Evaluating Postoperative Narcotic Use in Prepectoral Versus Dual-plane Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy

Occupational Therapy After Breast Cancer Reconstructive Surgery: A Predictor for Opioid Prescriptions

Occupational therapy practitioners have a unique and vital role among interprofessional health care teams toward facilitating occupational participation among breast cancer survivors. This study investigated the relationship between acute medicine occupational therapy services after breast cancer reconstructive surgeries (BCRS) and a number of prescription refills 90 days after surgery. This retrospective study ran binary logistic regression analyses on 562 women after BCRS for refills of opioid and non-opioid medication. Both models were statistically significant, χ2(7df) = 23.001, p = .002; χ2(7df) = 32.312, p < .001, indicating the ability to distinguish who received opioid or non-opioid refills, respectively. While younger age was a significant predictor across both models, occupational therapy was only significant for opioid refills; each was associated with fewer refills. Early occupational therapy treatment after BCRS is associated with fewer opioid prescriptions 90 days after surgery, therefore enhancing occupation throughout this timeframe is beneficial.

Prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: U.S. medical center experience and narrative review

Background and Objective

With the incorporation of autologous fat grafting, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) products, and nipple-sparing mastectomy, prepectoral device placement has become more popular in selected patients when compared to partial submuscular (dual plane) or complete submuscular device placement. In this article, we aimed to present a review of the current state-of-the-art for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) using expanders. Additionally, we present a case series of our experience with IBBR evaluating perioperative outcomes, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO).

Methods

For our series, we retrospectively evaluated adult female patients undergoing 2-stage immediate IBBR after total mastectomy between 2011 and 2021. We performed a systematic search across PubMed MEDLINE for articles evaluating outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage IBBR with expanders published from database inception through February 28th, 2023.

Key Content and Findings

Both prepectoral and subpectoral are safe alternatives for two-stage IBBR. Due to current advancements in the field of breast reconstruction, prepectoral IBBR has gained popularity and has a comparable rate of complications compared to a subpectoral approach in selected patients according to high-quality articles. In patients with several comorbidities, current tobacco use, history of preoperative radiation, and limited perfusion of the mastectomy flaps, subpectoral device placement should be given special consideration as a layer of vascularized tissue can decrease the risk of major complications or unplanned procedures. As prepectoral device placement does not require dissection of the pectoral muscles, faster recovery, better implant position, decreased pain, and a shorter time to complete expansion is expected. The plane of reconstruction does not seem to significantly affect the time for expander-to-implant exchange or PRO for quality-of-life (QOL) according to most studies.

Conclusions

Prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR demonstrated a comparable rate of complications in selected patients. Nonetheless, perioperative outcomes seem to be improved using a prepectoral approach in terms of reduced pain, reduced time to conclude outpatient expansions, and less animation deformity.

Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of 694 Two-Stage Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstructions

BACKGROUND

Opinion regarding the optimal plane for prosthetic device placement in breast reconstruction patients has evolved. The purpose of this study was to assess the differences in complication rates and patient satisfaction between patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR).

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent two-stage IBR at their institution from 2018 to 2019. Surgical and patient-reported outcomes were compared between patients who received a prepectoral versus a subpectoral tissue expander.

RESULTS

A total of 694 reconstructions in 481 patients were identified (83% prepectoral, 17% subpectoral). The mean body mass index was higher in the prepectoral group (27 versus 25 kg/m 2 , P = 0.001), whereas postoperative radiotherapy was more common in the subpectoral group (26% versus 14%, P = 0.001). The overall complication rate was very similar, with 29.3% in the prepectoral and 28.9% in the subpectoral group ( P = 0.887). Rates of individual complications were also similar between the two groups. A multiple-frailty model showed that device location was not associated with overall complications, infection, major complications, or device explantation. Mean scores for Satisfaction with the Breast, Psychosocial Well-Being, and Sexual Well-Being were similar between the two groups. Median time to permanent implant exchange was significantly longer in the subpectoral group (200 versus 150 days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Prepectoral breast reconstruction results in similar surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction compared with subpectoral IBR.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

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.

Opioid Coprescribing with Sedatives after Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Skeletal muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines are thought to mitigate against postoperative muscle contraction. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration warn against coprescribing them with opioids because of increased risks of overdose and death. The authors evaluated the frequency of coprescribing of opioids with skeletal muscle relaxants or benzodiazepines after implant-based reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors examined health care claims to identify women (18 to 64 years old) who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction between January of 2008 and June of 2019 to determine the frequency of coprescribing, factors associated with coprescribing opioids and skeletal muscle relaxants or benzodiazepines, and the impact on opioid refills within 90 days of reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 86.7 percent of women ( n = 7574) who had implant-based breast reconstruction filled an opioid prescription perioperatively. Of these, 27.7 percent of women filled prescriptions for opioids and benzodiazepines, 14.4 percent for opioids and skeletal muscle relaxants, and 2.4 percent for opioids, benzodiazepines, and skeletal muscle relaxants. Risk factors for coprescribing opioids and benzodiazepines included use of acellular dermal matrix, immediate reconstruction, and history of anxiety. Women who filled prescriptions for opioids and skeletal muscle relaxants, opioids and benzodiazepines, and opioids with skeletal muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines were significantly more likely to refill opioid prescriptions, even when controlling for preoperative opioid exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly half of women filled an opioid prescription with a benzodiazepine, skeletal muscle relaxant, or both after implant-based breast reconstruction. Coprescribing of opioids with skeletal muscle relaxants may potentiate opioid use after surgery and should be avoided given the risks of sedation. Identifying strategies that avoid sedatives to manage pain after breast reconstruction is critical to mitigate high-risk prescribing practices.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Comparison of Outcomes Following Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implants for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy helps to restore quality of life while aiming at providing optimal cosmetic outcomes. Both prepectoral (PP) and subpectoral (SP) breast implants are widely used to fulfill these objectives. It is, however, unclear which approach offers stronger postoperative benefits. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature through PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ResearchGate, following the PRISMA guidelines. Quantitative analysis for postoperative pain as the primary outcome was conducted. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and postoperative complications such as seroma, implant loss, skin necrosis, wound infection, and hematoma. (3) Results: Nine articles involving 1119 patients were retrieved. Our results suggested increased postoperative pain after SP implants and significantly higher rates of seroma following PP implants (p < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was found to be similar between the two groups; however, the heterogeneity of measurement tools did not allow us to pool these results. The rates of implant loss, skin necrosis, wound infection, and hematoma showed no significant differences between the two cohorts. (4) Conclusion: Our data suggest that both implant placements are safe and effective methods for breast reconstruction following mastectomy. However, homogeneity in outcome measurements would allow one to provide stronger statistical results.

PEC block versus local anesthetic infiltration in breast implant augmentation surgery: a retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Pectoral plane (PEC) blocks are routinely used in analgesia for patients undergoing dual-plane breast augmentation with implants. Local anesthetic infiltration (LAI) is a simple alternative technique with the same aim. We evaluated both techniques.

MM

In this single-center retrospective study, patients received PEC block (ropivacaine 0.2%, 10 ml PEC I, 20 ml PEC II) or LAI. The primary outcome measure was pain, according to the visual analog scale (VAS), at 24h post-surgery. Secondary outcomes included the measure of pain at 1, 2, 6, and 12 hours post-surgery, total opioid consumption at 24h, and opioid side effects.

RESULTS

81 were finally recruited: 37 in the PEC group and 44 in the LAI group. Patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups. At 24h post-surgery, the LAI group showed a decrease in pain, with a VAS score of 0.7 vs 1.5 in the PEC group (p = 0.007). There was no difference in VAS between the two groups at 1, 2, 6, or 12 hours post-surgery. The duration of anesthesia was increased in the PEC group with 153 minutes vs 120 minutes in the LAI group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in rescue morphine consumption between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that LAI had a superior analgesic effect at 24h after surgery for dual-plane breast implant augmentation compared with PEC block. These findings are a good indication that the LAI technique is at least as effective as PEC block while being safe, fast, and easy to use.

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.

Prepectoral and Subpectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of 90-Day Clinical and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral placement of tissue expanders for two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction potentially minimizes chest wall morbidity and postoperative pain. The authors explored 90-day clinical and health-related quality-of-life outcomes for prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors conducted a propensity score-matching analysis (nearest neighbor, 1:1 matching without replacement) of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral or subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction between December of 2017 and January of 2019. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, race/ethnicity, smoking status, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and laterality of reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were perioperative analgesia use, 90-day postoperative patient-reported pain, complication rates, and BREAST-Q physical well-being of the chest scores.

RESULTS

Of the initial cohort of 921 patients, 238 were propensity-matched and included in the final analysis. The matched cohort had no differences in baseline characteristics. Postoperative ketorolac (p = 0.048) use was higher in the subpectoral group; there were no other significant differences in intraoperative and postoperative analgesia use. Prepectoral patients had lower pain on postoperative days 1 to 2 but no differences on days 3 to 10. BREAST-Q physical well-being of the chest scores did not differ. Prepectoral patients had higher rates of seroma than subpectoral patients (p < 0.001). Rates of tissue expander loss did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

This matched analysis of 90-day complications found lower early postoperative pain in prepectoral tissue expander patients but no longer-term patient-reported differences. Although prepectoral reconstruction patients experienced a higher rate of seroma, this did not translate to a difference in tissue expander loss. Long-term analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes is needed to understand the full profile of the prepectoral technique.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Opioid-sparing Strategies in Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Introduction:

Pain and discomfort are frequently experienced following mastectomy with concomitant breast implant- or tissue expander-based alloplastic breast reconstruction (AlBR). Unfortunately, postoperative opioids have decreased efficacy in AlBR, short-term complication profiles, and are fraught by long-term dependence. This systematic review aims to identify opioid-sparing pain management strategies in AlBR.

Methods:

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register was performed in September 2018. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and the review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107911). The search identified 1184 articles. Inclusion criteria were defined as patients 18 years or older undergoing AlBR.

Results:

Fourteen articles were identified assessing opioid-sparing strategies in AlBR. This literature included articles evaluating enhanced recovery protocols (two), intercostal blocks (two), paravertebral blocks (four), liposomal bupivacaine (three), diclofenac (one), and local anesthesia infusion pumps (two). The literature included five randomized trials and nine cohort studies. Study characteristics, bias (low to high risk), and reporting outcomes were extensively heterogeneous between articles. Qualitative analysis suggests reduced opioid utilization in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways, paravertebral blocks, and use of liposomal bupivacaine.

Conclusions:

A variety of opioid-sparing strategies are described for pain management in AlBR. Multimodal analgesia should be provided via ERAS pathways as they appear to reduce pain and spare opioid use. Targeted paravertebral blocks and liposomal bupivacaine field blocks appear to be beneficial in sparing opioids and should be considered as essential components of ERAS protocols. Additional prospective, randomized trials are necessary to delineate the efficacy of other studied modalities.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Impact of implant-based reconstruction on persistent pain after breast cancer surgery: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

With the increasing number of breast cancer survivors and reconstruction operations, persistent pain following breast cancer surgery (PPBCT) and its management is becoming a challenge for plastic surgeons. To date, most studies compared the difference in the level of PPBCT in reconstruction versus nonreconstruction groups. We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the impact of implant-based reconstruction on PPBCT levels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were searched for relevant articles. We used five search strategies: (persistent pain after breast cancer surgery AND reconstruction), (chronic postsurgical pain AND breast reconstruction), (Breast Implantation [MeSH Terms] AND "Chronic Pain" [MeSH Terms]), (breast reconstruction AND chronic pain), and (postmastectomy pain syndrome AND breast reconstruction).

RESULTS

A total of 2281 articles were detected. After scanning for the title and abstract, full-text articles were reviewed to identify the eligible articles. Eleven articles were included in the final review, with seven of these reporting no increased chance of PPBCT following reconstruction with implants, whereas two articles described lower chances of PPBCT following implant-based reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

We discovered that implant-based reconstruction does not increase the risk of PPBCT in comparison to other surgical techniques or mastectomy alone. This relationship may facilitate doctors and their patients in the decision-making of the appropriate reconstruction technique to use. In addition, our results should prompt plastic surgeons to prescribe the same dosage and frequency of analgesics to patients undergoing implant reconstruction as they would to their patients not undergoing reconstruction.

Comparative Analysis of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Recent advances in mastectomy and reconstruction have allowed for an evolution in implant-based breast reconstruction to a muscle-sparing, prepectoral approach. Advantages of this technique may include reductions in postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, less narcotic usage, and improved aesthetic outcomes. Postoperative complication rates are described as comparable to subpectoral techniques; however, little comparative data exist to adequately assess prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement.

Methods

To address this knowledge gap, we performed a single institution retrospective review of 186 (83 prepectoral, 103 subpectoral) consecutive immediate breast reconstructions. All cases were tracked for a minimum of 2 years between 2016 and 2021.

Results

Prepectoral patients demonstrated an overall higher seroma rate (P = 0.001), with all other postoperative complications being comparable. Prepectoral patients tolerated higher intraoperative tissue expander fill volumes (P < 0.001), shorter hospital stays (P = 0.007), fewer clinic visits for tissue expansion (P < 0.001), and experienced less animation deformity (P = 0.005). Both groups demonstrated similar pain scores (P = 0.65) and needs for narcotics (P = 0.8) as well as comparable scores of capsular contracture (P = 0.791).

Conclusions

Our comparative analysis of consecutive immediate implant-based breast reconstructions finds prepectoral reconstruction to be safe and effective. Compared with subpectoral reconstruction, the prepectoral approach may offer quicker tissue expansion, less postoperative office visits, less need for muscle relaxants, and a shorter hospital stay with a comparable complication profile.

A Critical Appraisal of Late Complications of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers improved aesthetics without compromising oncologic safety. Subpectoral breast reconstruction has long been standard practice, although prepectoral reconstruction has recently resurged in popularity. Due to this recent paradigm shift, studies comparing long-term outcomes by reconstructive plane are lacking.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive NSMs with implant-based reconstruction in either the prepectoral or subpectoral plane from 2014 to 2018. Patient demographics, implant specifications, and operative details were collected to evaluate primary outcomes of prosthetic failure and unplanned reoperations by reconstructive plane. Secondary outcomes included animation deformity, capsular contracture, rippling, plane change, and minor revisions, including fat grafting. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 405 NSMs were performed on 228 women (subpectoral = 202, prepectoral = 203), with a mean follow-up of 2.1 years (standard deviation 1.1). During the study period (2014-2018), a shift from subpectoral to predominantly prepectoral mastectomies occurred in 2017. Prepectoral reconstructions were more often direct-to-implant (DTI) compared with subpectoral (73.9% vs. 33.2%, p < 0.001). Prepectoral reconstruction demonstrated significantly reduced prosthetic failure (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.65) and unplanned reoperations (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.77) compared with subpectoral reconstruction after controlling for implant characteristics and other possible confounders. Prepectoral patients experienced decreased animation deformity overall (19.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), with plane changes seen in 10.6% of subpectoral reconstructions for animation deformity correction. Prepectoral patients experienced an increase in rippling (15.3% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.003) without a significant increase in fat grafting (subpectoral = 11.6% vs. prepectoral = 12.3%, p = 0.829).

CONCLUSIONS

This single-institution experience compares late complications of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based reconstruction following NSM. Prepectoral reconstruction can be safely performed with improved understanding of mastectomy planes, readily affords DTI reconstruction, and reduces animation deformity at the expense of rippling.

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.

Comparative Analysis of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Recent advances in mastectomy and reconstruction have allowed for an evolution in implant-based breast reconstruction to a muscle-sparing, prepectoral approach. Advantages of this technique may include reductions in postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, less narcotic usage, and improved aesthetic outcomes. Postoperative complication rates are described as comparable to subpectoral techniques; however, little comparative data exist to adequately assess prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement.

METHODS

To address this knowledge gap, we performed a single institution retrospective review of 186 (83 prepectoral, 103 subpectoral) consecutive immediate breast reconstructions. All cases were tracked for a minimum of 2 years between 2016 and 2021.

RESULTS

Prepectoral patients demonstrated an overall higher seroma rate (P = 0.001), with all other postoperative complications being comparable. Prepectoral patients tolerated higher intraoperative tissue expander fill volumes (P < 0.001), shorter hospital stays (P = 0.007), fewer clinic visits for tissue expansion (P < 0.001), and experienced less animation deformity (P = 0.005). Both groups demonstrated similar pain scores (P = 0.65) and needs for narcotics (P = 0.8) as well as comparable scores of capsular contracture (P = 0.791).

CONCLUSIONS

Our comparative analysis of consecutive immediate implant-based breast reconstructions finds prepectoral reconstruction to be safe and effective. Compared with subpectoral reconstruction, the prepectoral approach may offer quicker tissue expansion, less postoperative office visits, less need for muscle relaxants, and a shorter hospital stay with a comparable complication profile.

Safety Profile and Predictors of Aesthetic Outcomes After Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction With Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix

INTRODUCTION

Prepectoral acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-assisted breast reconstruction has demonstrated improved pain scores, faster return to full range of motion, and an appropriate postoperative safety profile when compared with cohorts with submuscular implant placement; however, there are limited data on aesthetic outcomes. Basic science biointegration research has previously demonstrated faster ADM incorporation with fenestrated compared with confluent ADM. We report the safety profile of anterior support meshed ADM prepectoral breast reconstruction and analyze predictive factors for aesthetic outcomes after gel implant placement.

METHODS

All consecutive immediate staged prepectoral expander-to-implant breast reconstructions with more than 6 months of follow-up were compared with a partially submuscular cohort for demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications. All patients 1 to 3.5 years after gel implant placement were evaluated for the impact of clinical characteristics on aesthetic outcomes.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-four prepectoral tissue expander placements were compared with 535 partially submuscular tissue expanders with no significant differences in demographics. There was increased wound dehiscence repaired in clinic and insignificantly decreased seromas with prepectoral expander placement. One hundred sixty breasts were reconstructed with gel implants, and 12 underwent autologous reconstruction during the conduct of the study. The remaining 21 patients were continuing expansion, and 3 succumbed to disease progression. Regression analysis of 86 breast reconstructions showed that a body mass index of greater than 30, fat grafting, and highly cohesive anatomic implants decreased rippling, whereas radiation increased capsular contracture (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral meshed ADM breast reconstruction has an equivalent safety profile to partially submuscular ADM-assisted reconstruction and early aesthetic ratings comparable with other published accounts of implant-based reconstruction. Radiated skin envelopes carry higher capsular contracture rates. Thin patients have a higher risk of visible rippling, whereas fat grafting and higher cohesivity implants are associated with less rippling.

Revision Breast Reconstruction with Prepectoral Pocket Conversion of Submuscular Breast Implants

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral reconstruction using prosthetic devices has demonstrated a notable increase in popularity and confers a number of advantages over subpectoral placement, including minimal animation, no pain secondary to muscle spasm, and less device displacement or malposition. As such, more women with implants in the dual-plane position are seeking a remedy for animation deformities, chronic pain caused by muscle spasm, and implant malposition. The purpose of this study was to review outcomes following the conversion from subpectoral to prepectoral implant placement.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 63 patients who underwent breast implant conversion from the subpectoral plane to the prepectoral plane from 2009 to 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 73 implant pocket conversions from subpectoral to prepectoral were performed on 41 women who met inclusion criteria for this study. The mean time interval from the initial subpectoral operation to the prepectoral conversion was 1608.4 days. The reasons cited for prepectoral conversion was animation deformity (87.8 percent), significant levels of pain related to the implant (34.1 percent), capsular contracture (26.8 percent), or asymmetries and implant displacements (9.8 percent); 7.8 percent of individuals continued to experience their presenting symptom after plane conversion. Rippling and wrinkling were noted in 19.5 percent of individuals and edge visibility was documented in 4.9 percent. Complication rates were low, and no patients experienced necrosis of the mastectomy flap or nipple-areola complex.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of prepectoral conversion for revision implant-based breast reconstruction successfully resolves animation deformity. This technique can be reliably and safely performed in a variety of patient demographics.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Pectoral placement of tissue expanders affects inpatient opioid use

Prepectoral breast reconstruction promises to minimize breast animation deformity and decrease pain associated with subpectoral dissection and tissue expansion. This latter benefit is particularly timely given the ongoing opioid epidemic; however, this theoretical benefit remains to be demonstrated clinically. As such, this study aimed to compare inpatient opioid use and prescription practices following prepectoral and subpectoral expander-based breast reconstruction. A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing immediate tissue expander placement between January 2017 and April 2018. Medical records were reviewed for surgical details, 24-hour inpatient PRN opioid usage (oral morphine equivalents [OME]), and discharge prescriptions. Comparisons were made using chi-squared and student's t tests where appropriate. Two hundred and thirty-one patients were identified, (mean age 48.8 years), 222 of which met inclusion criteria. 89 underwent subpectoral and 133 prepectoral tissue expander placements. All but two subpectoral patients and two prepectoral patients were opioid-naïve. The rate of bilateral procedures did not differ between cohorts (P = .194). Overall, 94% of patients were discharged within 24 hours, and length of stay did not differ between cohorts (P = .0753). Two subpectoral and two prepectoral patients required prolonged admission due to postoperative pain. All patients were ordered standing acetaminophen, celecoxib, and gabapentin, and subpectoral patients cyclobenzaprine. Narcotic pain medication was offered on an "as needed" (PRN) basis. Opioid usage within the first 24-hours was halved in the prepectoral cohort (22.2 vs 44.5 OME, P = .0003), which was not associated with bi/unilaterality of procedure or the presence of any psychiatric conditions. The amount of opioids prescribed on discharge was not significantly different between cohorts (308.42 OME prepectoral vs 336.99 subpectoral, P = .3197). Prepectoral expander placement appears to be associated with decreased inpatient opioid use postoperatively. This may represent an opportunity to improve patient satisfaction and safety by decreasing outpatient opioid prescriptions.

Assessment of Opioid-Prescribing Practices in Breast Augmentation: Future Directions for Prescribing Guidelines

BACKGROUND

The United States (US) is in the mid of an opioid epidemic propagated, in part, by prescription opioids. With excess overprescribing documented in a variety of surgical procedures, several societies have recommended opioid-prescribing guidelines. Considering the scope and postoperative pain associated with aesthetic plastic surgery procedures, earnest evaluation into opioid-prescribing practices for breast augmentation was conducted.

METHODS

Members of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery were electronically surveyed on their opioid-prescribing patterns. The survey was distributed to 1709 plastic surgeons. Descriptive statistics were collated into percentages, deviations, and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), when appropriate.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery members (13.4%) provided responses. A total of 91.2% of respondents prescribe opioids to patients undergoing breast augmentation. The most commonly prescribed agents included oxycodone/acetaminophen (Percocet, 47.0%) and hydrocodone/acetaminophen (Vicodin, 38.3%). On average, 165.3 ± 81.7 MMEs were dispensed (range, 25.0-600.0 MMEs; number tablets, 5-60). Prescribers felt that a lack of phone-in prescribing (52.4%) and the ease of preemptively prescribing opioids (52.4%) propagate opioid overprescribing. A total of 61.3% of respondents reported that they are or may be in favor of developing plastic surgery societal guidelines related to opioid prescribing. These respondents indicated support for guidelines on opioid-sparing pain management strategies (74.2%) and guidelines identifying the type (54.7%), duration of use (69.5%), and number of opioid tablets (61.7%) necessary for procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable variability exists among prescribing patterns after breast augmentation. Societal guidelines aimed at providers and patients may serve a future role in opioid prescribing.

Decreased postoperative pain and opioid use following prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective cohort study: Pain after pre- versus subpectoral reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral (PP) breast reconstruction is now commonly performed and minimizes dissection of the pectoralis major muscle. Data are lacking comparing the immediate postoperative recovery of these patients as compared with traditional subpectoral (SP) breast reconstruction.

METHODS

From December 2015 to February 2017, 73 patients underwent PP prosthetic-based reconstruction at a single academic institution. PP cases were matched 1:1, by age and stage, to patients undergoing traditional SP reconstruction. Analysis of postoperative pain (visual analog scale) and opioid use (oral morphine equivalents, OME), was performed with both bi- and multivariate analyses. Additional outcomes explored included length of stay (LOS) and reconstructive intervention by plane of prosthetic reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 146 patients were included in the final cohort. PP reconstruction was associated with higher rates of direct-to-implant reconstruction (84.9% vs. 34.3%, p <0.001) and higher rates of initial prosthetic fill (401.53 mL vs. 280.88 mL, p<0.001). Patients undergoing PP reconstruction had significantly reduced postoperative pain (4.29 vs. 5.44, p<0.001) and in-hospital opioid use (62.63 mg OME vs. 98.84 mg OME, p = 0.03) compared with SP patients. This result remained in multivariate analysis for both pain (3.94 vs. 5.25, p<0.001) and opioid use (17.14 mg OME vs. 63.03 mg OME, p = 0.03). Additionally, patients undergoing PP reconstruction had significantly reduced overall LOS on multivariate analysis (21.36 vs. 26.28 h, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Following mastectomy, PP breast reconstruction results in significantly reduced pain, opioid use, and hospital LOS compared with SP reconstruction.

Acute Postoperative Complications in Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Reconstruction following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is associated with improved aesthetics and oncologic safety. Recently, there has been a resurgence in prepectoral reconstruction. Because of limited data comparing complication rates on patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction, this study compared 30-day postoperative complications by plane of prosthetic placement.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on all consecutive patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction with either prepectoral or subpectoral placement from 2014 to 2018. The primary outcome was a composite, acute 30-day postoperative complication, including nipple-areola complex necrosis, mastectomy flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, hematoma, and seroma. Secondary outcomes included nipple loss and rates of unintended reoperations. Univariate and mixed effects multivariate logistic regression were used to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 228 patients and 405 breasts were included in the final cohort, with 202 in the subpectoral cohort and 203 in the prepectoral cohort. The overall complication rate was 7.65 percent, with no significant difference between subpectoral and prepectoral cohorts (9.41 percent versus 5.91 percent, respectively; p = 0.148). Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly reduced ischemic complications, including nipple loss because of necrosis (2.97 percent versus 0.49 percent, respectively; p = 0.015) and mastectomy flap necrosis (5.45 percent versus 0 percent; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in rates of infection, hematoma, seroma, or implant loss/exchange.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral reconstruction is associated with similar overall 30-day postoperative complications and reoperations compared to traditional subpectoral implants. However, prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly decreased ischemic complications, including mastectomy flap necrosis and nipple-areola complex loss because of necrosis.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Current Trends in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Survey of American Society of Plastic Surgeons Members

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has recently gained increasing popularity, but there are limited data regarding national trends in the use of this technique. Our aim was to determine practice patterns related to prepectoral breast reconstruction among plastic surgeons, as well as to identify perceived advantages and disadvantages of this technique.

Methods

A 16-question electronic survey tool was distributed to 2535 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Survey items focused on surgeon practices related to prepectoral reconstruction, in addition to their motivations for and concerns with performing the procedure.

Results

A total of 274 responses were received (10.8% response rate). Nearly half of respondents (48.4%) reported using prepectoral techniques in all or most of their procedures. Decreased animation deformity was identified as the most significant advantage by 76.3% of respondents. Increased rippling and potential wound healing complications were identified as the most significant disadvantages to the procedure by 49.1% and 40.4% of respondents, respectively. The majority of surgeons reported using acellular dermal matrices in their procedures, with most surgeons demonstrating preferences for cohesive and shaped devices.

Conclusions

Prepectoral breast reconstruction is being widely adopted by plastic surgeons, with the majority of surgeons in our sample using prepectoral techniques in their practices. Responses demonstrate that this technique offers several perceived advantages, most notably the avoidance of animation deformity. However, our data also highlight that there are still many unanswered questions in the community about the complication profile and technical aspects of prepectoral techniques that warrant further investigation.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Chronic Pain Following Cosmetic Breast Surgery: A Comprehensive Review

INTRODUCTION

Cosmetic breast surgery is commonly performed in the United States; 520,000 procedures of the total 1.8 million cosmetic surgical procedures performed in 2018 were breast related. Postoperative chronic pain, defined as lasting 3 or more months, has been reported in a wide variety of breast surgical procedures including breast augmentation, reduction mammaplasty, mastectomy, and mastectomy with reconstruction. Patient characteristics associated with the development of postoperative chronic pain following cosmetic breast surgery include a younger age, larger BMI, smaller height, postoperative hyperesthesia, and elevated baseline depression, anxiety, and catastrophizing scores. The anatomical distribution of chronic pain following breast augmentation procedures is dependent upon incision site placement; pectoral and intercostal nerves have been implicated. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on the current literature addressing the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment of patients presenting with chronic postoperative pain following cosmetic breast surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed in MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases from 1996 to 2019 using the terms "cosmetic surgery", "breast surgery", "postoperative pain", and "chronic pain".

RESULTS

Cosmetic breast surgery can have a similar presentation as post-mastectomy pain syndrome and thus have overlapping diagnostic criteria. Seven domains are identified for a diagnosis of PBSPS: Pain after breast surgery, neuropathic in nature, at least a moderate intensity of pain, as defined as within the middle one-third of the selected pain scale, pain for at least 6 months, symptoms occurring for 12 or more hours a day for a minimum of 4 days each week, pain in at least one of the following sites: breast, chest wall, axilla, or arm on the affected side, pain exacerbated by movement. Patient risk factors and surgical risk factors may influence the development of chronic post-cosmetic surgery breast pain. Improved perioperative analgesia including preoperative regional nerve anesthesia and postoperative catheter infusion have been shown to improve chronic postoperative pain outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The present review provides a discussion of clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and treatment and preventative strategies for chronic breast pain following cosmetic surgery. This review provides evidence from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of efficacy and effectiveness. While chronic postoperative breast pain remains challenging to treat, various preventative strategies have been described to improve postoperative pain outcomes.

Challenges and Solutions for the Implementation of Shared Decision-making in Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Patient-centered care is a hallmark of quality in healthcare. It is defined as care that is respectful of, and responsive to, individual patient preferences, needs, and values, while ensuring patients are informed and engaged in the treatment decision-making process.

Methods:

We reviewed the literature and drew upon our own experiences to study the implementation of tools intended to facilitate shared decision-making in breast reconstruction.

Results:

For women with breast cancer, decision-making about breast reconstruction is often a challenging and perplexing process. The variety of choices available regarding timing and type of reconstruction and the unique individual patient and clinical treatment variables to consider can further complicate decisions. Accordingly, strategies to facilitate the decision-making process and enable patients and clinicians to make high-quality decisions about breast reconstruction are an essential component of comprehensive breast cancer care. Shared decision making is one proposed model to support informed and preference-sensitive decision-making in line with the principles of patient-centered care. Despite an emerging level of interest in shared decision making, there remains a lack of clarity regarding what the process involves and how to effectively implement it into clinical practice.

Conclusions:

Thus, widespread adoption of shared decision making remains lacking in clinical practice for women considering postmastectomy breast reconstruction. To address these gaps, this article reviews the principles of shared decision making, explores ways shared decision making can be utilized for patients who are candidates for breast reconstruction, and provides a practical overview to facilitate implementation of shared decision making into clinical practice.

Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Prepectoral Implant-Based Reconstruction: A Case Report

Patient: Female, 45-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Prophylactic mastectomy

Symptoms: —

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Obstetrics and Gynecology