Surgical Outcomes of Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in Young Women

Impact of Tissue Expander Surface Texture on Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction Outcomes: A Combined Analysis

BACKGROUND

With ongoing investigations of the impact of device texturing on breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), studies have begun comparing complication profiles of tissue expanders. However, there is a paucity of timing and severity data of complications. The aim of this study was to provide a comparative survival analysis of postoperative complications between smooth (STEs) and textured tissue expanders (TTEs) in breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A single-institution experience with tissue expander breast reconstruction was reviewed for complications up to 1 year after second-stage reconstruction from 2014 to 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, operation-related variables, and complications were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazard models, and a consensus-based ordinal logistic regression model were used to compare complication profiles.

RESULTS

Of 919 total patients, 600 (65.3%) received TTEs and 319 (34.7%) received STEs. There was increased risk of infection ( P < 0.0001), seroma ( P = 0.046), expander malposition ( P < 0.0001), and wound dehiscence ( P = 0.019) in STEs compared with TTEs. However, there was also a decreased risk of capsular contracture ( P = 0.005) in STEs compared with TTEs. Failure of breast reconstruction ( P < 0.001) and wound dehiscence ( P = 0.018) occurred significantly earlier in STEs compared with TTEs. Predictors for significantly higher severity complications included the following: smooth tissue expander use ( P = 0.007), shorter time to complication ( P < 0.0001), higher body mass index ( P = 0.005), smoking history ( P = 0.025), and nipple-sparing mastectomy ( P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in the timing and severity of complications contribute to the safety profiles of tissue expanders. STEs are associated with increased odds of higher severity and earlier complications. Therefore, tissue expander selection may depend on underlying risk factors and severity predictors.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

The Impact of Breast Implant Cohesivity on Rippling and Revision Procedures in 2-Stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Background

Rippling remains one of the most common complications following prepectoral implant-based reconstruction (IBR).

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to assess how implant cohesivity, a measure of elasticity and form stability, affects the incidence of rippling in prepectoral IBR.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 2-stage prepectoral IBR performed between January 2020 and June 2022 at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comparing outcomes in patients who received Allergan Natrelle least cohesive, moderately cohesive, and most cohesive silicone gel implants. Outcomes of interest were rippling and reoperation for fat grafting.

Results

A total of 129 patients were identified, of whom 52 had the least cohesive implants, 24 had the moderately cohesive implants, and 53 patients had the most cohesive implants. The mean follow-up time was 463 (±220) days. A decreased incidence of rippling was seen with moderately cohesive (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, P < .05) and most cohesive (OR 0.39, P < .05) implants. Third stage reoperation for fat grafting was less frequent in patients with the most cohesive implant (OR 0.07, P < .05). In subgroup analyses, the patients with the most cohesive implant, who did not receive fat grafting at the time of initial implant placement, did not require reoperation for fat grafting (0%).

Conclusions

The use of highly cohesive implants in prepectoral IBR is associated with decreased rippling and fewer reoperations for fat grafting.

Level of Evidence 3

Complication Profiles of Smooth vs Textured Tissue Expanders in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma first linked with breast implants in 2011. The correlation between BIA-ALCL and textured devices has led to increased use of smooth devices. However, much of the data surrounding smooth and textured devices investigates breast implants specifically and not tissue expanders.

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to compare surgical outcomes for smooth tissue expanders (STEs) and textured tissue expanders (TTEs).

METHODS

A search was performed on PubMed, including articles from 2016 to 2023 (n = 419). Studies comparing TTEs and STEs and reported complications were included. A random-effects model was utilized for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 5 articles met inclusion criteria, representing 1709 patients in the STE cohort and 1716 patients in the TTE cohort. The mean duration of tissue expansion with STEs was 221.25 days, while TTEs had a mean time of tissue expansion of 220.43 days.Our meta-analysis found no differences in all surgical outcomes except for explantation risk. STE use was associated with increased odds of explantation by over 50% compared to TTE use (odds ratio = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.02; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, STEs and TTEs had similar complication profiles. However, STEs had 1.5 times higher odds of explantation. The incidence of BIA-ALCL is low, and only a single case of BIA-ALCL has been reported with TTEs. This indicates that TTEs are safe and may lower the risk of early complications requiring explantation. Further studies are warranted to further define the relationship between tissue expanders and BIA-ALCL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using Intraoperative Fluorescence Imaging: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Limited comparability between study groups can generate significant selection and observer bias when evaluating the efficacy of the SPY system and fluorescence imaging for implant-based breast reconstruction. In this study, the authors compared the surgical outcomes and complications during the first stage of reconstruction between reconstructions evaluated intraoperatively with fluorescence imaging using the SPY system and clinical assessment using a matched analysis.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing total mastectomy and immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with TEs from January of 2011 to December of 2020. The rate of complication, time for TE-to-implant exchange, and time to start radiotherapy were compared between groups (intraoperative fluorescence imaging versus clinical assessment) using a propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 198 reconstructions were evaluated. There were 99 reconstructions in each group. The median time for TE-to-implant exchange (140 days versus 185 days; P = 0.476) and time to initiate adjuvant radiotherapy (144 days versus 98 days; P = 0.199) were comparable between groups. The 30-day rate of wound-related complications (21% versus 9%; P = 0.017) and 30-day rate of wound-related unplanned interventions were significantly higher in reconstructions evaluated with clinical assessment when compared with the SPY system (16% versus 5%; P = 0.011). A higher 30-day rate of seroma (19% versus 14%; P = 0.041) and hematoma (8% versus 0%; P = 0.004) were found in reconstructions assessed intraoperatively with the SPY system.

CONCLUSIONS

After matching, reconstructions evaluated with fluorescence imaging exhibited a lower incidence of early wound-related complications when compared with clinical evaluation alone. Nonetheless, the Wise pattern for mastectomy was found to be the only independent predictor associated with early wound-related complications.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Prevention of Postoperative Complications by Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved over time. However, the effects of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) compared with those of subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) have not been clearly defined. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the occurrence of surgical complications between PBR and SBR to determine the procedure that is effective and relatively safe.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published until April of 2021 comparing PBR and SBR following mastectomy. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. General information on the studies and surgical outcomes were extracted. Among 857 studies, 34 and 29 were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed to clearly compare the results of patients who underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy.

RESULTS

Pooled results showed that prevention of capsular contracture (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79) and infection control (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92) were better with PBR than with SBR. Rates of hematoma, implant loss, seroma, skin-flap necrosis, and wound dehiscence were not significantly different between PBR and SBR. PBR considerably improved postoperative pain, BREAST-Q score, and upper arm function compared with SBR. Among postmastectomy radiation therapy patients, the incidence rates of capsular contracture were significantly lower in the PBR group than in the SBR group (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that PBR had fewer postoperative complications than SBR. The authors' meta-analysis suggests that PBR could be used as an alternative technique for breast reconstruction in appropriate patients.

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy in patients with obesity: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Breast reconstruction in patients with obesity presents numerous challenges, both in terms of surgical technique and post-operative complication management. As breast reconstruction techniques continue to evolve, the armamentarium of reconstructive options for patients with obesity has vastly expanded. Options now include immediate or delayed, implant-based, autologous, or hybrid reconstruction. Determining the optimal breast reconstruction in this complex population requires nuanced and experienced decision-making.

Methods

A literature search was conducted to identify studies assessing breast reconstruction considerations in patients with obesity. The search was performed on PubMed and was limited to English language studies published between 1990 and 2023. Primary studies, case reports, chart reviews, and qualitative studies were included. Additional articles were identified for inclusion based on a review of references, as well as a web-based search, to identify additional studies that were not captured with the primary search strategy.

Key Content and Findings

This narrative review article summarizes the current literature available to guide surgeons in breast reconstruction in patients with obesity.

Conclusions

The advancements in oncologic surgery and breast reconstruction techniques have expanded available surgical options, including immediate or delayed implant-based, autologous, or hybrid breast reconstruction. Each approach has its unique advantages, disadvantages, and surgical considerations. Despite the challenges, patients with obesity can achieve favorable aesthetic outcomes through careful assessment of comorbidities and expectation management.

Management of complications following implant-based breast reconstruction: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Complications associated with implant-based reconstruction have a spectrum of severity with sequelae ranging from mild aesthetic deformities to additional surgery, reconstructive failure and systemic illness. The purpose of this narrative review of the literature is to provide updated evidence-based information on the management of complications in implant-based reconstruction.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, OVID MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify common complications associated with implant-based breast reconstruction, incidences of occurrence as well as preventative and management strategies.

Key Content and Findings

Pertinent short and long-term complications of implant-based breast reconstruction include hematoma, implant infection, seroma, skin envelope necrosis, capsular contracture, rupture, malposition, animation and contour deformities, implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and breast implant illness. Important preventative measures for short term complications include meticulous sterile technique and antibiotic irrigation, adequate drainage and critical evaluation of mastectomy flaps. Management of short-term complications requires early recognition and aggressive treatment to prevent reconstructive failure as well as long-term complications such as capsular contracture. Important technological advances include dual-port expanders for seroma drainage, indocyanine green angiography for mastectomy flap perfusion evaluation, cohesive form-stable implants for treatment of rippling, and various biologic and synthetic mesh products for pocket control and correction.

Conclusions

Important principles in management of short-term complications in implant-based reconstruction include aggressive and early intervention to maximize the chance of reconstructive salvage. Contemporary technological advances have played an important role in both prevention and treatment of complications. Over-arching principles in management of implant-based reconstruction complications focus on preventative techniques and preoperative patient counseling on potential risks, their likelihood, and necessary treatments to allow for informed and shared decision-making.

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.

A Comparative Study of Wraparound versus Anterior Coverage Placement of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral direct-to-implant insertion (DTI) with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is the currently preferred operation for breast reconstruction. There are different placements of ADM, which are largely classified as wraparound placement or anterior coverage placement. Because there are limited data comparing these two placements, this study aimed to compare the outcomes of these two methods.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of immediate prepectoral DTI breast reconstructions performed by a single surgeon between 2018 and 2020. Patients were classified depending on the ADM placement type used. Surgical outcomes and breast shape changes using nipple position during follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients were included in the study, with 87 in the wraparound group and 72 in the anterior coverage group. Demographics were similar between the two groups, excluding ADM amount used (154.1 cm 2 versus 137.8 cm 2 ; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the overall rate of complications between the two groups, including seroma (6.90% versus 5.56%; P = 1.0), total drainage amount (762.1 mL versus 805.9 mL; P = 0.45), and capsular contracture (4.6% versus 1.39%; P = 0.38). The wraparound group had a significantly longer distance change than that of the anterior coverage group in the sternal notch-to-nipple distance (4.44% versus 2.08%; P = 0.03) and midclavicle-to-nipple distance (4.94% versus 2.64%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Wraparound and anterior coverage placement of ADM in prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction showed similar complication rates, including seroma, drainage amount, and capsular contracture. However, wraparound placement can make the breast more ptotic in shape compared with anterior coverage placement.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Simultaneous Fat Grafting During Tissue Expander-to-Implant Exchange: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most common technique for breast reconstruction. The primary resource for correcting deformities, once patients have achieved an adequate volume with two-stage IBBR, is autologous fat grafting. We compared the surgical outcomes of simultaneous fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange (SFG + TtIE) versus no fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange (No-FGX).

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all consecutive patients undergoing two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with TE from January 2011 to December 2020. Propensity score matching was implemented to optimize comparability. The control group did not receive fat grafting at the time of TE-to-implant exchange.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 196 reconstructions were evaluated, 98 in each group. Reconstructions in the SFG + TtIE received larger implants during exchange in comparison with the No-FGX group (539 ± 135.1-cc versus 495.97 ± 148-cc, p=0.035). The mean volume of fat lipoinjected during TE-to-implant exchange in the SFG + TtIE group was 88.79 ± 41-ml. A higher proportion of reconstructions in the SFG + TtIE group underwent additional fat grafting after exchange versus the No-FGX group (19% versus 9%, p = 0.041). After propensity score matching, only the rate of fat necrosis after exchange was significantly higher in the SFG + TtIE group (10% versus 2%, p = 0.017). The rate of breast cancer recurrence (3% versus 5%, p = 1.00) was comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

SFG + TtIE is a safe procedure to improve the envelope of reconstructed breasts during two-stage IBBR. SFG + TtIE does not increase the rate of periprosthetic infection or wound-related complication versus no fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange, but increases the rate of fat necrosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

Therapeutic study. 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.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Reconstruction: How Do We Choose?

Aspects of a patient's lifestyle, their state of health, breast size, and mastectomy skin flap quality are factors that influence the suggested plane of dissection in implant-based breast reconstruction. This article aims to review developments in prosthetic breast reconstruction and provide recommendations to help providers choose whether prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction in the best approach for each of their patients.

Modern Approaches to Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

The modern approach to implant-based breast reconstruction encompasses an evolution in surgical techniques, patient selection, implant technology, and use of support materials. Successful outcomes are defined by teamwork throughout the ablative and reconstructive processes as well as appropriate and evidence-based utilization of modern material technologies. Patient education, focus on patient-reported outcomes, and informed and shared decision-making are the key to all steps of these procedures.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q

BACKGROUND

Over the years, plastic surgery has acquired a central role in the integrated treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using the prepectoral approach has emerged as an alternative to reconstruction using the subpectoral technique to overcome the complications arising from this type of surgery resulting as a consequence of muscle elevation. The satisfaction and quality of life of patients undergoing DTI breast reconstruction were evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire, comparing the prepectoral and the subpectoral technique.

METHODS

A single-center cross-sectional study on patients who underwent mastectomy and DTI breast reconstruction at our institution between 2013 and 2021 was conducted. Eighty-one patients were included and mainly divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: 52 patients undergoing a subpectoral breast reconstruction approach and 29 patients receiving a prepectoral breast reconstruction. In order to assess the quality of life, the postoperative BREAST-Q module was administered electronically to the enrolled patients.

RESULTS

Higher scores in BREAST-Q domains were recorded from patients who underwent mastectomy and breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique: psychosocial well-being (P<0.0085), sexual well-being (P<0.0120), physical well-being: lymphoedema (P<0.0001) and satisfaction with information received (P<0.0045). There were further statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to postoperative complications (p<0.0465) and the need for reoperation (p<0.0275).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique were more satisfied in terms of psychosocial, sexual and also physical well-being. These patients also had statistically lower complications and reoperations compared to patients who received breast reconstruction with the subpectoral technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors 38 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 39 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 40 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 41 Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

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.

A Comparative Study of Secondary Procedures after Subpectoral and Prepectoral Single-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most commonly used procedure to reconstruct the breast after mastectomy. The advantages and disadvantages of subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement remain a matter of debate. This study compares the need for secondary aesthetic procedures between prepectoral and subpectoral IBR.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent subpectoral or prepectoral IBR between 2015 and 2018 under a single surgeon at a tertiary breast unit. The primary endpoint was the number of secondary procedures performed to improve the aesthetic outcome. Secondary endpoints included the number of secondary procedures during the first year.

RESULTS

A total of 271 one-stage IBRs were performed (subpectoral, n = 128 in 74 patients; prepectoral, n = 143 in 84 patients). Overall, more patients required secondary procedures in the subpectoral group (36.5% versus 19%; P = 0.014), although through longer follow-up. The most common procedures were pocket revision and implant exchange [11.7% versus 3.5% ( P = 0.010); 11.7% versus 4.2% ( P = 0.021)], whereas fat grafting was similar between the two groups (46% versus 40.5%; P = 0.777). When adjusted for follow-up time, there was no significant difference in the number of secondary procedures undertaken in the subpectoral versus the prepectoral group (21% versus 16%, respectively; P = 0.288) at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The requirement for secondary procedures at 1 year was not different between groups. The need for fat grafting was not increased following prepectoral IBR.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Advances in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Breast reconstruction can be divided into prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR) according to the implant plane. The original prepectoral breast reconstruction was abandoned for a long time due to the frequent and severe complications. Now, advances in materials technology and improved methods of mastectomy have made safe prepectoral breast reconstruction possible. Moreover, a number of studies have gradually demonstrated the advantages of prepectoral breast reconstruction. As prepectoral breast reconstruction becomes more and more attractive, it is time to review the current advances in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) remains the standard and most popular option for women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy worldwide. Recently, prepectoral IBBR has resurged in popularity, despite limited data comparing prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2021, was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, data were extracted by independent reviewers. Studies that compared prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR for breast cancer were included.

RESULTS

Overall, 15 studies with 3,101 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that patients receiving prepectoral IBBR experienced fewer capsular contractures (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.92; P = 0.02), animation deformity (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.25; P = 0.002), and prosthesis failure (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference between prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR in overall complications (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.09; P = 0.19), seroma (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.59-2.51; P = 0.60), hematoma (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18; P = 0.22), infection (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.63-1.20; P = 0.39), skin flap necrosis (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.45-1.08; P = 0.11), and recurrence (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.52-3.39; P = 0.55). Similarly, no significant difference was found in Breast-Q scores between the prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that prepectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction is a safe modality and has similar outcomes with significantly lower rates of capsular contracture, prosthesis failure, and animation deformity compared with subpectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction.

Subpectoral versus prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction: A propensity score-matched analysis of 30-day morbidity and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Approximately 80% of patients undergoing total mastectomy in the US opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). A two-stage reconstruction with tissue expander (TE) remains the most common technique. Since the implementation of ADMs, a prepectoral approach has gained popularity and is becoming the standard of care. Herein, we compared the surgical and postoperative outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage IBBR.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed between January 2011 and December 2020. We included female patients undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR. The primary outcomes of this study were to compare the 30-day morbidity and the overall rate of complications during the first and second stages of reconstruction, and to compare the time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Propensity score matching was implemented.

RESULTS

After matching, 154 reconstructions were analyzed, 77 in each group. The two matched groups exhibited comparable (p > 0.05) characteristics for all analyzed demographic and intraoperative independent variables. Reconstructions in the prepectoral group had a shortened median time for drain removal (13-days vs. 15-days, p = 0.001). The intraoperative expansion volumes were higher in the prepectoral group (300 ml versus 200 ml, p = 0.025). The 30-day morbidity and first- and second-stage complication rates were not significantly different between groups. The time to start postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) was not significantly different between groups (134-days versus 126.5-days, p = 0.58).

CONCLUSION

Prepectoral and subpectoral TE placement had comparable complication rates during the first and second stages of IBBR. Timing for TE-to-Implant exchange and initiation of PMRT were comparable between the two approaches.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

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.

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.

Immediate Breast Reconstruction Using the Goldilocks Procedure: A Balance between More Surgery and Patient Satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Since its first description in 2012, the Goldilocks procedure has become an option for immediate breast reconstruction, particularly for obese patients who are poor candidates for traditional implant or autologous reconstruction. In this work, the authors performed a longitudinal study of patients who underwent mastectomy with Goldilocks reconstruction to assess the incidence of additional surgical procedures, and to assess surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomy with the Goldilocks procedure only at Mayo Clinic Rochester between January of 2012 and September of 2019 was performed. Demographics, complications, additional breast procedures performed to attain the final results, and patient-reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q were recorded. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify statistical associations and risk factors.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients (108 breasts) were included. Mean age was 57.8 years. Mean body mass index was 37.6 kg/m2. Median follow-up time after the mastectomy with the Goldilocks procedure was 15 months. The major complication rate within the first 30 days was 9.3 percent. Forty-four breasts (40.7 percent) underwent additional surgery. Dyslipidemia was significantly associated with an increased risk of additional surgery (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.00; p = 0.045). Scores in the four BREAST-Q domains were not statistically different between patients who had additional procedures and those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results, the authors recommend a thorough preoperative discussion with patients who are candidates for the Goldilocks procedure to explore all options for reconstruction and their expectations, because it is crucial to reduce the necessity for additional operations in this high-risk population.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Early Clinical Outcomes of Polydioxanone Mesh for Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

Many biologic matrices and synthetic meshes are available as adjuncts for prosthetic and autologous breast reconstructions to help control implant position and to reinforce abdominal flap donor sites. Absorbable synthetic meshes may have advantages over biologic matrices and permanent meshes, such as lower cost and better long-term biocompatibility. We present a prospective case series of patients undergoing two-stage, prepectoral breast reconstruction with polydioxanone (PDO) mesh.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

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.

A Comparison of BREAST-Q Scores between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Subpectoral breast implant placement has in recent history predominated in breast reconstruction, but there has been more recent adoption of prepectoral implant reconstruction. There has been limited study to date of patient-reported outcomes comparing the two techniques.

METHODS

Patients who underwent direct-to-implant breast reconstruction between 2013 and 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients were asked to complete BREAST-Q domains comparing quality of life and satisfaction. Descriptive, t test, chi-square test, and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to compare BREAST-Q scores. Significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

There were 64 patients (114 breasts) who underwent prepectoral reconstruction and 37 patients (68 breasts) who underwent subpectoral reconstruction. Among the 101 women (182 breasts), there were no significant differences between BREAST-Q scores and implant position for the Satisfaction with Breasts domain (adjusted p = 0.819), Psychosocial Well-being domain (adjusted p = 0.206), or Physical Well-being Chest domain (adjusted p = 0.110). The subpectoral implant cohort was associated with higher scores, 53 versus 47, for the Sexual Well-being module (adjusted p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction had comparable BREAST-Q satisfaction scores for most modules regardless of implant plane. The subpectoral implant cohort scored higher for sexual well-being.

The First Use of Human-Derived ADM in Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction after Skin-Reducing Mastectomy

INTRODUCTION

Large and ptotic breasts always represented a great reconstructive challenge for plastic surgeons. In order to deal with these patients, we started performing Wise-pattern skin-reducing mastectomies (SRM) followed by direct-to-implant breast reconstructions (DTI-BR) in the prepectoral space where the implants were covered with the autologous adipo-dermal flap and a human acellular dermal matrix called MODA.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed all patients that underwent Wise-pattern SRM followed by MODA-assisted, prepectoral, DTI-BR between January 2017 and November 2019 at our Institution. Inclusion criteria were large ptotic breast and pinch test >2cm, while exclusion criteria were smoking >10 cigarettes/day, history of prior radiotherapy, patients supposedly requiring breast implants bigger than 550cc or post-mastectomy radiotherapy. Patients' data were collected through their electronic medical records. Both short- and long-term outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients underwent Wise-pattern SRM followed by MODA-assisted, prepectoral, DTI-BR for a total of twenty-one breast reconstruction and fourteen matching procedures. Mean follow-up was 13.4 months (SD= ±3.67). No major complication was reported. Three (14.3%) reconstructed breasts had minor complications: 2 (9.5%) minimal (<1cm²) wound dehiscence and 1 (4.8%) de-epithelization of the skin at the T junction that were treated conservatively. Drainages gave mean output of 410.59 ml (SD= ±214.83) and were kept in place on average for 8.59 days (SD= ±3.45).

CONCLUSION

Few are the reports in the literature regarding DTI-BR following SRM and even fewer are those where BR was performed in the prepectoral space. Our work demonstrated the safety of prepectoral DTI-BR following SRM in selected patients in accordance with the "conservative reconstruction" principles. Furthermore, we confirmed the reliability of MODA in accordance with previously published works.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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- to Medium-term Outcome of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Direct-to-implant Reconstruction using Acellular Dermal Matrix

Subpectoral implant reconstruction (SIR) is associated with animation deformity and increased postoperative pain. The aim of our study was to compare the short- to medium-term outcome of prepectoral implant reconstruction (PIR) and SIR with acellular dermal matrix.

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.

Selective Denervation of Pectoralis Major Muscle Improves Cosmetic Outcome and Quality of Life in Retro-Pectoral Implant Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Selective pectoralis major muscle (PMM) denervation has been described in retro-pectoral reconstructions to obtain the advantages of the pre-pectoral approach. Present study compared subjective evaluations between retro-pectoral implant based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) with denervation to traditional techniques without denervation.

METHODS

In 2020, two 2 groups of patients submitted to retro-pectoral IBBR, minimum 12-month follow-up, were compared through BREAST-Q post-operative questionnaire. Group-1 included direct-to-implant or two2-stage tissue expanderTE cases with selective PMM denervation, while Group-2 similar procedures, in the same time span 2017-2019, without denervation. BREAST-Q was divided into five 5 independent scales and for each scale item responses were summed up and transformed into a score, ranging from 0 to 100, to analyze and compare the results.

RESULTS

50 patients were included both in Group1 and Group-2. Group-1 patients reported significantly higher scores in "satisfaction with the reconstructed breast" scale compared to Group-2, means-medians of 56-58 and 47-50, respectively. A trend in favor of Group-1 was recorded in the scales of "psycho-social well-being", 64-65 vs. 58-53, and "sexual well-being", 53-47 vs. 48-47, albeit not significant. Substantial equivalence was found in "satisfaction with the result overall" and "physical well-being".

CONCLUSION

PMM denervation can improve cosmetic results in retro-pec IBBRs, thus leading to better QoL. Possible pain and physical discomfort weren't caused by denervation with scores similar to non-denervated controls.

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.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Mastopexy

BACKGROUND

Nipple-areola preservation positively impacts quality of life of the patients and helps them to achieve a better psychological and sexual well-being, as well as higher satisfaction with their reconstruction. Patients with large or ptotic breasts, however, represent a technical challenge to surgeons, and nipple-areola preservation may be deferred in this clinical scenario. The aim of this study is to report our experience in patients with large or ptotic breasts who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with immediate mastopexy.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective chart review was performed in all consecutive patients who underwent NSM and prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction, simultaneously with mastopexy. This procedure was offered preoperatively to patients who had ptotic or large breasts, which could benefit from mastopexy to obtain a better result. Aesthetic outcomes were evaluated using a modified 5-point Likert scale, and satisfaction and quality of life were evaluated using the reconstruction module of the BREAST-Q questionnaire.

RESULTS

Seventeen NSMs with simultaneous mastopexy were performed on 9 patients. All completed reconstruction successfully, and there were no cases of nipple ischemia or necrosis. Global aesthetic evaluation score was 3.77 (±0.95). The Q-scores were as follows: satisfaction with breast was 90, psychosocial well-being was 95, sexual well-being was 80, and physical well-being with chest was 86.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with large and/or ptotic breasts, NSM with prepectoral breast reconstruction and immediate mastopexy showed promising results. However, adequate preoperative planning and intraoperative flap assessment are necessary in order to minimize complications.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Surgical Predictive Model for Breast Cancer Patients Assessing Acute Postoperative Complications: The Breast Cancer Surgery Risk Calculator

BACKGROUND

Prognostic tools, such as risk calculators, improve the patient-physician informed decision-making process. These tools are limited for breast cancer patients when assessing surgical complication risk preoperatively.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to assess predictors associated with acute postoperative complications for breast cancer patients and then develop a predictive model that calculates a complication probability using patient risk factors.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2017. Women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer who underwent either breast conservation or mastectomy procedures were included in this predictive modeling scheme. Four models were built using logistic regression methods to predict the following composite outcomes: overall, infectious, hematologic, and internal organ complications. Model performance, accuracy and calibration measures during internal/external validation included area under the curve, Brier score, and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 163,613 women met the inclusion criteria. The area under the curve for each model was as follows: overall, 0.70; infectious, 0.67; hematologic, 0.84; and internal organ, 0.74. Brier scores were all between 0.04 and 0.003. Model calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic found all p-values to be > 0.05. Using model coefficients, individualized risk can be calculated on the web-based Breast Cancer Surgery Risk Calculator (BCSRc) platform ( www.breastcalc.org ).

CONCLUSION

We developed an internally and externally validated risk calculator that estimates a breast cancer patient's unique risk of acute complications following each surgical intervention. Preoperative use of the BCSRc can potentially help stratify patients with an increased complication risk and improve expectations during the decision-making process.

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.

Intravenous Tranexamic Acid in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Safely Reduces Hematoma without Thromboembolic Events

BACKGROUND

Antifibrinolytic medications, such as tranexamic acid, have recently garnered increased attention. Despite its ability to mitigate intraoperative blood loss and need for blood transfusion, there remains a paucity of research in breast reconstruction. The authors investigate whether intravenous tranexamic acid safely reduces the risk of hematoma following implant-based breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed to analyze all consecutive patients undergoing immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy between 2015 and 2016. The incidence of postoperative hematomas and thromboembolic events among all patients was reviewed. The patients in the intervention group received 1000 mg of intravenous tranexamic acid before mastectomy incision and 1000 mg at the conclusion of the procedure. Fisher's exact test and the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test were used. Multivariate logistic regression models were performed to study the impact of intravenous tranexamic acid after adjusting for possible confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 868 consecutive breast reconstructions (499 women) were reviewed. Overall, 116 patients (217 breasts) received intravenous tranexamic acid, whereas 383 patients (651 breasts) did not. Patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar between the two the groups. Patients who received tranexamic acid were less likely to develop hematomas [n = 1 (0.46 percent)] than patients who did not [n = 19 (2.9 percent)] after controlling for age, hypertension, and type of reconstruction (prepectoral and subpectoral) (p = 0.018). Adverse effects of intravenous tranexamic acid, including thromboembolic phenomena were not observed. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age and hypertension independently increase risk for hematoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous tranexamic acid safely reduces risk of hematoma in implant-based breast reconstruction. Further prospective randomized studies are warranted to further corroborate these findings.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Plastic Surgery in the Time of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

 The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has swept the world in the last several months, causing massive disruption to existing social, economic, and health care systems. As with all medical fields, plastic and reconstructive surgery has been profoundly impacted across the entire spectrum of practice from academic medical centers to solo private practice. The decision to preserve vital life-saving equipment and cancel elective procedures to protect patients and medical staff has been extremely challenging on multiple levels. Frequent and inconsistent messaging disseminated by many voices on the national stage often conflicts and serves only to exacerbate an already difficult decision-making process.

METHODS

 A survey of relevant COVID-19 literature is presented, and bioethical principles are utilized to generate guidelines for plastic surgeons in patient care through this pandemic.

RESULTS

 A cohesive framework based upon core bioethical values is presented here to assist plastic surgeons in navigating this rapidly evolving global pandemic.

CONCLUSION

 Plastic surgeons around the world have been affected by COVID-19 and will adapt to continue serving their patients. The lessons learned in this present pandemic will undoubtedly prove useful in future challenges to come.

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.

[New surgical strategy in breast reconstruction with implants for bilateral prophylactic mastectomies with BRCA gene mutation]

BACKGROUND

For the past decades, number of prophylactic bilateral mastectomies using reconstruction with implants increases. We describe a new surgical strategy and analyse its safety and feasability.

METHOD

It is a retrospective, descriptive and monocentric study. The first step of surgery consisted in obteining a peri-prosthetic capsule with implants and if there was a mammary hypertrophy and/or ptosis, it was corrected at the same time. The second step of surgery was the nipple-sparing mastectomy with change of implants for bigger ones. Third step consisted in a lipofilling.

RESULTS

Seven patients were included. 6 women had a BRCA1 gene mutation. Mean age was 35.6 year-old [29.6; 41.6], mean BMI was 23.8kg/m² [20.6; 27], mean chest circumference was 93.7cm [87.4; 100], mean cup was C- [B-; D-]. 4 women had mammary hypertrophy and/or ptosis. Mean number of procedure per woman was 3.6 [2.5; 4.7]. Mean volume of implants used at the first step was 248.6ml [211.3; 285.9]. The second step was performed mean 33.9 weeks [22.3; 45.5] later. Mean increase of implants volume was 120ml [80.4; 159.6]. 4 patients had complications including 1 who had implant exposure. Six patients had lipofilling of mean volume per breast of 175ml [116; 234].

CONCLUSION

This new strategy could decrease complication rate, improve aesthetic outcome and decrease psychological impact of surgery.

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.