The Effect of Axillary Lymph Node Sampling during Mastectomy on Immediate Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction Complications

Dynamic insights into infection risk over time in two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Infections following postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) can compromise surgical outcomes and lead to significant morbidity. This study aimed to discern the timing of infections in two-stage IBR and associated risk factors.

METHOD

A review of electronic health records was conducted on 1096 breasts in 1058 patients undergoing two-stage IBR at Seoul National University Hospital (2015-2020). Infections following the first-stage tissue expander (TE) insertion and second-stage TE exchange were analyzed separately, considering associated risk factors.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 53.5 months, infections occurred in 2.9% (32/1096) after the first stage and 4.1% (44/1070) after the second stage. Infections following the first-stage procedure exhibited a bimodal distribution across time, while those after the second-stage procedure showed a unimodal pattern. When analyzing risk factors for infection after the first-stage procedure, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) was associated with early (≤7 weeks) infection, while both ALND and obesity were independent predictors of late (>7 weeks) infection. For infections following the second-stage procedure, obesity, postmastectomy radiotherapy, a history of expander infection, ALND, and the use of textured implants were identified as independent risk factors. Postmastectomy radiotherapy was related to non-salvaged outcomes after infection following both stages.

CONCLUSION

Infections following first and second-stage IBR exhibit distinct timelines reflecting different pathophysiology. Understanding these timelines and associated risk factors will inform patient selection for IBR and aid in tailored postoperative surveillance planning. These findings contribute to refining patient suitability for IBR and optimizing personalized postoperative care strategies.

Early Complications in Prepectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant placement for postmastectomy breast reconstruction has increased in recent years. Benefits of prepectoral reconstruction may include lack of animation deformities and reduced postoperative pain, but its complication profile is currently unclear. This study aimed to examine the complication profile of prepectoral tissue expanders (TEs) to determine factors associated with TE loss.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed to identify all patients who underwent immediate prepectoral TE reconstruction from January 2018 to June 2021. The decision to use the prepectoral technique was based on mastectomy skin quality and patient comorbidities. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative details were evaluated. Outcomes of interest included TE loss, seroma, hematoma, infection/cellulitis, mastectomy skin flap necrosis requiring revision, and TE exposure. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with TE loss.

RESULTS

The study identified 1225 TEs. The most frequent complications were seroma (8.7%, n = 106), infection/cellulitis (8.2%, n = 101), and TE loss (4.2%, n = 51). Factors associated with TE loss in the univariate analysis included ethnicity, history of smoking, body mass index, mastectomy weight, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In the multivariate regression analysis, only mastectomy weight had a positive association with TE loss (odds ratio, 1.001; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction can be performed safely with an acceptable early complication profile. The study data suggest that increasing mastectomy weight is the most significant factor associated with TE loss. Further research examining the quality of the soft tissue envelope and assessing patient-reported outcomes would prove beneficial.

Breast Reconstruction following Mastectomy for Breast Cancer or Prophylactic Mastectomy: Therapeutic Options and Results

(1) Importance of problem: Breast cancer accounted for 685,000 deaths globally in 2020, and half of all cases occur in women with no specific risk factor besides gender and age group. During the last four decades, we have seen a 40% reduction in age-standardized breast cancer mortality and have also witnessed a reduction in the medium age at diagnosis, which in turn means that the number of mastectomies performed for younger women increased, raising the need for adequate breast reconstructive surgery. Advances in oncological treatment have made it possible to limit the extent of what represents radical surgery for breast cancer, yet in the past decade, we have seen a marked trend toward mastectomies in breast-conserving surgery-eligible patients. Prophylactic mastectomies have also registered an upward trend. This trend together with new uses for breast reconstruction like chest feminization in transgender patients has increased the need for breast reconstruction surgery. (2) Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze the types of reconstructive procedures, their indications, their limitations, their functional results, and their safety profiles when used during the integrated treatment plan of the oncologic patient. (3) Methods: We conducted an extensive literature review of the main reconstructive techniques, especially the autologous procedures; summarized the findings; and presented a few cases from our own experience for exemplification of the usage of breast reconstruction in oncologic patients. (4) Conclusions: Breast reconstruction has become a necessary step in the treatment of most breast cancers, and many reconstructive techniques are now routinely practiced. Microsurgical techniques are considered the "gold standard", but they are not accessible to all services, from a technical or financial point of view, so pediculated flaps remain the safe and reliable option, along with alloplastic procedures, to improve the quality of life of these patients.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy and immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

There are important differences between patients requiring sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and those who do not require axillary surgery at the time of breast reconstruction. We aimed to perform a propensity score-matched analysis to evaluate the impact of SLNB at the time of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) with tissue expanders compared with IBBR alone.

METHODS

Consecutive female patients undergoing total mastectomy and immediate two-stage IBBR between January 2011 and May 2021 were included. A 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching method without replacement was implemented with a caliper width of 0.01. Patients were matched for age, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, premastectomy radiotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the plane of prosthesis placement, mastectomy specimen weight, number of drains, and radiation of the expander.

RESULTS

We included 320 two-stage immediate IBBRs after propensity score matching, 160 reconstructions per group. Relevant surgical variables were comparable between groups. A higher rate of 30-day seroma formation was reported in immediate reconstructions that had SLNB at the time of mastectomy compared with reconstructions that did not have axillary surgery (16.3% versus 8.1%, p = 0.039). The time to complete outpatient expansions and time for expander-to-implant exchange were comparable between patients who underwent IBBRs with SLNB and those who did not.

CONCLUSION

SLNB performed at the time of mastectomy and IBBR with tissue expander increased the risk of seroma formation compared with reconstructions that did not have axillary surgery. The rate of infection, hematoma, and unplanned procedures to manage complications did not differ between groups.

Seroma After Breast Reconstruction With Tissue Expanders: Outcomes and Management

BACKGROUND

Seroma is a relatively common complication after breast reconstruction with tissue expanders. The main risk in the presence of seroma is development of periprosthetic infection, which can lead to implant loss. Our goals were to identify risk factors for seroma, and to describe our protocol for managing fluid accumulation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An IRB approved breast reconstruction database was reviewed to identify patients who underwent tissue expander reconstruction. Patient characteristics, details of surgery, outcomes and treatment were recorded.

RESULTS

Two hundred nineteen tissue expander reconstructions were performed in 138 patients. Twenty-eight reconstructions developed seroma (12.8%), and 75 were identified to have prolonged drains (34.2%). Seroma was more common in patients with lymph node surgery ( P = 0.043), delayed reconstruction ( P = 0.049), and prepectoral reconstruction ( P = 0.002). Seroma and/or prolonged drains were more commonly noted in patients with higher body mass index ( P = 0.044) and larger breast size ( P = 0.001). Aspiration was the most common intervention (85.7%), which was performed in the clinic utilizing the expander port site. There was no difference in infection or explantation rate between seroma and no-seroma patients ( P = 0.546 and 0.167), whereas patients with any fluid concern (seroma and/or prolonged drains) were more prone to developing infection and undergoing explantation ( P = 0.041 and P < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

We recommend that prolonged drain placement longer than 3 weeks should be avoided, and patients should be screened for fluid accumulation after drain removal. Serial aspiration via expander port site and continuation of expansion provide a safe and effective method to manage seromas to avoid infection and expander loss.

Adverse Outcome of Two-Staged Breast Reconstruction: More Than One Culprit

BACKGROUND

Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction with initial insertion of a tissue expander followed by change-over to an implant after a period of inflation has become a well-established option in breast reconstruction. Our aim was to analyze the feasibility of two-stage breast reconstruction in our center by following the surgical technique, number of complications and associated risk factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied 91 patients who underwent skin sparring mastectomy and tissue expander placement in our surgical unit, between January 2017 and December 2021. Axillary surgery was performed in all patients. We collected data on age, smoker status, breast size, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, neoadjuvant treatment and surgical intervention details.

RESULTS

Skin necrosis (12.08%) and seroma (16.48%) were the most common complications. 7.69% of the patients required reintervention. Patients underwent delayed reconstruction after more than 6 months in 69.7% of the cases, while the overall reconstruction rate was 86.08%. Smoker status, an increased body mass index, comorbidities, neoadjuvant treatment, type of incision and location of the implant were the main factors that led to adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Tissue expanders are a viable option for reconstruction; however, we observed a higher incidence of skin complications in smokers and in cases where periareolar incision was used.

Iodine-125 seed versus hook-wire guided breast conserving surgery: do post operative complication rates differ?

BACKGROUND

Radio-guided occult lesion localisation using iodine 125 seeds (ROLLIS) is used to localize impalpable breast cancers for breast conserving surgery (BCS). Previous studies have suggested improved efficiency and patient outcomes with ROLLIS compared with hook-wire localisation (HWL). The aim of this report is to compare the post-operative complication rates and safety profiles of ROLLIS versus hook-wire guided surgery.

METHODS

Between September 2013 and March 2018, 690 women with non-palpable breast cancer eligible for breast-conserving surgery were randomly assigned to either pre-operative localisation with 125 I seed or hook-wire as part of the ROLLIS clinical trial. Medical record review of 170 women (30% of the total participants) from three tertiary hospitals in Western Australia was performed. Post-operative complications were classified using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) grade I to V.

RESULTS

Total of 170 surgeries were performed: 82 by ROLLIS and 88 by hook-wire. The overall complication rate in the ROLLIS group was 19.5%, with 15.9% being grade II and 3.66% grade III. In the HWL group, the complication rate was 22.7% with 20.5% being grade II and 2.27% grade III. There was no statistically significant difference in complication grades between the 2 groups. No grade IV or grade V complications were reported. Complications observed included drainable seroma, drainable haematoma and surgical site infection.

CONCLUSION

ROLLIS is a safe method of localisation for surgical resection with similar complication rates as hookwires. We encourage its use as an alternative localisation technique as it has demonstrable superiority and efficacy.

Immediate breast reconstruction is oncologically safe for node-positive patients: Comparison using propensity score matching

The oncological safety of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in lymph node-positive patients is unclear. In the present study, the impact of IBR on recurrence based on data of patients with axillary lymph node metastases only was examined.The subjects were 232 patients who underwent breast surgery. The patients were grouped into 2 cohorts: non-IBR patients who underwent mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection; and IBR patients with tissue expander or flap transfer and axillary lymph node dissection. The Non-IBR group included 165 patients, and the IBR group included 67 patients. For the comparison of oncological outcomes between the 2 groups, propensity score matching was performed. The propensity scores were calculated by logistic regression analysis, including age, tumor staging, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, and estrogen receptor status. There was no difference in locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) between the non-IBR and IBR groups. The 5-year LRRFS rate was 78.9% in the non-IBR group and 85.1% in the IBR group. There was no difference in recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the non-IBR and IBR groups. The 5-year RFS rate was 75.6% in the non-IBR group and 78.8% in the IBR group. In all patients, the 5-year LRRFS rate was 77.3%, and the RFS rate was 70.5%. Multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify factors affecting RFS in all patients showed that estrogen receptor status and high nuclear grade were significant prognostic factors; IBR was irrelevant.This is the first report of an analysis using propensity score matching limited to node-positive breast cancer patients, and it showed that IBR is relatively safe in such patients.