Surgical Outcomes in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Cortiva versus AlloDerm in Prepectoral and Partial Submuscular Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Several acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are used for soft-tissue support in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Little high-level evidence supports the use of one ADM over another. The authors sought to compare Cortiva 1-mm Allograft Dermis with AlloDerm RTU (ready to use), the most studied ADM in the literature.

METHODS

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing Cortiva with AlloDerm in prepectoral and subpectoral immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction was performed at 2 academic hospitals from March of 2017 to December of 2021. Reconstructions were direct to implant (DTI) or tissue expander (TE). Primary outcome was reconstructive failure, defined as TE explantation before planned further reconstruction, or explantation of DTI reconstructions before 3 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were additional complications, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and cost.

RESULTS

There were 302 patients included: 151 AlloDerm (280 breasts), 151 Cortiva (277 breasts). The majority of reconstructions in both cohorts consisted of TE (62% versus 38% DTI), smooth device (68% versus 32% textured), and prepectoral (80% versus 20% subpectoral). Reconstructive failure was no different between ADMs (AlloDerm 9.3% versus Cortiva 8.3%; P = 0.68). There were no additional differences in any complications or PROs between ADMs. Seromas occurred in 7.6% of Cortiva but 12% of AlloDerm cases, in which the odds of seroma formation were two-fold higher (odds ratio, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.01 to 3.67]; P = 0.047). AlloDerm variable cost was 10% to 15% more than Cortiva, and there were no additional cost differences.

CONCLUSION

When assessing safety, clinical performance, PROs, and cost, Cortiva is noninferior to AlloDerm in immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction, and may be less expensive, with lower risk of seroma formation.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, I.

[Post-mastectomy necrotizing fasciitis and immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction: First case report]

Necrotizing fasciitis is a rapidly progressive soft tissue infection extending from the skin to the fascia, resulting in extensive necrosis. It is a very rare but serious complication, with mortality ranging from 10 to 15%. Optimal management involves early diagnosis followed by treatment combining antibiotic therapy and wide surgical removal as soon as possible. Localisation in the breast is uncommon. Although most cases are primary necrotizing fasciitis of the breast, several cases of necrotizing fasciitis have been reported in the post-operative aftermath of breast surgery. We present a case of necrotizing fasciitis of the breast following submammary mastectomy with immediate reconstruction using a pre-pectoral silicone implant, which resulted in multiple organ failure and the death of the patient despite optimal medical and surgical management. This is the first case to occur after immediate breast reconstruction.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction with Prosthesis and Acellular Dermal Matrix: A New Technique of ADM Implantation and Fixation

Background

Direct-to-implant (DTI) immediate breast reconstruction has proven to be an oncologically safe technique and linked to better overall results. The introduction of new surgical techniques has prompted us to develop an acellular dermal matrix fixation technique that reduces the rate of complications and implant loss.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data from patients who underwent DTI prepectoral breast reconstruction with two different techniques of acellular dermal matrix fixation to the chest wall. Descriptive statistics were reported using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables, and means and SDs for continuous variables. Pearson chi-square test was used to compare differences in categorical variables. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to investigate the predictors of complications.

Results

From October 2019 to March 2023, 90 DTI breast reconstructions were performed, 43 using the standard technique and 47 using the new technique. The new technique demonstrated a significant reduction of major complications (P = 0.010), namely seroma (13.9% versus 2.3%), skin necrosis (9.3% versus 2.3%), implant loss (7% versus 0%), wound dehiscence (9.3% versus 0%), and infection (4.7% versus 0%). Compared with the standard technique, the new one reduced the risk of complications by 76% (OR 0.24; 95% confidence interval 0.09-0.68; P = 0.007) and 73% (aOR 0.27; 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.92; P = 0.037), at univariable and multivariable regression models. No other significant predictor of complications was identified.

Conclusions

The procedure performed with the proposed modality proved to be advantageous. Careful fixation of the prosthetic implant and the placement of two drains, were the keys to a drastic reduction in complications.

A Single-center Comparison of Surgical Outcomes following Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Background

Prepectoral implant placement continues to gain widespread acceptance as a safe and effective option for breast reconstruction. Current literature demonstrates comparable rates of complications and revisions between prepectoral and subpectoral placement; however, these studies are underpowered and lack long-term follow-up.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent immediate two-staged tissue expander or direct-to-implant breast reconstruction at a single center from January 2017 to March 2021. Cases were divided into prepectoral and subpectoral cohorts. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications, aesthetic deformities, and secondary revisions. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models were performed to compare the demographic characteristics and outcomes between the two cohorts.

Results

We identified 996 breasts (570 patients), which were divided into prepectoral (391 breasts) and subpectoral (605 breasts) cohorts. There was a higher rate of complications (P < 0.001) and aesthetic deformities (P = 0.02) with prepectoral breast reconstruction. Secondary revisions were comparable between the two cohorts. Multivariable regression analysis confirmed that prepectoral reconstruction was associated with an increased risk of complications (odds ratio 2.39, P < 0.001) and aesthetic deformities (odds ratio 1.62, P = 0.003).

Conclusions

This study evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing prepectoral or subpectoral breast reconstruction from a single center with long-term follow-up. Prepectoral placement was shown to have an inferior complication and aesthetic profile compared with subpectoral placement, with no difference in secondary revisions. These findings require validation with a well-designed randomized controlled trial to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.

Impact of Prepectoral vs. Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement on Post-mastectomy Radiation Therapy Delivery: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Implant-based reconstruction is the most common method of postmastectomy reconstruction. Many patients require postmastectomy radiation (PMRT). Tissue expanders (TEs), typically inserted as a first stage, have historically been placed subpectorally. More recently, prepectoral reconstruction has gained popularity, but its impact on PMRT is unknown. Prior studies focus on complication rates and aesthetic outcomes. This study examines whether there is a difference in radiation dosimetry among patients undergoing prepectoral versus subpectoral TE reconstruction.

Methods

Electronic medical records and radiation plans of 50 patients (25 prepectoral, 25 subpectoral) who underwent mastectomy with immediate TE reconstruction at our institution or affiliate site were reviewed. Pectoralis major muscle and chest wall structures were contoured and mean percentage volumes of these structures receiving less than 95%, 100%, and more than 105% target radiation dose were calculated, as were heart and ipsilateral lung doses. Welch two sample t test, Fisher exact test, and Pearson chi-squared tests were performed.

Results

The groups had comparable patient and tumor characteristics and underwent similar ablative and reconstructive procedures and radiation dosimetry. Subpectoral patients had larger mean areas receiving less than 95% target dose ("cold spots"); prepectoral patients had larger mean areas receiving greater than 105% ("hot spots") and 100% target doses. There were no differences in chest wall, heart, and lung doses.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate an increased mean percentage area of pectoralis cold spots with subpectoral reconstruction and increased area of hot spots and 100% dose delivery to the pectoralis in prepectoral patients. Larger studies should analyze long-term effects of prepectoral reconstruction on radiation dosing and recurrence rates.

A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes in Prepectoral Smooth Versus Textured Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Textured tissue expanders (TEs) had previously gained popularity due to minimizing expander migration, rotation, and capsule migration. Recent studies, though, have revealed increased risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma associated with certain macrotextured implants, prompting surgeons at our institution to switch to smooth TEs; evaluation is thus required for specific viability and similarity of outcomes of smooth TEs. Our study aims to evaluate perioperative complications in prepectoral placement of smooth versus textured TEs.

METHODS

Our retrospective study evaluated perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent bilateral prepectoral TE placement, with either smooth or textured TE, at an academic institution between 2017 and 2021 performed by 2 reconstructive surgeons. The perioperative period was defined as the interval between expander placement until conversion to flap/implant or removal of TE due to complications. Our primary outcomes included hematoma, seroma, wounds, infection, unspecified redness, total number of complications, and returns to operating room secondary to complications. Secondary outcomes included time to drain removal, total number of expansions, hospital length of stay, length of time until the next breast reconstruction procedure, next breast reconstruction procedure, and number of expansions.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-two patients were evaluated in our study (141 textured, 81 smooth). After propensity matching (71 textured, 71 smooth), our univariate logistic regression showed no significant difference in perioperative complications between smooth and textured expanders (17.1% vs 21.1%; P = 0.396) or complications that required a return to the operating room (10.0% vs 9.2%; P = 0.809). No significant differences were noted for hematoma, seroma, infections, unspecified redness, or wounds between both groups. A significant difference was noted in days to drain out (18.57 ± 8.17 vs 20.13 ± 0.07, P = 0.001) and type of the next breast reconstruction procedure (P < 0.001). Our multivariate regression showed that breast surgeon, hypertension, smoking status, and mastectomy weight were significant for increased risk for complications.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates similar rates and effectiveness of smooth versus textured TE when used for prepectoral placement, making smooth TEs a safe and valuable alternative for breast reconstruction because of their decreased risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma compared with textured TEs.

Direct to Implant Reconstruction

Implant-based breast reconstruction remains the most commonly performed type of restorative surgery after mastectomy for breast cancer. Placement of a tissue expander at the time of mastectomy allows gradual skin envelope expansion but requires additional surgery and time to completion of a patient's reconstruction. Direct-to-implant reconstruction provides a one-stage, final implant insertion, thereby bypassing the need for serial tissue expansion. With proper patient selection, successful preservation of the breast skin envelope, and accurate implant size and placement, direct-to-implant reconstruction has a very high rate of success and patient satisfaction.

Immediate breast reconstruction by prepectoral polyurethane implant: Preliminary results of the prospective study PreQ-20

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, mastectomy and reconstruction techniques have evolved towards less aggressive procedures, improving the satisfaction and quality of life of women. For this reason, mastectomy has become a valid option for both women with breast cancer and high-risk women. The objective of this study is to analyze the safety of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane implant in women with breast cancer and risk reduction.

METHOD

Observational prospective study to evaluate the feasibility and safety of immediate reconstruction using prepectoral polyurethane implant. All women (with breast cancer or high risk for breast cancer) who underwent skin-sparing or skin-and-nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction with a prepectoral polyurethane implant were included. Women with breast sarcomas, disease progression during primary systemic therapy (PST), delayed, autologous or retropectoral reconstruction, and those who did not wish to participate in the study were excluded. Surgical procedures were performed by both senior and junior surgeons. All patients received the corresponding complementary treatments. All adverse events that occurred during follow-up and the risk factors for developing them were analyzed.

RESULTS

159 reconstructions were performed in 102 women, 80.4% due to breast carcinoma. Fourteen patients developed complications, the most frequent being seroma and wound dehiscence. Eight women required a reoperation (5.0%), seven of them due to implant exposure. Four reconstructions (2.5%) resulted in loss of the implant. Three patients progressed from their oncological process: a local relapse in the mastectomy flap, an axillary progression and a systemic progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral reconstruction with a polyurethane implant is a procedure with a low incidence of postoperative complications (8.8%) and implant loss (2.5%). Its use is safe with perioperative cancer treatments (neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy).

Safety and Quality of Life in Women with Immediate Reconstruction with Polyurethane Implants after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Outcomes from The Preq-20 Trial

INTRODUCTION

Various studies have evaluated the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on the complications of breast cancer surgery, most of which were retrospective and did not assess the variables related to postoperative risk factors. The aim of this study is to analyse the safety and satisfaction of women included in the PreQ-20 trial who underwent NAC and who underwent mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with prepectoral polyurethane implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The patients included in the study belong to the prospective study PreQ-20. The study group consisted of patients who underwent immediate reconstruction after primary systemic therapy. The control groups consisted of patients with immediate reconstruction and adjuvant chemotherapy (control group 1) and patients with an infiltrating carcinoma or in situ ductal carcinoma who did not require chemotherapy (control group 2).

RESULTS

The study included 157 women, 58 (36.9%) of whom underwent primary systemic therapy. The indication for genetic study was significantly greater for the study group (87.9%) than for control groups 1 (49.1%) or 2 (30.4%). Seventy-two (45.9%) of the patients underwent bilateral mastectomy (BM), a procedure that was performed significantly more frequently in the study group (69%) than in control groups 1 (30.2%) or 2 (34.8%). The incidence rate for BM after complete pathologic response was 78%. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of complications between the groups. Implant loss was significantly more frequent in control group 1 (13.2%) than in the study group (3.4%) and control group 2 (2.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Mastectomy with prepectoral polyurethane implant reconstruction in patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy presented a similar incidence of complications compared with patients who underwent primary surgery. There is a high rate of BM in women with NAC.

Salvage of Nipple-Areolar Complex Ischemia With Dimethyl Sulfoxide: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis is a known risk of breast surgery, particularly mastectomy. Disruption of the underlying blood supply to the NAC can lead to ischemia and subsequent necrosis. Nitroglycerin paste is currently used to combat NAC ischemia but has limited efficacy and an unfavorable side effect profile. Topical dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) has been shown to increase tissue perfusion in microsurgery and various skin flaps, but its role in the treatment and prevention of NAC ischemia has not been reported. Through a prospective case series, this study aims to introduce DMSO as a safe treatment for NAC ischemia after breast surgery.

METHODS

Patients treated by 2 breast surgeons and a single plastic surgeon who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy or breast reduction and developed NAC ischemia were identified via a prospectively maintained database. Ischemic changes were diagnosed, and treatment to the affected NAC with DMSO was initiated at the conclusion of the procedure, or postoperative day 1 in most cases, and continued 4 times daily until ischemic changes had resolved clinically. Collected demographic, surgical, and outcome variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Eleven patients with a mean age of 47.8 ± 9.5 years (range, 35-61 years) and mean body mass index of 26.0 ± 4.4 kg/m2 (range, 20.7-33.4 kg/m2) were identified. The mean duration of time between surgery and the clinical diagnosis of NAC ischemia was 1.3 ± 2.8 days (range, 0-7 days). The average length of time from DMSO initiation to clinical improvement or resolution of NAC ischemia was 7.5 ± 2.5 days (range, 5-12 days). All patients demonstrated significant improvement or complete resolution of NAC ischemia following serial topical DMSO application.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates DMSO is a safe treatment for threatened NACs. All patients in this series showed either dramatic improvement or resolution of NAC ischemia after DMSO application, and threatened NACs of all 11 patients were successfully salvaged. These promising results set the basis for ongoing randomized controlled studies to determine the efficacy of DMSO treatment for NAC ischemia.

Prepectoral vs. Submuscular Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Our Early Experience

Background: Conservative mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) is an oncologically accepted technique that offers improved esthetic results and patient quality of life. Traditionally, implants have been placed in a submuscular (SM) plane beneath the pectoralis major muscle (PMM). Recently, prepectoral (PP) placement of the prosthesis has been increasingly used in order to avoid morbidities related to manipulation of the PMM. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of SM vs. PP IPBR after conservative mastectomy in patients with histologically proven breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed two cohorts of patients that underwent mastectomy with IPBR after NAC in our institution from January 2018 to December 2021. Conservative mastectomy was performed in 146 of the 400 patients that underwent NAC during the study period. Patients were divided into two groups based on the positioning of implants: 56 SM versus 90 PP. Results: The two cohorts were similar for age (mean age 42 and 44 years in the SM and PP group respectively) and follow-up (33 and 20 months, respectively). Mean operative time was 56 min shorter in the PP group (300 and 244 min in the SM and PP group). No significant differences were observed in overall major complication rates. Implant loss was observed in 1.78% of patients (1/56) in the SM group and 1.11% of patients (1/90) in PP group. No differences were observed between the two groups in local or regional recurrence. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience, which represents one of the largest series of patients undergoing PP-IPBR after NAC at a single institution documented in the literature, seems to confirm that PP-IPBR after NAC is a safe, reliable and effective alternative to traditional SM-IPBR with excellent esthetic and oncological outcomes; it is easy to perform, reduces operative time and minimizes complications related to manipulation of PPM. However, this promising results need to be confirmed in prospective trials with longer follow-up.

Aesthetic Limitations in Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction has become an alternative to staged subpectoral expander-based reconstruction. Although the surgical safety of this technique has been shown, aesthetic limitations have not been well-described. This article reports aesthetic limitations and elucidates risk factors that may predispose patients toward developing unfavorable outcomes following direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed, identifying patients who underwent prepectoral, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction from June of 2016 to June of 2019. Aesthetic limitations assessed included capsular contracture, rippling, implant malposition, and implant flipping.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-four consecutive women representing 334 breasts underwent immediate reconstruction performed by a single plastic surgeon. A midlateral incision was used in 185 breasts (55.4 percent) and the Wise pattern in 95 breasts (28.8 percent). The mean follow-up time was 30.5 months (45.3 to 18.3 months). Significant capsular contracture (grade 3 to 4) was noted in 27 breasts (8.1 percent), implant flipping in four breasts (1.2 percent), implant displacement in five breasts (1.5 percent), major rippling in nine breasts (2.7 percent), and minor rippling in 17 breasts (5.1 percent). The use of acellular dermal matrix had no significant effect on the aesthetic outcomes. In comparing breasts with postmastectomy radiation, there was a significant difference in the presence of minor rippling and capsular contracture ( p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This cohort represents the largest, single-surgeon, direct-to-implant prepectoral database in the literature. This report shows that aesthetic limitations were comparable to those seen with other forms of reconstruction. Complications did not differ in terms of acellular dermal matrix use. Certain factors can predispose patients to developing unfavorable aesthetic outcomes.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Impact of Dermal Matrix Brand in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction is the most common procedure for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Acellular dermal matrix is used to provide additional coverage in subpectoral and prepectoral implant placement. In this study, the authors compared postoperative outcomes between AlloDerm (LifeCell, Branchburg, N.J.) and DermACELL (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Mich.), two acellular dermal matrix brands.

METHODS

A retrospective review of implant-based breast reconstruction from 2016 to 2020 was conducted. Patient demographics and comorbidities, implant size and location, acellular dermal matrix choice, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Primary outcomes assessed were seroma and infection compared between two acellular dermal matrix brands. Independent clinical parameters were assessed with multiple logistic regression models for the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Reconstruction was performed in 150 patients (241 breasts). Eighty-eight patients underwent expander placement with AlloDerm and 62 patients with DermACELL. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. There was a significantly higher incidence of seroma in the AlloDerm group in univariate (AlloDerm 21.7 percent versus DermACELL 8.2 percent, p < 0.005) and multivariate analyses ( p = 0.04; 95 percent CI, 1.02 to 6.07). Acellular dermal matrix use (regardless of type) was not associated with higher rates of infection ( p = 0.99), but body mass index was ( p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Both AlloDerm and DermACELL had similar infection rates regardless of contributing risk factors. AlloDerm was found to be a risk factor for seroma formation in the postoperative period. As such, it is important to be aware of this complication when performing implant-based reconstruction with this brand of acellular dermal matrix.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh reopened the possibility for the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction (PBR). The complications of single-stage breast reconstruction after PRB are controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction. Our aim was to evaluate the different postoperative complications between patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) on single-stage breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature evaluating the effect of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2020. All included studies were evaluated the complications after single-stage breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1724 patients. In general, compared with SBR group, the PBR significantly reduced the risk of total complications (including seroma, hematoma, necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, capsular contraction, implant loss/remove, and rippling) after single-stage breast reconstruction (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.67, p < 0.001). Compared with the SBR group, the PBR had remarkably decreased capsular contracture (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58, p < 0.001) and postoperative infection (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.95, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

The PBR is a safe single-stage breast reconstruction with fewer postoperative complications. It is an alternative surgical method for SBR.