Subcutaneous Prosthetic Breast Reconstructions following Skin Reduction Mastectomy

Literature review and guide for optimal position in implant-based breast reconstruction

Background and Objective

Identification of ideal candidates for prepectoral versus retropectoral implant-based breast reconstruction relies on careful preoperative risk assessment and intraoperative flap evaluation. Few guidelines exist to guide the surgeon's decision-making process when evaluating the preferred plane for implant placement.

Methods

A literature review was performed to develop clinical decision-making algorithms for direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for patients undergoing prophylactic or therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) based on patient characteristics, surgical techniques, and outcomes.

Key Content and Findings

Prepectoral reconstruction is most suitable for patients with small breasts or macromastia with desire for breast reduction, low-grade ptosis, smaller implant sizes, those undergoing PMRT, and for those who aim to mitigate animation deformity and capsular contracture. Retropectoral reconstruction may be recommended for patients with larger breasts with no desire for size change requiring additional prosthesis support, and in patients who aim to reduce likelihood of rippling and need for subsequent fat grafting procedures to address contour abnormalities.

Conclusions

Careful preoperative and intraoperative assessment of reconstruction options for patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction is necessary to mitigate complications and produce superior aesthetic outcomes. Decision algorithms may be used to determine ideal surgical techniques based on patient factors, like radiation history and planning, breast size and ptosis, and patient preferences.

ADM-assisted prepectoral breast reconstruction is not associated with high complication rate as before: a Meta-analysis

Implant-related breast reconstruction can be divided into subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR) and prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) according to the different anatomical planes. The previous stereotype was that PPBR had a high complication rate and was not suitable for clinical use. However, with the emergence of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), the clinical effect of PPBR has been improved. To compare the outcomes difference between SPBR and PPBR, We conducted this meta-analysis. Articles on SPBR versus PPBR were searched in PubMed, Web of Sciences, Embase, and Cochrane databases, strictly following the PRISMA guidelines. According to the set criteria, we included the literature that met the requirements. Extracted data were the incidence of adverse events and the duration of drainage. Results show that SPBR has a higher incidence rate in capsular contracture, animation deformity, infection, hematoma and delayed healing wound than PPBR. There are no significant differences in skin flap necrosis, seroma, implant loss, reoperation and duration of drainage between the two groups. Hence, PPBR is no longer a high complication surgical method and can be used in the clinical practice. However, there are few large sample studies at present, so it is necessary to carry out further studies on PPBR.

Complication Profile of Total Submuscular Versus Prepectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare the safety profile of prepectoral breast reconstruction with total submuscular tissue expander reconstruction, previously our standard. Primary outcomes of interest in this retrospective cohort study were incidence of infection, hematoma, seroma, mastectomy flap necrosis, and reconstruction loss.

METHODS

Total submuscular and prepectoral with acellular dermal matrix reconstructions consecutively performed by a single surgeon (P.D.S.) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, were compared. Demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as complications and complication types, were extracted for all patients. A t test was used to assess differences in continuous variables. Multivariate logistics regression was used to assess the association between type of reconstruction and complication rate. The statistical significance was set at 0.05 for all comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients (234 breasts) were included. There was a significantly greater incidence of infection (16.5% vs 5.5%, P < 0.01) in the prepectoral/acellular dermal matrix cohort. However, reconstructive loss was low in both cohorts (2.5% and 3.0%, P = 0.83). Adjusted odds ratio for complications in the prepectoral cohort was 2.26, but this was not statistically significant (adjusted P = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral breast reconstruction shares an overall complication profile that is not greater than that of total submuscular reconstruction. It is associated with a greater risk of infection; however, the ability to salvage the reconstruction with early, aggressive intervention results in low rates of reconstructive loss, comparable with those of total submuscular reconstruction.

The "Smile Mastopexy": A Novel Technique to Aesthetically Address the Excess Skin Envelope in Large, Ptotic Breasts While Preserving Nipple Areolar Complex During Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Classically large, ptotic breasts have been a contraindication for nipple preservation during breast reconstruction. We present a technique of "smile mastopexy" (SM) to reduce the excess skin in both vertical and transverse directions, avoid a T-junction, preserve the nipple areolar complex, and add thickness to the upper pole of the breast at the time of mastectomy.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to demonstrate the safety and reliability of a novel technique that addresses the excess skin envelope during breast reconstruction while preserving the nipple-areola complex in large, ptotic breasts.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of a single surgeon performing the SM for immediate 2-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction. All were performed in the prepectoral pocket without utilization of acellular dermal matrices.

RESULTS

Thirty patients (total 54 breasts) aged a mean 50 years with BMI of 30 kg/m2 and mastectomy specimen weight of 683 g were included. All had class 2 or 3 ptosis. There were no cases of complete nipple loss. The overall complication rate was 14.8%. There were 3 explantations: 1 (1.8%) due to infection and 2 (3.7%) due to implant exposure. Radiation was associated with a higher complication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The SM is a safe and reliable technique in large, ptotic breasts during prosthetic breast reconstruction. It preserves the nipple-areola complex, reduces the excess skin envelope, adds thickness to the upper pole, and allows for future skin revisions with the same scar if necessary.

Level of Evidence: 4.

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.

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

Background and Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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