justify one-stage breast reconstruction in carefully selected patients. This review shows that there is no evidence-based superior surgical approach. Future research should focus on the costs of the ADM versus an additional stage and patient-reported outcomes.

A Scoping Review of the Application of BREAST-Q in Surgical Research

Background

Collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data can facilitate cost-effective, evidence-based, and patient-centered care. The BREAST-Q has become the gold standard tool to measure PRO data in breast surgery. The last review of its application indicated that it was underutilized. Considering the evolution in breast surgery, the purpose of this study was to perform a scoping review of BREAST-Q application since 2015 and identify emerging trends and potential persistent gaps to guide patient-centered practice and future research in breast surgery.

Methods

We performed an electronic literature review to identify publications published in English that used the BREAST-Q to assess patient outcomes. We excluded validation studies, review papers, conference abstracts, discussions, comments, and/or responses to previously published papers.

Results

We identified 270 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Specific data was extracted to examine the evolution of the BREAST-Q application and examine clinical trends and research gaps.

Discussion

Despite a significant increase in BREAST-Q studies, gaps in the understanding of the patient experience remain. The BREAST-Q is uniquely designed to measure quality of life and satisfaction with outcome and care. The prospective collection of center-specific data for every type of breast surgery will generate important information for the provision of patient-centered and evidence-based care.

Outcomes of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in the Ptotic and Non-Ptotic Breast with Staged-Immediate Reconstruction Timing and Pre-Pectoral, Direct-to-Implant Technique

Background and objectives Proven to be oncologically safe, nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) preserves the entire breast skin envelope and is associated with higher patient satisfaction. However, breast ptosis is a relative contraindication to NSM, limiting who it is offered to. Direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction eliminates tissue expansion and shortens the reconstructive process but may be associated with mastectomy skin flap compromise after the placement of full-volume implants. Staged-immediate (SI) reconstruction initiates reconstruction two to three weeks after mastectomy. This timing and its use in DTI pre-pectoral (PP) breast reconstruction have not been reported. We aim to describe the outcomes of SI DTI PP reconstruction following NSM of ptotic and non-ptotic breasts. Methods Retrospective analysis utilizing descriptive statistics was completed evaluating patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with staged-immediate, pre-pectoral, direct-to-implant reconstruction by the senior author over a three-year period. Results and conclusions With SI timing, the majority of mastectomy-related problems occurred prior to implant placement, likely mitigating their effects on reconstruction following NSM, regardless of ptosis grade. Although a second procedure is needed for this reconstructive timing variation, over 50% of women achieved reconstruction completion at implant placement without further revision. These findings support the utility of SI timing in PP DTI reconstruction following NSM.

Mastectomy with one-stage or two-stage reconstruction in breast cancer: analysis of early outcomes and patient's satisfaction

Aim of this study is to compare early post-operative outcomes and patient's satisfaction after skin-sparing and/or nipple-sparing mastectomy (SSM/SNSM) followed either by breast reconstruction with one-stage prepectoral implantation or two-stage technique for breast cancer (BC) or BRCA1/2 mutation.From January 2018 to December 2021, 96 patients (mean age of 51.12 ± 10.9) underwent SSM/SNSM and were divided into two groups: in group A (65 patients, 67.7%), mastectomy was followed by one-stage reconstruction; in group B (31 patients, 32.3%) by two-stage. Operative time was significantly longer in A vs. B (307.6 ± 95.7 vs. 254.4 ± 90.91; P < 0.05). Previous breast surgery was more common in B vs. A (29.0% vs. 7.7%; P < 0.05), while bilateral surgery was performed more frequently in A vs. B (40% vs. 6.5%; P = 0.001). All SSM/SNSM for BRCA1/2 mutation were followed by immediate prepectoral implantation. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of post-operative complications. At pathology, DCIS and invasive ST forms, such as multicentric/multifocal forms, were detected more frequently in B, while NST type in A (all P < 0.05). A multivariate analysis showed improved post-operative satisfaction at BREAST-Q survey in Group A (P = 0.001). Encouraging oncologic outcomes after SSM/SNSM for BC enabled the improvement of breast reconstructive techniques. One-stage reconstruction is characterized by better aesthetic outcomes and by greater patient's satisfaction. When SSM/SNSM is technically difficult to perform, as in multicentric/multifocal forms or previous breast surgery, mastectomy followed by two-stage reconstruction should be considered to achieve a radical surgery.

Controlateral Symmetrisation in SRM for Breast Cancer: Now or Then? Immediate versus Delayed Symmetrisation in a Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction

Introduction: The timing of contralateral symmetrisation in patients with large and ptotic breasts undergoing a unilateral skin-reducing mastectomy (SRM) is one of the most debated topics in the reconstructive field. There is no evidence to support the advantage of immediate or delayed symmetrisation to help surgeons with this decision. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of immediate symmetrisation. Methods: A randomised observational study was conducted on patients who underwent an SRM for unilateral breast cancer. Based on a simple randomisation list, patients were divided into two groups: a delayed symmetrisation group versus an immediate symmetrisation group. The postoperative complications, BREAST-Q outcomes and reoperations were compared. Results: Out of a total of 84 patients undergoing an SRM between January 2018 and January 2021, 42 patients underwent immediate symmetrisation and 42 patients had delayed symmetrisation. Three implant losses (7.2%) were observed and we reported three wound dehiscences; one of these was in a contralateral breast reconstruction in the immediate symmetrisation group. The BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measures recorded better aesthetic outcomes and a high patient satisfaction for the immediate symmetrisation group. Conclusions: Simultaneous controlateral symmetrisation is a good alternative to achieve better satisfaction and quality of life for patients; from a surgical point of view, it does not excessively impact on the second time of reconstruction.

The Language of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: Can We Do Better?

The management of breast cancer has experienced tremendous changes in the last half-century. In today's multimodal approach to breast cancer, patients have the prospect of achieving a sense of normalcy after mastectomy thanks to advancements in oncology and breast reconstruction. Although the oncologic management of breast cancer has evolved over multiple centuries, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) has only been around since the 1960s. The last half century has seen the conception of multiple techniques, novel devices, and new possibilities in hopes of achieving outcomes that are similar to or even better than the patient's premorbid state. However, with all these changes, a new problem has arisen-inconsistencies in the literature on how IBBR is described. In this article, we will discuss potential sources of confusion in the IBBR literature and lexicon, highlighting specific terms that may have multiple meanings or interpretations depending on perspective, context, and/or intent. As a first step toward clarifying what we perceive as a muddied landscape, we propose a naming convention for IBBR that centers around four important variables especially pertinent to IBBR-the type of mastectomy performed, the timing of reconstruction, the type of device that is placed, and the pocket location for device placement. We believe that adoption of a more standardized, consistent, and descriptive lexicon for IBBR will help provide clearer communication and easier comparisons in the literature so that we may continue to deliver the best outcomes for our patients.

Combined lymph node transfer and suction-assisted lipectomy in lymphedema treatment: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have analyzed the combination of suction-assisted lipectomy (SAL) and vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) in lymphedema treatment, reporting positive outcomes. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions due to the heterogeneity of the studies. Aim of this prospective study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the combination of VLNT and SAL in lymphedema treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2016 and May 2019, 94 patients with upper or lower limb stage IIb-III lymphedema were enrolled and treated with the gastroepiploic VLNT followed by SAL. Patients were prospectively evaluated through circumference measurement and clinical examination, including number of episodes of cellulitis.

RESULTS

Among patients enrolled in the study 83 were affected by lower limb lymphedema (LLL) and 11 were affected by upper limb lymphedema (ULL). Average follow-up was 3 ± 0.8 years. In the LLL group, the mean circumference reduction rates (CRR) were 60.4, 56.9, 29.6, and 55.4% above and below the knee, above the ankle, and at the foot level, respectively. A statistically significant difference was noted at all the levels (p < .05), but above the ankle (p = .059). Regarding the ULL group, the mean CRR were 80.7, 60.7, 65.0 and 49.6% above and below the elbow, at wrist and at mid-hand, respectively. CRR were reported at all the levels but no statistical difference was noted. The number of episodes of cellulitis dropped significantly (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

This study supports the use of VLNT+SAL in lymphedema grades IIb-III, with important implications for the clinical practice.

Systematic Review of Breast-Q: A Tool to Evaluate Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review is to update and synthesize new evidence on BREAST-Q questionnaire’s ability to reflect patient-reported outcomes in women who have undergone breast reconstruction surgery (BRS) following mastectomy.

Methods

PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Clincaltrial.gov were searched for relevant studies from January 2009 to September 2021. Any interventional or observational studies that used BREAST-Q to assess patient-reported outcomes in the assessment of BRS following mastectomy were included.

Results

A total of 42 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Three were randomized controlled trials and 39 were observational studies. Compared with pre-operative scores, there was an improvement in all BREAST-Q outcome domains following BRS including ‘satisfaction with breasts’, “satisfaction with outcome” “psychosocial”, “physical”, and “sexual wellbeing”. Sexual well-being had the lowest BREAST-Q score both pre-and post-operatively (37.8–80.0 and 39.0–78.0, respectively). Autologous BRS reports higher satisfaction and overall wellbeing compared to implant-based BRS. BREAST-Q has a higher and narrow internal consistency of 0.81 to 0.96 compared with other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; EORTC-QLQ, FACT-B, BR-23, BCTOS). The BREAST-Q questionnaire is the only PROM which allows patients to reflect on their care, surgical outcomes, and satisfaction collectively.

Conclusion

This review highlights the fact that BREAST-Q can effectively and reliably measure satisfaction and wellbeing of breast cancer patients after BRS. Comparatively, sexual wellbeing shows poorer outcomes following BRS and more longitudinal studies are necessary to understand the basis for these findings. Compared to other PROMs, BREAST-Q is reliable and specific to breast cancer surgery. Overall, BREAST-Q can help clinicians improve their quality of service, understand patient experiences, and may be used as an auditing tool for surgical outcomes.

Effect of radiotherapy on expanders and permanent implants in immediate breast reconstruction: long-term surgical and patient-reported outcomes in a large multicentre cohort

BACKGROUND

Current evidence for the effects of radiotherapy (RT) on implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is limited by short follow-up and lack of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). It is central to integrate long-term comprehensive outcome data into the preoperative decision-making process. The aim of the present study was to determine long-term surgical outcomes and PROs in relation to RT after implant-based IBR.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal cohort study of PRO data obtained in surveys conducted in 2012 and 2020 using the BREAST-Q questionnaire. All women undergoing therapeutic mastectomy and implant-based IBR between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2011 at four breast centres in Stockholm, Sweden, were identified. The endpoint was implant removal owing to surgical complications or patient preference.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 120 (range 1-171) months. After 754 IBRs in 729 women, implant removal occurred in 128 (17 per cent): 34 of 386 (8.8 per cent) in the no-RT group, 20 of 64 (31.3 per cent) in the group with previous RT, and 74 of 304 (24.3 per cent) in the postoperative RT group (P < 0.001). Implant removal was because of surgical complications in 60 instances (7.9 per cent), and patient preference in 68 (9.0 per cent). The BREAST-Q response rate was 72.2 per cent. Women with previous RT scored lower than those without RT on all scales, apart from psychosocial well-being. Women with postoperative RT scored lower only on physical well-being. No scores in the two RT groups had deteriorated between the survey time points, whereas satisfaction with breasts and overall outcome had decreased in the no-RT group.

CONCLUSION

Although RT was significantly associated with higher implant removal rates, PROs remained stable over 8 years despite irradiation.

Review of Outcomes in Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction with and without Surgical Mesh Assistance

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, surgeons have increasingly advocated for a return to prepectoral breast reconstruction with claims that surgical mesh (including acellular dermal matrix) can reduce complication rates. However, numerous surgical and implant advancements have occurred in the decades since the initial prepectoral studies, and it is unclear whether mesh is solely responsible for the touted benefits.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic review of all English language articles reporting original data for prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Articles presenting duplicate data were excluded. Complications were recorded and calculated on a per-breast basis and separated as mesh-assisted, no-mesh prior to 2006, and no-mesh after 2006 (date of first silicone gel-filled breast implant approval). Capsular contracture comparisons were adjusted for duration of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 58 articles were included encompassing 3120 patients from 1966 to 2019. The majority of the included studies were retrospective case series. Reported complication outcomes were variable, with no significant difference between groups in hematoma, infection, or explantation rates. Capsular contracture rates were higher in historical no-mesh cohorts, whereas seroma rates were higher in contemporary no-mesh cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited data exist to understand the benefits of surgical mesh devices in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Level I studies with an appropriate control group are needed to better understand the specific role of mesh for these procedures. Existing data are inconclusive but suggest that prepectoral breast reconstruction can be safely performed without surgical mesh.

"To Pre or Not to Pre": Introduction of a Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment Score to Help Surgeons Solving the Decision-Making Dilemma. Retrospective Results of a Multicenter Experience

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction is the most performed breast reconstruction, and both subpectoral and prepectoral approaches can lead to excellent results. Choosing the best procedure requires a thorough understanding of every single technique, and proper patient selection is critical to achieve surgical success, in particular when dealing with prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Between January of 2014 and December of 2018, patients undergoing mastectomy and eligible for immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction with tissue expander or definitive implant, were selected. The Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment score was applied to evaluate patient-related preoperative and intraoperative risk factors that could influence the success of prepectoral breast reconstruction. All patients were scored retrospectively, and the results obtained through this assessment tool were compared to the records of the surgical procedures actually performed.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-two patients were included; 112 of them underwent direct-to-implant immediate reconstruction, and 240 underwent the two-stage procedure with temporary tissue expander. According to the Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment score, direct-to-implant reconstruction should have been performed 6.2 percent times less, leading to an increase of 1.4 percent in two-stage reconstruction and 4.8 percent in submuscular implant placement.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, there is no validated system to guide surgeons in identifying the ideal patient for subcutaneous or retropectoral breast reconstruction and eventually whether she is a good candidate for direct-to-implant or two-stage reconstruction. The authors processed a simple risk-assessment score to objectively evaluate the patient's risk factors, to standardize the decision-making process, and to identify the safest and most reliable breast reconstructive procedure.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh

BACKGROUND

Biological and synthetic meshes may improve the outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) by facilitating single-stage procedures and improving cosmesis. Supporting evidence is, however, limited. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of biological and synthetic mesh on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of IBBR 18 months after surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive women undergoing immediate IBBR between February 2014 and June 2016 were recruited to the study. Demographic, operative, oncological and 3-month complication data were collected, and patients received validated BREAST-Q questionnaires at 18 months. The impact of different IBBR techniques on PROs were explored using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for clinically relevant confounders, and including a random effect to account for clustering by centre.

RESULTS

A total of 1470 participants consented to receive the questionnaire and 891 completed it. Of these, 67 women underwent two-stage submuscular reconstructions. Some 764 patients had a submuscular reconstruction with biological mesh (495 women), synthetic mesh (95) or dermal sling (174). Fourteen patients had a prepectoral reconstruction. Compared with two-stage submuscular reconstructions, no significant differences in PROs were seen in biological or synthetic mesh-assisted or dermal sling procedures. However, patients undergoing prepectoral IBBR reported better satisfaction with breasts (adjusted mean difference +6.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.65 to11.61; P = 0.009). PROs were similar to those in the National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit 2008-2009 cohort, which included two-stage submuscular procedures only.

CONCLUSION

This study found no difference in PROs of subpectoral IBBR with or without biological or synthetic mesh, but provides early data to suggest improved satisfaction with breasts following prepectoral reconstruction. Robust evaluation is required before this approach can be adopted as standard practice.

Multi-center investigation of breast reconstruction after mastectomy from Chinese Society of Breast Surgery: A survey based on 31 tertiary hospitals (CSBrS-004)

Objective

Multi-center data on the current status and trends of breast reconstruction after mastectomy in China are lacking. Herein, we conducted a cross-sectional survey to investigate the current clinical practice pattern of postmastectomy breast reconstruction among Chinese female patients with breast cancer.

Methods

A standardized questionnaire used to collect information on breast reconstruction among females diagnosed with breast cancer was distributed by 31 members of the Chinese Society of Breast Surgery between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. Information was collected on tumor characteristics, treatment, mesh application, nipple-areola complex (NAC) preservation, postoperative complications, bilateral reconstruction, patient satisfaction and local recurrence. The overall rate of breast reconstruction was assessed, and the characteristics were compared across patient groups with different reconstruction approaches.

Results

A total of 1,554 patients underwent breast reconstruction after total mastectomy, with a reconstruction rate of 9.6%. Among them, 1,190 were implant-based, and 262 underwent autologous reconstructions, while 102 cases underwent a combination of both. Patients who underwent implant-based reconstruction were younger than those who received autologous reconstruction (40.1±4.6 vs. 45.0±5.9, P=0.004). Compared to patients with autologous reconstruction, mesh application (25.5% vs. 6.5%), NAC preservation (51.8% vs. 40.5%) and reconstruction failure (1.8% vs. 0) were more frequently reported among those with implant-based reconstruction. There was no significant difference in general satisfaction across three reconstruction approaches, though patients with autologous reconstruction reported the highest aesthetic satisfaction among the three groups (P=0.044).

Conclusions

Implant-based breast reconstruction remains the dominant choice among patients, while autologous reconstruction was associated with higher aesthetic satisfaction. Our multi-center investigation based on the findings of the tertiary hospitals of Chinese Society of Breast Surgery may guide a future series of clinical studies on breast reconstruction in China.

Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Safety Outcome Endpoints and Delineation of Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

Continued evolution of implant-based breast reconstruction involves immediate placement of the implant above the pectoralis muscle. The shift to prepectoral breast reconstruction is driven by goals of decreasing morbidity such as breast animation deformity, range-of-motion problems, and pain, and is made possible by improvements in mastectomy skin flap viability. To define clinical factors to guide patient selection for direct-to-implant prepectoral implant reconstruction, this study compares safety endpoints and risk factors between prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction cohorts. The authors hypothesized that prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, performed by a team of five surgical oncologists and two plastic surgeons. Univariate analysis compared patient characteristics between cohorts. A penalized logistic regression model was constructed to identify relationships between postoperative complications and covariate risk factors.

RESULTS

A cohort of 114 prepectoral direct-to-implant patients was compared with 142 subpectoral direct-to-implant patients. The results of the penalized regression model demonstrated equivalence in safety metrics between prepectoral direct-to-implant and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, including seroma (p = 0.0883), cancer recurrence (p = 0.876), explantation (p = 0.992), capsular contracture (p = 0.158), mastectomy skin flap necrosis (p = 0.769), infection (p = 0.523), hematoma (p = 0.228), and revision (p = 0.122).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction. Given the low morbidity and elimination of animation deformity, prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction should be considered when the mastectomy skin flap is robust.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.