Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy for cancer

Advanced Hydrogels in Breast Cancer Therapy

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women and is the second leading cause of cancer-related death for women. Depending on the tumor grade and stage, breast cancer is primarily treated with surgery and antineoplastic therapy. Direct or indirect side effects, emotional trauma, and unpredictable outcomes accompany these traditional therapies, calling for therapies that could improve the overall treatment and recovery experiences of patients. Hydrogels, biomimetic materials with 3D network structures, have shown great promise for augmenting breast cancer therapy. Hydrogel implants can be made with adipogenic and angiogenic properties for tissue integration. 3D organoids of malignant breast tumors grown in hydrogels retain the physical and genetic characteristics of the native tumors, allowing for post-surgery recapitulation of the diseased tissues for precision medicine assessment of the responsiveness of patient-specific cancers to antineoplastic treatment. Hydrogels can also be used as carrier matrices for delivering chemotherapeutics and immunotherapeutics or as post-surgery prosthetic scaffolds. The hydrogel delivery systems could achieve localized and controlled medication release targeting the tumor site, enhancing efficacy and minimizing the adverse effects of therapeutic agents delivered by traditional procedures. This review aims to summarize the most recent advancements in hydrogel utilization for breast cancer post-surgery tissue reconstruction, tumor modeling, and therapy and discuss their limitations in clinical translation.

Current use of drains and management of seroma following mastectomy and axillary surgery: results of a United Kingdom national practice survey

PURPOSE

Up to 40% of the 56,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the UK undergo mastectomy. Seroma formation following surgery is common, may delay wound healing, and be uncomfortable or delay the start of adjuvant treatment. Multiple strategies to reduce seroma formation include surgical drains, flap fixation and external compression exist but evidence to support best practice is lacking. We aimed to survey UK breast surgeons to determine current practice to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future trial.

METHODS

An online survey was developed and circulated to UK breast surgeons via professional and trainee associations and social media to explore current attitudes to drain use and management of post-operative seroma. Simple descriptive statistics were used to summarise the results.

RESULTS

The majority of surgeons (82/97, 85%) reported using drains either routinely (38, 39%) or in certain circumstances (44, 45%). Other methods for reducing seroma such as flap fixation were less commonly used. Wide variation was reported in the assessment and management of post-operative seromas. Over half (47/91, 52%) of respondents felt there was some uncertainty about drain use after mastectomy and axillary surgery and two-thirds (59/91, 65%) felt that a trial evaluating the use of drains vs no drains after simple breast cancer surgery was needed.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for a large-scale UK-based RCT to determine if, when and in whom drains are necessary following mastectomy and axillary surgery. This work will inform the design and conduct of a future trial.

A comparison of presentations and outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage abdominal free flap breast reconstructions-Results of a 15-year tertiary referral centre review

INTRODUCTION

Salvage breast reconstruction with autologous tissue is becoming more prevalent due to a resurgence in implant-based procedures. The latter has caused a commensurate rise in failed or treatment-resistant prosthetic cases requiring conversion to free tissue transfers. Salvage reconstruction is often considered more challenging, owing to patient presentation, prior treatments and intraoperative difficulties. The aim of the study was to test this hypothesis by comparing outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage autologous microsurgical breast reconstructions in a retrospective matched cohort study.

METHODS

The demographics, risk factors, operative details and outcomes of patients who underwent free flap salvage of implant-based reconstructions by a single operator (2005-2019) were retrospectively evaluated. For each salvage reconstruction, the consecutive non-salvage abdominal free flap reconstruction was selected for comparison. The clinical outcomes including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, flap survival and complication rates were compared.

RESULTS

Of 442 microsurgical patients, 35 (8.0%) had salvage reconstruction comprising 41 flap transfers (29 unilateral, 6 bilateral) and 42 flaps (28 unilateral, 7 bilateral) in nonsalvage reconstruction. Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps comprised the commonest autologous tissue used in both groups at 74% and 71% respectively. Most patients (83%) underwent salvage reconstruction for severe capsular contractures. There was a significant difference in radiation exposure between groups (salvage reconstruction 89%, non-salvage reconstruction 26%; p<0.00001). All 83 flaps were successful with similar reoperation rates and intraoperative blood losses. Unilateral salvage reconstruction took on average two hours longer than non-salvage reconstruction (p = 0.008). Overall complication rates were similar (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

This 15-year study shows that despite salvage autologous free flap breast reconstruction requiring longer operation times, its intra and postoperative outcomes are generally comparable to non-salvage cases. Therefore, salvage breast reconstruction with free flaps provides a reliable option for failed or suboptimal implant-based reconstructions.

Patient-reported health-related quality of life outcomes following mastectomy for breast cancer, with immediate, delayed or no breast reconstruction: Four-year follow-up from a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction (BR) improves women's health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following mastectomy for breast cancer, yet factors contributing to improved HRQOL remain unclear. This study aimed to explore the overall impact of mastectomy with or without BR on participants' perceptions of HRQOL over time in a cohort of women with high-risk breast cancer; to examine differences in mean HRQOL scores between immediate BR, delayed BR and no BR groups; to assess the influence of patient characteristics potentially associated with HRQOL scores; and to determine the feasibility of long-term collection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical settings.

METHODS

A prospective, longitudinal study of 100 women with high-risk breast cancer who underwent mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction and were likely to require post-mastectomy radiotherapy. Four validated patient-reported questionnaires, comprising 21 outcome measures relating to HRQOL, administered at baseline and up to 4 years post-mastectomy. Demographic, clinical and surgical data extracted from patient medical records.

RESULTS

Consistently significant declines in perceptions of future health and arm symptoms, consistently significant improvements in treatment side effects, breast symptoms and fatigue, as well as significant improvements, compared to baseline, in social functioning and financial difficulties at 48 months. No significant differences in mean HRQOL scores between women given a choice of reconstructive options.

CONCLUSION

Similar trajectories of HRQOL scores were found in women with high-risk breast cancer who were offered a choice of BR. Informed choice may be an independent contributing factor in long-term maintenance of most HRQOL indicators at their pre-mastectomy levels.

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.

Useful Reduction Mammoplasty Technique in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery and Reconstruction

Background

A combination of the reduction mammoplasty technique and breast reconstruction allows surgeons to lift ptotic breasts through local flaps and skin reduction during surgery for breast cancer. This study presents a reliable course for the combination of partial and skin or nipple-sparing mastectomy with reduction-reconstruction surgery.

Methods

Fifty-seven patients underwent a partial mastectomy before reduction mammoplasty of both breasts during the same time period between 2014 and 2021 at our institution and thirteen patients underwent skin or nipple-sparing mastectomy, breast reconstruction with an extended latissimus dorsi flap or silicone implant, and aesthetic reduction mammoplasty of the contralateral breast during the same time period. Additional photos were obtained preoperatively, immediately after the operation, and at one, three, six, and twelve months postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively and postoperative complications were noted.

Results

Among the patients who underwent a partial mastectomy, the mean age was 45.18 ± 11.05 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.74 ± 3.53 kg/m², and the mean preoperative right and left breast volumes were 663.85 (±28.12) cc and 664.34 (±37.13) cc, respectively, and the mean excised mass weight was 177.74 (±213.93) g. Among the patients who underwent a skin-sparing mastectomy, the mean age was 51.62 ± 8.96 years, the mean BMI was 26.91 ± 4.34 kg/m², and the mean preoperative right and left breast volumes were 624.17 (±98.52) cc and 562.31 (±80.81) cc, respectively, and the mean excised mass weight was 618.05 (±338.17) g. Four patients (5.3%) in the partial mastectomy group had fat necrosis. The mean patient satisfaction score was higher postoperatively in both groups.

Conclusion

Patients with breast cancer and large and/or ptotic breasts can successfully undergo reduction mammoplasty for both breasts immediately following partial mastectomy and nipple or skin-sparing mastectomy.

Cost analysis of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

With improvement in mastectomy skin flap viability and increasing recognition of animation deformity following sub-pectoral implant placement, there has been a transition toward pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. While studies have explored the cost effectiveness of implant-based breast reconstruction, few investigations have evaluated cost with respect to pre-pectoral versus sub-pectoral breast reconstruction. A retrospective review of 548 patients who underwent mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction was performed from 2017 to 2020. The demographic and surgical characteristics of the pre-pectoral and sub-pectoral cohorts were well matched, except for reconstructive staging, as patients who underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction were more likely to undergo single-stage instead of two-stage reconstruction. Comparison of institutional cost ratios by reconstructive technique revealed that the sub-pectoral approach was more costly (1.70 ± 0.44 vs 1.58 ± 0.31, p < 0.01). However, further stratification by laterality and reconstructive staging failed to demonstrate difference in cost by reconstructive technique. These results were confirmed by multivariable linear regression, which did not reveal reconstructive technique to be an independent variable for cost. This study suggests that pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is a cost-effective alternative to sub-pectoral breast reconstruction and may confer cost benefit, as it is more strongly associated with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Aesthetic Evaluation of Breast Reconstruction with Autologous Fat Transfer vs. Implants

Background

Autologous fat transfer (AFT) seems to be a new minimal invasive method for total breast reconstruction, yet how patients, surgeons, and laymen evaluate cosmesis is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the aesthetic outcome of AFT (intervention group) for total breast reconstruction post-mastectomy, as compared to implant-based reconstruction (IBR) (control group).

Methods

A random and blinded 3D photographic aesthetic outcome study was performed on a selection of 50 patients, scored by three panels: plastic surgeons, breast cancer patients, and laymen. Secondary outcomes included agreement within groups and possible patient characteristics influencing scoring.

Results

Breast cancer patients and plastic surgeons did not differ in the aesthetic scores between the treatment groups. In contrast, the laymen group scored AFT patients lower than IBR patients (− 1.04, p < 0.001). Remarkably, mean given scores were low for all groups and overall agreement within groups was poor (ICC < 0.50). Higher scores were given when subjects underwent a bilateral reconstruction and if a mamilla was present.

Conclusion

Evaluation of aesthetic outcomes varies greatly. Hence, aesthetic outcome remains a very personal measure and this emphasizes the importance of thorough patient counseling including information on achievable aesthetic results before starting a reconstructive procedure.

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 .

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has recently been introduced to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic outcomes in women having implant-based procedures. High-quality evidence to support the practice of PPBR, however, is lacking. Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b study that aimed to establish the safety, effectiveness, and stability of PPBR before definitive evaluation in an RCT. The short-term safety endpoints at 3 months after surgery are reported here.

METHODS

Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating UK centres between July 2019 and December 2020 were invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology, and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss at 3 months. Other outcomes of interest included readmission, reoperation, and infection.

RESULTS

Some 347 women underwent 424 immediate implant-based reconstructions at 40 centres. Most were single-stage direct-to-implant (357, 84.2 per cent) biological mesh-assisted (341, 80.4 per cent) procedures. Conversion to subpectoral reconstruction was necessary in four patients (0.9 per cent) owing to poor skin-flap quality. Of the 343 women who underwent PPBR, 144 (42.0 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication. Implant loss occurred in 28 women (8.2 per cent), 67 (19.5 per cent) experienced an infection, 60 (17.5 per cent) were readmitted for a complication, and 55 (16.0 per cent) required reoperation within 3 months of reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates following PPBR are high and implant loss is comparable to that associated with subpectoral mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. These findings support the need for a well-designed RCT comparing prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.

The Impact of Radiotherapy on Patient-reported Outcomes of Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction With and Without Mesh

OBJECTIVE

To explore the impact of PMRT on PROs of IBBR performed with and without mesh.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

PMRT is increasingly given to improve breast cancer outcomes but can adversely impact complications after IBBR.Little; however, is known about the impact of PMRT on the PROs of IBBR, especially when mesh is used.

METHODS

The implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation prospective cohort study recruited consecutive women undergoing immediate IBBR from 81 UK breast and plastic surgical units. Demographic, operative, oncological, and 3-month complication data were collected, and patients consented to receive validated PRO questionnaires at 18-months. The association between IBBR, PMRT, and PROs were investigated using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for clinically-relevant confounders and including a random-effect to account for potential clustering by center.

RESULTS

A total of 1163 women consented to receive 18-month questionnaires of whom 730 (63%) completed it. Patients undergoing PMRT (214 patients) reported worse PROs in 3 BREAST-Q domains: satisfaction with breasts [-6.27 points, P = 0.008, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-10.91, -1.63)], satisfaction with outcome [-7.53 points, P = 0.002, CI (-12.20, -2.85)] and physical well-being [-6.55 points, P < 0.001, CI (-9.43, -3.67)]. Overall satisfaction was worse in the PMRT group [OR 0.497, P = 0.002, CI (0.32, 0.77)]. These effects were not ameliorated by mesh use.

CONCLUSIONS

PMRT may adversely affect PROs after IBBR irrespective of whether mesh is used. These findings should be discussed with all patients considering IBBR and when indications for PMRT are borderline to enable informed decision-making regarding oncological and reconstructive treatment options.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN37664281.

Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Best-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10081873.

The effect of immediate breast reconstruction on adjuvant therapy delay, locoregional recurrence, and disease-free survival

BACKGROUND

An important risk inherent to both alloplastic and autologous immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is the higher incidence of postoperative complications and delays to adjuvant therapy. The main objective of this retrospective cohort study was to identify risk factors for locoregional recurrence after breast cancer mastectomy and IBR.

METHODS

A 6-year retrospective study of breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy only (MO) or mastectomy and IBR (MIBR) was conducted from January 2013 to May 2019. The outcomes of interest included delay in adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, postoperative complications, and locoregional recurrence. Cox regression survival was used to estimate the risk of locoregional recurrence and time to adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Of 1832 patients reviewed, 720 (38%) were included. The cohort consisted of 443 (62%) MO and 277 (38%) MIBR [140 (51%) direct-to-implant (MIBRi1), 96(35%) tissue expander to implant (MIBRi2), and 41(15%) autologous flap (MIBRf)]. MIBR had more delays to adjuvant therapy compared to MO [113 (70%) vs. 72 (80%) months, p = 0.022]. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that MIBRi2 had significantly shorter DFS compared to MO [MIBRi2: 39.2 (15.6) vs MO: 41.7 (19.6) months, log-rank p-value = 0.01]. Cox regression indicated that MIBRi2 was associated with a 3.26-higher risk of locoregional recurrence compared to MO [HR: 3.26; 95% CI: 1.56, 9.24].

CONCLUSIONS

Cox regression showed MIBRi2 was significantly associated with increased risk of locoregional recurrence compared to MO. Neither delays nor postoperative complications were identified as significant risk factors for locoregional recurrence risk.

Simultaneous nipple reconstruction in autologous breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction of the nipple-areola complex is the final step in surgical restoration of the breast. Nipple-areola reconstruction was previously done after an interval of several months using variable techniques, often resulting in low projection and flattened breast mound over time. We present algorithm of simultaneous nipple reconstruction (SNR) that leaves adequate residual projection and naturally shaped breast mound.

METHODS

Forty patients underwent a skin-sparing mastectomy and nipple excision between October 2016 and December 2020. In the control group, 21 patients underwent delayed nipple reconstruction for 6 months after breast reconstruction. The experimental group of 19 patients underwent nipple and breast reconstruction simultaneously. We collected relevant information and photographs of nipple profiles of both groups in the preoperative, postoperative 6-month, and postoperative 1-year time periods. We also examined the ratio between the reconstructed and contralateral nipples.

RESULTS

Scores regarding patient satisfaction questionnaire averaged higher in experimental groups to every category. The control group's scores gradually declined over time and the experimental group showed lesser decline. At the 1-year postoperative follow-up, the mean projection of the immediately reconstructed nipple was approximately the same as the contralateral nipple at 91%, whereas the delayed reconstructed nipple resulted in a 77% ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Nipple reconstruction should no longer be considered as a secondary complement to immediate breast reconstruction. The nipple appears to be essential component of breast reconstruction for patient. SNR with immediate breast reconstruction is a simple and reliable technique, giving stable aesthetic results over time.

Protocol for a national cohort study to explore the long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer: the brighter study

INTRODUCTION

Breast reconstruction (BR) is offered to improve quality of life for women with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy. As most women will be long-term breast cancer survivors, high-quality information regarding the long-term outcomes of different BR procedures is essential to support informed decision-making. As different techniques vary considerably in cost, policymakers also require high-quality cost-effectiveness evidence to inform care. The Brighter study aims to explore the long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of implant-based and autologous BR and use health economic modelling to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of different reconstructive techniques.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Women undergoing mastectomy and/or BR following a diagnosis of breast cancer between 1 January 2008 and 31 March 2009 will be identified from hospital episode statistics (HES). Surviving women will be contacted and invited to complete validated PRO measures including the BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A, or opt out of having their data included in the HES analysis. Long-term clinical outcomes will be explored using HES data. The primary outcome will be rates of revisional surgery between implant-based and autologous procedures. Secondary outcomes will include rates of secondary reconstruction and reconstruction failure. The long-term PROs of implant-based and autologous reconstruction will be compared using BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A scores. Multivariable regression will be used to examine the relationship between long-term outcomes, patient comorbidities, sociodemographic and treatment factors. A Markov model will be developed using HES and PRO data and published literature to compare the relative long-term cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous BR.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Brighter study has been approved by the South-West -Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee (20/SW/0020), and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (20/CAG/0021). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national meetings. We will work with the professional associations, charities and patient groups to disseminate the results.

A multicentre study of the relationship between abdominal flap and mastectomy weights in immediate unilateral free flap breast reconstruction and the effect of adjuvant radiotherapy

Abdominal free flaps are considered the gold standard for post-mastectomy autologous breast reconstruction. A key element of outcome assessment is breast symmetry often achieved by approximating the reconstructed breast dimensions such as weight (wt) to those of the mastectomy. However, the ideal relationship between these two entities remains unclear. 525 immediate unilateral abdominal free flap breast reconstruction (FFBR) patients were enrolled in a multicentre study (UK 141; Italy 384) and subdivided into Group A (flap wt < mastectomy wt, n = 163), Group B (flap wt > mastectomy wt, n = 260) and Group C (flap wt = mastectomy wt, n = 102). Their rates of contralateral balancing and ipsilateral revision surgeries were compared using Chi-Square tests. Radiotherapy influence on these adjustment procedures was also assessed. More contralateral balancing procedures (17%) were performed than ipsilateral revisions (10%). Group A rates of contralateral balancing procedures were three times higher than Group B's with a ratio of 37 to 1 versus Group C (37% vs 11% vs 1% respectively, p < 0.001). Similarly, the ipsilateral breast revision surgery rate in Group A was double that of Group B and almost three times that of Group C (17% vs 8% vs 6% respectively, p = 0.01). Adjuvant radiotherapy disproportionately increased ipsilateral revisions versus contralateral balancing surgeries (p = 0.028). A flap-to-mastectomy weight ratio of less than 1 (Group A) significantly increases subsequent adjustments on both contralateral and reconstructed breasts whilst irradiation predisposes to ipsilateral revisions. This is important in patient counselling and intraoperative flap contouring. Flap weight should ideally approximate or exceed mastectomy weight in unilateral FFBR.

Risk Factors Associated With Complications After Unilateral Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A French Prospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND/AIM

For women who have undergone a mastectomy, breast reconstruction provides psychological as well as aesthetic benefits. Thus, many patients ask for an immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The present study focuses on risk factors assiociated with complications after IBR.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A national prospective study (2007-2009) was conducted on 404 patients who underwent an unilateral IBR: 205 implants alone (IA) including 46 tissue expanders, 91 latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flaps with implant (LDI), 78 autologous latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flaps (LD), and 30 autologous transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps (TRAM). Outcomes concerned major and minor complications, as well as early and late complications.

RESULTS

Related risks of complications were different according to the IBR technique. Major complications rate remained moderate and concerned 15% of patients. Obesity and diabetes significantly increased the incidence of major complications.

CONCLUSION

To reduce complication rate, the risk factors associated with each type of IBR should be taken into account.

The Effect of Previous Irradiation for Patients With Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Results regarding immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction after postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) have been inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of PMRT before immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction for patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library) were systematically searched to identify eligible studies from their inception until March 2020. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was applied as an effect estimate and calculated using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies including a total of 6757 patients were selected for final meta-analysis. The pooled OR showed that PMRT was associated with a higher incidence of reconstruction failure (OR = 2.57; 95% CI =1.55-4.26; P < 0.001), capsular contracture (OR = 5.99; 95% CI = 3.12-11.47; P < 0.001), and overall complications (OR = 2.52; 95% CI = 1.68-3.79; P < 0.001). It was also associated with a lower incidence of patient satisfaction (OR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.16-0.52; P < 0.001) and good aesthetic results (OR = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.12-0.52; P < 0.001) compared with those who did not undergo PMRT. These significant associations could be affected by study design, mean age, stage of immediate breast reconstruction, follow-up, and study quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Although PMRT is the standard adjuvant therapy for mastectomy patients treated with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction, PMRT for patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction has been associated with high risks of reconstruction failure, capsular contracture, and overall complications as well as low incidences of patient satisfaction and good aesthetic results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Histological evaluation of capsules formed by texturized silicone implants with and without polyester mesh coverage (Parietex®). A study on female rats

Purpose

To evaluate capsules formed by microtextured silicone implants with and without Parietex® mesh coverage histologically.

Methods

Sixty Wistar rats were divided in two groups (meshed and unmeshed). Each group was, then, divided into two subgroups for evaluation at 30 and 90 days. Capsules were analyzed based on hematoxylin and eosin (HE) and picrosirius staining.

Results

The number of fibroblasts, neutrophils and macrophages was similar among all subgroups. There was a higher lymphocyte reaction in the 30-day meshed group (p = 0.003). Giant cell reaction, granulation tissue and neoangiogenesis were similar among the subgroups. Synovial metaplasia was milder at 90-day in the unmeshed (p = 0.002) and meshed group (p < 0.001). Capsular thickness was significantly greater in the meshed samples (30-day p < 0.001 and 90-day p < 0.001). There was a similar amount of collagen types I and III in both groups.

Conclusions

The mesh-covered implants produced capsules similar to the microtextured ones when analyzing inflammatory variables. Synovial metaplasia was milder at 90 than at 30 days, and the capsular thickness was significantly greater in the meshed group. A similar amount of collagen types I and III was observed. Due to these characteristics, the mesh coverage did not seem to significantly affect the local inflammatory activity.

Protocol for a mixed-method study to inform the feasibility of undertaking a large-scale multicentre study comparing the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of oncoplastic breast conservation as an alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction in women unsuitable for standard breast-conserving surgery (the ANTHEM Feasibility Study)

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 40% of the 55 000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the UK undergo mastectomy because they are considered unsuitable for standard breast-conserving surgery (BCS) due to tumour size or multiple tumour foci. Mastectomy can significantly impact women's quality of life, and only one in four women currently undergo immediate breast reconstruction (IBR).Level 2 oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) combines removing the cancer with a range of plastic surgical volume replacement (eg, local perforator flaps) and volume displacement techniques (eg, therapeutic mammaplasty) that can extend the role of BCS and may allow some women not suitable for standard BCS to avoid mastectomy. High-quality research to determine whether OPBCS offers a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy±IBR is currently lacking. Preliminary work is needed to ensure a future large-scale study is feasible and well designed and addresses questions important to patients and the National Health Service.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Mixed methods will be used to inform feasibility and design of a future large-scale study comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of OPBCS and mastectomy±IBR. It will have four parts: (1) a National Practice Questionnaire to determine current practice and provision of oncoplastic breast and reconstructive surgery in the UK; (2) a pilot multicentre prospective cohort study to explore the proportion of patients choosing OPBCS versus mastectomy, the proportion in OPBCS is successful and clinical and patient-reported outcomes of different techniques at 3 and 12 months postsurgery; (3) a qualitative interview study to explore patients' attitudes to different procedures, rationale for decision-making and perceptions of outcomes; and (4) design of the future study.All centres offering OPBCS and mastectomy in the UK will be invited to participate. Recruitment is planned to commence winter 2020 and continue for 12 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has ethical approval from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 National Research Ethics Service (REC Ref 20/WA/0225). Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. We will work with patients to develop lay summaries and share these through patient groups and breast cancer charities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN18238549.

Adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells for breast tissue regeneration

With an escalating incidence of breast cancer cases all over the world and the deleterious psychological impact that mastectomy has on patients along with several limitations of the currently applied modalities, it's plausible to seek unconventional approaches to encounter such a burgeoning issue. Breast tissue engineering may allow that chance via providing more personalized solutions which are able to regenerate, mimicking natural tissues also facing the witnessed limitations. This review is dedicated to explore the utilization of adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells for breast tissue regeneration among postmastectomy cases focusing on biomaterials and cellular aspects in terms of harvesting, isolation, differentiation and new tissue formation as well as scaffolds types, properties, material-host interaction and an in vitro breast tissue modeling.

Breast implant causes allergic contact dermatitis or foreign body reaction?

In this case report we describe a 55-year-old Caucasian female who had developed an itching, erythematous plaque on the right breast seven months after she received a permanent tissue expander. Topical corticosteroids had no effect upon which a capsulectomy was performed and the complaints disappeared.

Should breast reconstruction and breast oncoplastic procedures be performed during the coronavirus pandemic?

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the face of the treatment of breast cancer and breast reconstruction globally. Mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction was on the rise due to advances in meshes and implants. However, due to the prioritisation of the critically ill and diversion of the work force, breast cancer treatment has drastically changed. This is an opinion paper written by the authors with experience and importance in the scenario of breast reconstructive surgery. The authors are from different countries with the COVID-19 pandemic in different stages.

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.

Recurrent late seroma after immediate breast reconstruction with latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap

The latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap (LDMCF) is widely used for breast reconstruction. However, it has the disadvantage of frequent seroma formation at the donor site, and late seroma has also been reported. The authors report histological findings after the surgical treatment of a late, repeatedly recurrent seroma at 10 years after breast reconstruction with LDMCF. In 2008, a 66-year-old female patient underwent immediate breast reconstruction with LDMCF. In 2015, a late seroma was found at the donor site. After aspiration and drainage, the seroma recurred again in 2018. Total surgical excision of the seroma was performed and bloody-appearing fluid was identified in the capsule. The excised tissue was biopsied. Histological examination revealed no evidence of blood in the fluid, and multinucleated giant cells with amorphous eosinophilic proteinaceous material were identified. The cyst was suggestive of chronic granulomatous inflammation. There was no recurrence at 8 months post-operatively. The patient described herein underwent surgical treatment of late seroma that recurred after immediate breast reconstruction with LDMCF, and histological findings were identified. These results may be helpful for other future studies regarding late seroma after breast reconstruction with LDMCF.

Experiences of implant loss after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure in the UK, but almost one in ten women experience implant loss and reconstructive failure after this technique. Little is known about how implant loss impacts on patients' quality of life. The first phase of the Loss of implant Breast Reconstruction (LiBRA) study aimed to use qualitative methods to explore women's experiences of implant loss and develop recommendations to improve care.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of women who experienced implant loss after immediate IBBR, performed for malignancy or risk reduction across six centres. Interviews explored decision-making regarding IBBR, and experiences of implant loss and support received. Thematic analysis was used to explore the qualitative interview data. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken concurrently and iteratively until data saturation was achieved.

RESULTS

Twenty-four women were interviewed; 19 had surgery for malignancy and five for risk reduction. The median time between implant loss and interview was 42 (range 22-74) months. Ten women had undergone secondary reconstruction, two were awaiting surgery, and 12 had declined further reconstruction. Three key themes were identified: the need for accurate information about the risks and benefits of IBBR; the need for more information about 'early-warning' signs of postoperative problems, to empower women to seek help; and better support following implant loss.

CONCLUSION

Implant loss is a devastating event for many women. Better preoperative information and support, along with holistic patient-centred care when complications occur, may significantly improve the experience and outcome of care.

The Impact of Delaying Breast Reconstruction on Patient Expectations and Health-Related Quality of Life: An Analysis Using the BREAST-Q

Purpose

An understanding of patient expectations predicts better health outcomes following breast reconstruction. No study to date has examined how patient expectations for breast reconstruction and preoperative health-related quality of life vary with time since breast cancer diagnosis.

Methods

Women consulting for breast reconstruction to a single surgeon's practice over a 13-month period were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Patients were asked to prospectively complete the BREAST-Q expectations and preoperative reconstruction modules. A retrospective chart review was then performed on eligible patients, and patient demographics, cancer-related factors, and comorbidities were collected. BREAST-Q scores were transformed using the equivalent Rasch method. Multivariate linear regression models were constructed to assess the association between BREAST-Q scores and time since cancer diagnosis.

Results

Sixty-five patients met inclusion criteria for analysis and are characterized by a mean age of 53 ± 11 (34-79) years and a mean body mass index of 28 ± 6 (19-49). Most patients were treated by mastectomy (58%) or lumpectomy (23%). At the time of retrospective chart review, 29 (43%) patients had undergone reconstruction, most of which were delayed (59%). The mean latency from cancer diagnosis to reconstruction was 685 ± 867 days (range: 28-3322 days). Latency from cancer diagnosis to reconstruction was associated with a greater expectation of pain (β = 0.5; standard error [SE] = 0.005; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.003-0.027; P < .05), and a slower expectation for recovery (β = -0.5; SE = 0.004; 95% CI: -0.021 to -0.001; P < .05) after breast reconstruction. Latency from cancer diagnosis to reconstruction was associated with an increase in preoperative psychosocial well-being (β = 0.578; SE 0.009; 95% CI: 0.002-0.046; P < .05).

Conclusion

Delaying breast reconstruction may negatively impact patient expectations of postoperative pain and recovery. Educational interventions aimed at understanding and managing patient expectations in the preoperative period may improve health-related quality of life and patient-related outcomes following initial breast cancer surgery.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Reduces Wound Breakdown and Implant Loss in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Single-use negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been shown to encourage wound healing. It is often used when patient factors impair wound healing, or in more complex wounds, such as in implant-based breast reconstruction. We report the findings of a prospective cohort study comparing the use of NPWT with standard dressings in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Methods:

A prospective database of implant-based reconstruction from a single institution was mined to identify patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction. Patient demographics, operative data, surgical complications, and 90-day outcomes were compared between patients who had NPWT and those who had standard dressings.

Results:

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction was performed on 307 breasts. NPWT dressings were used in 126 cases, with standard dressings used in 181 cases. Wound breakdown occurred in 10 cases after standard dressings versus 1 where NPWT was utilized. Of the standard dressing cases, only 3 implants were salvaged, while 7 cases led to implant loss. The 1 case of wound breakdown in the NPWT cohort settled with conservative measures. The cost of a reconstructive failure was £14,902, and the use of NPWT resulted in a cost savings of £426 per patient.

Conclusions:

The utilization of single-use NPWT reduces the rate of wound breakdown and implant loss in prepectoral implant-based reconstruction. In addition to the significant clinical benefits, this approach is cost-saving compared with standard dressings. These data suggest that prepectoral implant reconstruction should be considered as an indication for the use of NPWT.

Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR.

METHODS

The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P < 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment.

CONCLUSION

TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety.

The Pre-BRA (pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction EvAluation) feasibility study: protocol for a mixed-methods IDEAL 2a/2b prospective cohort study to determine the safety and effectiveness of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most commonly performed reconstructive technique worldwide. Subpectoral reconstruction with mesh is the current standard of care but new prepectoral techniques have recently been introduced. Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) may improve outcomes for patients but robust evaluation is required. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are ideally needed but the short-term safety of PPBR is yet to be established; the technique and its indications are evolving and it has yet to be adopted by a sufficient number of surgeons for an RCT to be feasible.The Pre-BRA study aims to determine the feasibility of using mixed-methods within an IDEAL 2a/2b (IDEAL, Idea-Development-Exploration-Assessment-Long-term) study to explore the short-term safety of PPBR and determine when the technique is sufficiently stable for evaluation in a pragmatic RCT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b prospective multicentre cohort study with embedded qualitative research.Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating centres will be invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology and complication data will be collected and patient-reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3 and 18 months postoperatively. The primary safety endpoint will be implant loss at 3 months.Surgeons performing PPBR will be asked to complete questionnaires regarding their practice and report any modifications made to the procedure or learning arising from complications via free-text response fields on electronic case-report forms. Semistructured will explore surgeons' experiences in detail to identify emerging best practice. This will be fed back to participating surgeons to promote shared learning.The Pre-BRA study will aim to recruit 341 patients from 30 to 40 UK centres over a 12-month period. Recruitment will commence Spring 2019.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has full ethical approval from OXFORD-B South Central Committee Ref:19/SC/0129. Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11898000; Pre-results.

The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: the iBRA-2 study

Background

Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality-of-life for women requiring mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term outcomes. High-quality evidence is lacking. The iBRA-2 study aimed to investigate the impact of IBR on time to adjuvant therapy.

Methods

Consecutive women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer July–December, 2016 were included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR were compared and risk factors associated with delays explored.

Results

A total of 2540 patients were recruited from 76 centres; 1008 (39.7%) underwent IBR (implant-only [n = 675, 26.6%]; pedicled flaps [n = 105,4.1%] and free-flaps [n = 228, 8.9%]). Complications requiring re-admission or re-operation were significantly more common in patients undergoing IBR than those receiving mastectomy. Adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy was required by 1235 (48.6%) patients. No clinically significant differences were seen in time to adjuvant therapy between patient groups but major complications irrespective of surgery received were significantly associated with treatment delays.

Conclusions

IBR does not result in clinically significant delays to adjuvant therapy, but post-operative complications are associated with treatment delays. Strategies to minimise complications, including careful patient selection, are required to improve outcomes for patients.

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

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Use of biological or synthetic mesh might improve outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-breast reconstruction with implants or expanders at the time of mastectomy-but there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the safety or effectiveness of the technique. We aimed to establish the short-term safety of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction performed with and without mesh, to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future randomised clinical trial comparing different breast reconstruction techniques.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we consecutively recruited women aged 16 years or older who had any type of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction for malignancy or risk reduction, with any technique, at 81 participating breast and plastic surgical units in the UK. Data about patient demographics and operative, oncological, and complication details were collected before and after surgery. Outcomes of interest were implant loss (defined as unplanned removal of the expander or implant), infection requiring treatment with antibiotics or surgery, unplanned return to theatre, and unplanned re-admission to hospital for complications of reconstructive surgery, up to 3 months after reconstruction and assessed by clinical review or patient self-report. Follow-up is complete. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN37664281.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, 2108 patients had 2655 mastectomies with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction at 81 units across the UK. 1650 (78%) patients had planned single-stage reconstructions (including 12 patients who had a different technique per breast). 1376 (65%) patients had reconstruction with biological (1133 [54%]) or synthetic (243 [12%]) mesh, 181 (9%) had non-mesh submuscular or subfascial implants, 440 (21%) had dermal sling implants, 42 (2%) had pre-pectoral implants, and 79 (4%) had other or a combination of implants. 3-month outcome data were available for 2081 (99%) patients. Of these patients, 182 (9%, 95% CI 8-10) experienced implant loss, 372 (18%, 16-20) required re-admission to hospital, and 370 (18%, 16-20) required return to theatre for complications within 3 months of their initial surgery. 522 (25%, 95% CI 23-27) patients required treatment for an infection. The rates of all of these complications are higher than those in the National Quality Standards (<5% for re-operation, re-admission, and implant loss, and <10% for infection).

INTERPRETATION

Complications after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction are higher than recommended by national standards. A randomised clinical trial is needed to establish the optimal approach to immediate implant-based breast reconstruction.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research, Association of Breast Surgery, and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

Local safety of immediate reconstruction during primary treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant versus expander-based surgery

INTRODUCTION

After mastectomy, immediate breast reconstruction is paramount. With the growing number of nipple-sparing mastectomies, the chances of successful one-stage reconstruction with implants are also increasing. Local safety is one of the main issues. This study investigated the factors that could lead to major or minor complications after expander-based versus direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction.

METHODS

The studied factors were age, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, smoking, diabetes, type of mastectomy (nipple-sparing/total), implant size, neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. The study sample included 294 immediate reconstructions over 3 years. The primary outcome was the incidence of complications, major or minor depending on the necessity of revision surgery. For the DTI pocket, we applied a variant of the conventional submuscular technique.

RESULTS

In DTI reconstructions (median follow-up 26 months), the complication rate was 17.2% (4.3% major and 12.8% minor) with no significant association with clinical variables. In expander-based reconstructions (median follow-up 19 months), the complication rate was 18.3% (12.5% major and 5.8% minor). Univariate analysis showed a significant association between overall complications and radiotherapy (P = 0.01) as well as between major complications and expander size (P < 0.005), BMI (P < 0.005), and radiotherapy (P < 0.01); radiotherapy and BMI retained significance in multivariate analysis. Neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy did not affect the complication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

There was evidence of an association between major complications and clinical variables in the expander-based cohort. Larger expander size was a predictor of failure, especially combined with radiation. Direct-to-implant reconstruction proved to be safe. We describe a reliable method of reconstruction and a safe range of implant sizes even beyond 500 g.

Oncoplastic breast surgery techniques - a new look at surgical treatment of breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among Polish women [1], thus, the problem of surgical treatment of breasts, especially with regard to conserving and/or reconstruction surgery, is extensively discussed. Currently, in Poland, efforts are made to increase the number of oncologic and reconstructive breast centers which offer specialized treatment of this cancer, the so-called ‘Breast Units’ [1]. This paper analyzes methods of reconstructions, discusses the techniques used in particular types of surgeries and additionally informs the reader of the oncological aspects of the procedures. Based on literature, statistical data of breast reconstructions from Poland and the world are presented. Moreover, complications and psychological aspects of mammary gland surgery are dealt with, and the aesthetic effects of breast reconstructions are discussed. To support of our findings, we also present selected clinical cases from the oncological and reconstructive point of view.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Primary Implant Reconstruction: Surgical and Oncological Outcome of 435 Breast Cancer Patients

Background

This study aimed to examine the incidence of surgical complications associated with nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with primary implant reconstruction, analyze risk factors for early and late surgical complications of NSM, and determine the incidence of local recurrences and the safety of sparing the nipple-areola complex (NAC).

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 435 patients with 441 NSM procedures over a period of 9 years (2004-2012). All surgical complications and the oncological outcome were recorded during follow-up.

Results

The most common early surgical complication was skin flap ischemia/necrosis (26 patients, 5.9%). Prosthesis explantation due to complications was carried out in 11 (2.5%) cases. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, implant size >500 ml, diabetes mellitus, body mass index > 25 kg/m², and incisions other than lateral were risk factors for early complications (p < 0.001). The NAC excision rate was 5.4% (24 cases) due to confirmed presence of cancer cells in the subareolar tissue. Capsular contracture as a late complication occurred in 33 (7.48%) cases. Local relapse occurred in 32 (7.3%) patients. Distant metastases were diagnosed in 68 (15.6%) patients, and 53 (12.2%) patients died during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

NSM with immediate implant reconstruction has an acceptable morbidity rate and is an oncologically and surgically appropriate treatment for most women requiring mastectomy.

Quality of life and shoulder function after latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction☆

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction using a latissimus dorsi flap impacts one of the principal muscles of the shoulder. There is therefore concern that this procedure could impair shoulder function. The primary objective of this study was to study the effect of breast reconstruction using the latissimus dorsi flap on patient reported shoulder function and quality of life, compared to women who underwent total mastectomy without reconstruction.

METHODS

A case-controlled cross-sectional study was conducted using the validated Breast-Q questionnaire and a functional back and shoulder questionnaire. Questionnaires were mailed to women who had undergone latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction (n = 100) and women who had undergone total mastectomy without reconstruction (n = 121). The responses from the 2 groups were compared, and results were analysed with t-test and Pearson's Correlation.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 119 patients (60 latissimus dorsi patients and 59 mastectomy alone patients). Latissimus dorsi flap patients had significantly higher Breast-Q scores for all quality of life domains when compared to mastectomy alone patients. There was, however, no significant difference in functional back and shoulder scores between the two groups. Latissimus dorsi flap patients also scored highly for satisfaction with outcome and satisfaction for the 'back'.

CONCLUSION

Patients report high levels of satisfaction following Latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction. This type of reconstruction did not adversely impact back and shoulder function.

Long-term outcomes of bilateral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction in women at high breast cancer risk

INTRODUCTION

Challenges of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction (BR) are to achieve sufficient implant coverage and lower pole projection. We assessed reoperation rates, long-term patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcome after direct-to-implant BR without acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in women with high breast cancer risk.

METHODS

Women who underwent bilateral skin or nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate direct-to-implant BR between 1994 and 2006 completed a survey on reoperations and the Breast-Q Reconstruction questionnaire. Photographs taken during follow-up were rated for long-term aesthetic outcome (scale 1-10) by five plastic surgeons. Outcomes were compared between women who never underwent unanticipated reoperations after immediate BR and women who underwent one or more reoperations, adjusted for potential confounders using multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

Of 143 women, 70 (49%) were never reoperated and 73 (51%) had undergone reoperations. Median follow-up was 12 years in both groups (range 7-17 and 6-19 years, respectively). Baseline characteristics were comparable except for history of prophylactic oophorectomy with 81% in the no-reoperations group versus 66% in the reoperated group (p = .03). Breast-Q scores were 59.7 ± 17.3 versus 58.0 ± 17.8 (p = .67) for 'satisfaction with breasts' and 71.1 ± 20.3 versus 68.1 ± 22.9 (p = .47) for 'satisfaction with outcome' in the no-reoperation versus reoperation group, respectively. Aesthetic outcome was scored 5.8 ± 1.1 in the no-reoperation group versus 5.3 ± 1.3 in the reoperation group (p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The single-stage intent did not prevent unanticipated surgical reinterventions in 51% of the patients. Long-term patient satisfaction was reasonable and not affected by reoperations. Aesthetic outcome, however, was only poor to reasonable and scores were significantly lower in the reoperated group.

Early assessment of post-surgical outcomes with pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: A literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is an emerging surgical approach. This study provides an early assessment of outcomes with the technique.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed through searches of PubMed^® /MEDLINE^® to identify studies on pre-pectoral reconstruction. Patient characteristics and outcomes were extracted from studies and pooled. Linear relationships between complication rates and patient characteristics with pre-pectoral reconstruction were analyzed. A meta-analysis compared complication rates between pre-pectoral and dual-plane reconstruction.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (406 women/654 breasts) were included. The most common complications with pre-pectoral reconstruction were flap necrosis (7.8%), seroma (6.7%), capsular contracture (5.8%), and explantation (4.6%). No hyperanimation was reported. Significant correlation between previous radiation and flap necrosis, post-operative chemotherapy and infection, hypertension and flap necrosis, diabetes and dehiscence, and smoking and explantation were found. A meta-analysis of four studies comparing pre-pectoral (135 women/219 breasts) and dual-plane (230/408) reconstruction found no significant difference for likelihood of infection (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-1.30), explantation (0.83; 0.29-2.38), necrosis (1.61; 0.77-3.36), seroma (1.88; 0.71-5.02), dehiscence (1.84; 0.68-4.95), or capsular contracture (0.14; 0.02-1.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates are comparable following pre-pectoral and dual-plane reconstruction, indicating the pre-pectoral technique may be a feasible option for appropriate patients.

Breast reconstruction with anatomical implants: A review of indications and techniques based on current literature

One important modality of breast cancer therapy is surgical treatment, which has become increasingly less mutilating over the last century. Breast reconstruction has become an integrated part of breast cancer treatment due to long-term psychosexual health factors and its importance for breast cancer survivors. Both autogenous tissue-based and implant-based reconstruction provides satisfactory reconstructive options due to better surgeon awareness of "the ideal breast size", although each has its own advantages and disadvantages. An overview of the current options in breast reconstruction is presented in this article.

Management of contralateral breast following mastectomy and breast reconstruction using a mirror adjustment with crescent mastopexy technique

INTRODUCTION

Heterologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy sometimes requires the management of the contralateral breast to achieve symmetric long lasting aesthetic results. Some techniques could be used for the symmetrization of contralateral breast with or without implants as breast augmentation, reduction mammoplasty, mastopexy, with T inverted, J, vertical, periareolar, semi-circular, or axillary scars. The aim of this study is to present the use of crescent mastopexy technique with implants in contralateral adjustment following monolateral breast reconstruction compared with a control group in which patients underwent other contralateral procedures. We used BREAST-Q to evaluate breast perception and patient's satisfaction and surgeon-rated aesthetic outcomes were measured using the Kroll evaluation (a global and itemized aesthetic tool).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was designed. We enrolled in the study 55 patients who had undergone breast reconstruction with implants and contralateral breast symmetrization procedure at our hospital between 2010 and 2016, and they answered to BREAST-Q postoperative module after almost 1 year from breast reconstruction. The study population consisted of 2 groups of women: patient underwent contralateral adjustment with crescent mastopexy and augmentation and patients underwent other contralateral procedures. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive and summary statistics to identify a central tendency between the two groups, we applied Fisher's exact test to the results to obtain answers 1 year after the last procedure for the two groups.

RESULTS

This cross-sectional study compared two cohorts in which 55 women underwent monolateral mastectomy and breast reconstruction with contralateral adjustment, 15 of these underwent contralateral crescent mastopexy with augmentation, and 40 (control group) underwent contralateral breast adjustment with other mastopexy and augmentation technique (27 patients underwent T inverted mastopexy, 2 J mastopexy, 6 vertical scar mastopexy, 5 periareolar mastopexy). Nineteen patients suffered of co-morbidities (smoking, autoimmune disease, cardiological, neurological, and dismetabolic). All patients answered the postoperative BREAST-Q reconstruction module almost 1 year from last surgical procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a pseudoptosis or mild ptosis of the contralateral breast, crescent mastopexy could be a valid procedure with minimal scars, better symmetry, and global cosmetic results than other procedures. This is the first study which compares crescent mastopexy with augmentation with other mastopexy procedures. Level III: evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group.

LEVEL (III)

Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group.

Autologous fat transfer for breast surgery

Cosmetic and reconstructive surgeries always have a primary aim of the best outcome for the patient, with a big emphasis on the aesthetics. Lipomodelling is one such technique, originally described over a century ago but still used to this day, to provide a patient with the highest quality results. This is particularly true for lipomodelling of the breast, whether it be purely cosmetic, or for a post-mastectomy reconstruction for a breast cancer patient. Lipomodelling provides an effective way of restoring and even improving the look and aesthetics of the breast and of helping achieve the patient's expectations. With the added advantage of being autologous, the procedure is safe and effective. This review discusses the latest guidelines and literature on autologous lipomodelling.

Characterizing infections in prosthetic breast reconstruction: A validity assessment of national health databases

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines in the United States require reporting only the 30-day postoperative outcomes to standardized databases, including the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). Thus, many breast implant-related complications go unreported in standard databases. We sought to characterize late periprosthetic infections following implant-based breast reconstruction.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of all women who underwent expander/implant reconstruction from 2005 to 2014 at two institutions. All periprosthetic infections were identified and divided into early and late cohorts (≤30 days or >30 days). Infection was defined as any episode where antibiotics were initiated or a prosthetic device was explanted because of clinical evidence of the infection.

RESULTS

In the 1820 patients (2980 breasts) identified, 421 periprosthetic infections occurred (14%). Of these, 173 (41%) were early and 248 (59%) were late (mean time to infection = 66.4 ± 101.9 days). Patients with late infections were more likely to be current smokers or have diabetes than patients with early infections (p < 0.034 for both). Infections caused by gram-negative bacteria and antimicrobial-resistant strains of Staphylococcus were more common in the early infection group (p < 0.001 for both). Implant loss due to infection was more common in the late infection group (p = 0.037).

DISCUSSION

Late periprosthetic infections following implant-based breast reconstruction are underestimated in national outcome databases and have unique risk factors and microbiology compared to early infections. A system-level change in reevaluating and redefining a timeline for tracking and treating implant infections is necessary, given the substantial morbidity associated with, and frequency of, late periprosthetic infections.

Immediate Breast Reconstruction

This article represents findings of a qualitative analysis of interviews with women age 30 to 64 years ( n = 14) who had undergone immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) following mastectomy. The purpose of the study was to explore women’s experiences for electing IBR. According to our analysis, women experienced mastectomy as a disability, and their expectations of IBR to restore their sense of normalcy were not fulfilled. Most women perceived the reconstructed breast mainly as a visual replacement. Women’s experience formed a continuous narrative from the moment of diagnosis, through mastectomy until the completion of the reconstruction.

Society of Surgical Oncology Breast Disease Working Group Statement on Prophylactic (Risk-Reducing) Mastectomy

Over the past several years, there has been an increasing rate of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) surgeries. Since publication of the 2007 SSO position statement on the use of risk-reducing mastectomy, there have been significant advances in the understanding of breast cancer biology and treatment. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the current literature as a resource to facilitate a shared and informed decision-making process regarding the use of risk-reducing mastectomy.