Shaped versus Round Implants in Breast Reconstruction: A Multi-Institutional Comparison of Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes

Multimodality Imaging of Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction Techniques, Complications, and Tumor Recurrence

For women undergoing mastectomy, breast reconstruction can be performed by using implants or autologous tissue flaps. Mastectomy options include skin- and nipple-sparing techniques. Implant-based reconstruction can be performed with saline or silicone implants. Various autologous pedicled or free tissue flap reconstruction methods based on different tissue donor sites are available. The aesthetic outcomes of implant- and flap-based reconstructions can be improved with oncoplastic surgery, including autologous fat graft placement and nipple-areolar complex reconstruction. The authors provide an update on recent advances in implant reconstruction techniques and contemporary expanded options for autologous tissue flap reconstruction as it relates to imaging modalities. As breast cancer screening is not routinely performed in this clinical setting, tumor recurrence after mastectomy and reconstruction is often detected by palpation at physical examination. Most local recurrences occur within the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Diagnostic breast imaging continues to have a critical role in confirmation of disease recurrence. Knowledge of the spectrum of benign and abnormal imaging appearances in the reconstructed breast is important for postoperative evaluation of patients, including recognition of early and late postsurgical complications and breast cancer recurrence. The authors provide an overview of multimodality imaging of the postmastectomy reconstructed breast, as well as an update on screening guidelines and recommendations for this unique patient population. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Non-contrast MRI and post-mastectomy silicone breast implant rupture: preventing false positive diagnoses

BACKGROUND

Breast implants are not lifelong, with implant rupture being the third leading cause of revisional surgery in augmented women. Noncontrast MRI is a reliable tool to assess implant integrity; however, false positive and false negative diagnoses have been reported due to an incorrect interpretation of MRI signs. This study aims to investigate the incidence of these misleading results, comparing MRI findings with intraoperative surgical observations and exploring signs of nonunivocal interpretation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2019 and October 2022, our hospital, a referral center for breast cancer care, conducted 139 breast MRI examinations to evaluate implant integrity. Surgical intervention was deemed necessary for patients diagnosed with suspected or confirmed implant rupture at MRI. Those patients who did not undergo any surgical procedure (63 cases) or had surgery at different institutes (11 cases) were excluded.

RESULTS

Among the 65 patients who underwent preoperative MRI and subsequent surgery at our institute, surgical findings confirmed the preoperative MRI diagnosis in 48 women. Notably, 17 women exhibited a discordance between MRI and surgical findings: three false negatives, 11 false positives and three possible ruptures not confirmed. Signs of nonunivocal or misleading interpretation were assessed on a patient-by-patient basis. The importance of obtaining detailed information about a patient's breast implant, including fill materials, number of lumens, manufacturer and shape, proved immensely beneficial for interpreting MRI signs accurately.

CONCLUSION

Pre-MRI knowledge of implant details and a meticulous evaluation of non-univocal signs can aid radiologists in accurately assessing implant integrity, reducing the risk of unnecessary revisional surgeries, and potentially averting allegations of medical malpractice.

Textured versus Smooth Tissue Expanders: A Comparison of Complications in 3526 Breast Reconstructions

BACKGROUND

Increased understanding of breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma has led to a shift away from textured breast devices. A few small studies have compared the complication rates of textured and smooth tissue expanders (TEs). The aim of this study was to compare complication profiles in patients undergoing two-stage postmastectomy breast reconstruction with either textured or smooth TEs.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of female patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with textured or smooth TEs from 2018 to 2020 at their institution. Rates of seroma, infection/cellulitis, malposition/rotation, exposure, and TE loss were analyzed in the overall cohort and subgroups undergoing prepectoral and subpectoral TE placement. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to decrease the effects of confounders comparing textured and smooth TEs.

RESULTS

The authors analyzed 3526 TEs (1456 textured and 2070 smooth). More frequent use of acellular dermal matrix, SPY angiography, and prepectoral TE placement was noted in the smooth TE cohort ( P < 0.001). Univariate analysis suggested higher rates of infection/cellulitis, malposition/rotation, and exposure in smooth TEs (all P < 0.01). Rates of TE loss did not differ. After propensity matching, no differences were noted in infection or TE loss. Prepectoral smooth expanders had increased rates of malposition/rotation.

CONCLUSIONS

TE surface type did not affect rates of TE loss, although increased rates of expander malposition were noted in the smooth prepectoral cohort. Further research is needed to examine breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma risk with temporary textured TE exposure to improve decision-making.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCW

Therapeutic, III.

The current use of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction: device design, features, and technical considerations

INTRODUCTION

The use of tissue expanders (TE) in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction is a widely accepted practice, especially in patients desiring implant-based breast reconstruction. It has become the standard of care to perform a two-staged breast reconstruction using tissue expanders for the past 50 years due to its reliability, safety, cost-effectiveness, and versatility. Due to its popularity, there are numerous types and features of breast tissue expanders and various surgical approaches available for plastic surgeons.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we will review the role of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction, the types and features of breast tissue expanders, and technical considerations.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction offers significant advantages of preserving the breast skin envelope and reestablishing the breast mound. With evolving approaches to breast reconstruction, tissue expander design, and application underwent several refinements and modifications. Due to these advances, studies on its long-term efficacy and safety profile typically fall behind and more studies with higher levels of evidence are needed to better evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of tissue expanders. With increased understanding, reconstructive surgeons can minimize complications and maximize reconstructive, aesthetic outcomes with high patient satisfaction.

Anatomical Breast Implant Assessment Using Ultrasound: A Case Series from the International Breast Implant Check Clinic

Background

Breast augmentation with anatomic implants can achieve a natural look, but over time, implant-related complications can occur. This includes a risk of potential rotation, which can cause a change in breast shape. Reported rates of rotation vary widely (0%-42%). Implant rotation is often detected by physical examination only or as a perioperative finding. Change in breast shape after augmentation requires clinical evaluation. In-office ultrasound allows for detailed assessment of implants for rotation and other complications.

Methods

Women with anatomical breast implants seeking follow-up at the International Breast Implant Check Clinic in Stockholm, Sweden, from April 2020 to July 2022 were included in the study. Using a standardized protocol, subjective symptoms were recorded, and a physical examination followed by an ultrasound assessment was performed by a single board-certified plastic surgeon (M.J.) trained in implant assessment via ultrasound. Rotation was defined as an implant rotated past 30 degrees off the breast midline at 6 o'clock.

Results

The study included 308 women (mean age 40.1, range 20-78) with bilateral anatomical implants. Overall, 40 women (13.0%) reported a change in breast shape; 35 had one or more implant-related complications, including five with rotation on ultrasound. Of the 308 women, 11 (3.6%) had rotations upon physical examination, and an additional 10 cases were identified using ultrasound.

Conclusions

Rotation is a potential complication of anatomical breast implants. However, in this study, change in breast shape was more commonly caused by other implant-related complications. Ultrasound is a valuable tool in evaluating causes of change in breast shape.

A Scoping Review of the Application of BREAST-Q in Surgical Research

Background

Collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data can facilitate cost-effective, evidence-based, and patient-centered care. The BREAST-Q has become the gold standard tool to measure PRO data in breast surgery. The last review of its application indicated that it was underutilized. Considering the evolution in breast surgery, the purpose of this study was to perform a scoping review of BREAST-Q application since 2015 and identify emerging trends and potential persistent gaps to guide patient-centered practice and future research in breast surgery.

Methods

We performed an electronic literature review to identify publications published in English that used the BREAST-Q to assess patient outcomes. We excluded validation studies, review papers, conference abstracts, discussions, comments, and/or responses to previously published papers.

Results

We identified 270 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Specific data was extracted to examine the evolution of the BREAST-Q application and examine clinical trends and research gaps.

Discussion

Despite a significant increase in BREAST-Q studies, gaps in the understanding of the patient experience remain. The BREAST-Q is uniquely designed to measure quality of life and satisfaction with outcome and care. The prospective collection of center-specific data for every type of breast surgery will generate important information for the provision of patient-centered and evidence-based care.

Assessment, Complications, and Surveillance of Breast Implants: Making Sense of 2022 FDA Breast Implant Guidance

As more information about the potential risks and complications related to breast implants has become available, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responded by implementing changes to improve patient education, recalling certain devices and updating the recommendations for screening for silicone implant rupture. In addition to staying up-to-date with FDA actions and guidance, radiologists need to maintain awareness about the types of implants they may see, breast reconstruction techniques including the use of acellular dermal matrix, and the multimodality imaging of implants and their complications. Radiologists should also be familiar with some key differences between the updated FDA guidelines for implant screening and the imaging recommendations from the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. The addition of US as an acceptable screening exam for silicone implant rupture by the FDA is one of the most notable changes that has potentially significant implications.

Trends and issues in clinical research on satisfaction and quality of life after mastectomy and breast reconstruction: a 5-year scoping review

Breast reconstruction (BR) aims to improve the satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) of breast cancer survivors. Clinical studies using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can therefore provide relevant information to the patients and support decision-making. This scoping review was conducted to analyze recent trends in world regions, methods used, and factors investigated. The literature search was conducted in August 2022. Databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched for relevant English-language studies published from 2017 to 2022. Studies involving women with breast cancer who underwent BR after mastectomy and investigated PROs after BR using BR-specific scales were included. Data on the country, publication year, study design, PRO measures (PROMs) used, time points of surveys, and research themes were collected. In total, 147 articles met the inclusion criteria. BREAST-Q was the most widely used, contributing to the increase in the number and diversification of studies in this area. Such research has been conducted mainly in North America and Europe and is still developing in Asia and other regions. The research themes involved a wide range of clinical and patient factors in addition to surgery, which could be influenced by research methods, time since surgery, and even cultural differences. Recent BR-specific PROMs have led to a worldwide development of research on factors that affect satisfaction and QOL after BR. PRO after BR may be influenced by local cultural and social features, and it would be necessary to accumulate data in each region to draw clinically useful conclusion.

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.

Recent advances in surgical techniques for breast reconstruction

Although the number of patients with breast cancer continues to rise worldwide, survival rates for these patients have significantly improved. As a result, breast cancer survivors are living longer, and quality of life after treatment is of increasing importance. Breast reconstruction is an important component that affects quality of life after breast cancer surgery. With the development of silicone gel implants in the 1960s, autologous tissue transfer in the 1970s, and tissue expanders in the 1980s, breast reconstruction has advanced over the decades. Furthermore, the advent of perforator flaps and introduction of fat grafting have rendered breast reconstruction a less invasive and more versatile procedure. This review provides an overview of recent advances in breast reconstruction techniques.

Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Using an ADM with Smooth Round Implants – A Prospective Observational Cohort Study

Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) is well established and used in candidates for nipple/skin-sparing mastectomies; it is based on many different matrices and a great variability in breast implant selection. We describe our experience and clinical outcomes using Braxon® ADMs and smooth round breast implants. Females aged 18-80 years who underwent mastectomies with immediate prepectoral reconstruction between April 2019 and April 2021 were prospectively included. Complications were classified as mastectomy-related (hematoma, necrosis) or reconstruction-related (seroma, infection, red breast syndrome). Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to assess correlation between complication rate and selected variables, which were analyzed per breast with Kruskal-Wallis H test. Fifty-eight patients (102 breasts) received 45 bilateral and 12 unilateral procedures. Drains collected 485.9 cc [range: 100-1260] and were removed 15.7 days [range: 6-29] postoperatively. We report 41 complications (40.2%): 33 mastectomy-related, 8 reconstruction-related. Reoperation occurred in 14 patients: 7 wound debridement and revisions under local anesthesia; and 7 explantation. Implant loss rate was 6.8%. Mastectomy and reconstruction complications were not correlated with any variable. In conclusion, we found prepectoral reconstruction with Braxon® ADMs and smooth round implants to be associated with acceptable complication rates that are not influenced by any patient- or surgery-related factors. Drainage volume is comparable to other breast implant reconstructive techniques, but drains are left in place for longer.

Advances in surface modifications of the silicone breast implant and impact on its biocompatibility and biointegration

Silicone breast implants are commonly used for cosmetic and oncologic surgical indications owing to their inertness and being nontoxic. However, complications including capsular contracture and anaplastic large cell lymphoma have been associated with certain breast implant surfaces over time. Novel implant surfaces and modifications of existing ones can directly impact cell-surface interactions and enhance biocompatibility and integration. The extent of foreign body response induced by breast implants influence implant success and integration into the body. This review highlights recent advances in breast implant surface technologies including modifications of implant surface topography and chemistry and effects on protein adsorption, and cell adhesion. A comprehensive online literature search was performed for relevant articles using the following keywords silicone breast implants, foreign body response, cell adhesion, protein adsorption, and cell-surface interaction. Properties of silicone breast implants impacting cell-material interactions including surface roughness, wettability, and stiffness, are discussed. Recent studies highlighting both silicone implant surface activation strategies and modifications to enhance biocompatibility in order to prevent capsular contracture formation and development of anaplastic large cell lymphoma are presented. Overall, breast implant surface modifications are being extensively investigated in order to improve implant biocompatibility to cater for increased demand for both cosmetic and oncologic surgeries.

An Experimental Murine Model to Assess Biofilm Persistence on Commercial Breast Implant Surfaces

Capsular contracture is the most frequently associated complication following breast implant placement. Biofilm formation on the surface of such implants could significantly influence the pathogenesis of this complication. The objective of this study was to design an experimental model of breast implant infection that allowed us to compare the in vivo S. epidermidis ability to form and perpetuate biofilms on commonly used types of breast implants (i.e., macrotexturized, microtexturized, and smooth). A biofilm forming S. epidermidis strain (ATCC 35984) was used for all experiments. Three different implant surface types were tested: McGhan BIOCELL® (i.e., macrotexturized); Mentor Siltex® (i.e., microtexturized); and Allergan Natrelle Smooth® (i.e., smooth). Two different infection scenarios were simulated. The ability to form biofilm on capsules and implants over time was evaluated by quantitative post-sonication culture of implants and capsules biopsies. This experimental model allows the generation of a subclinical staphylococcal infection associated with a breast implant placed in the subcutaneous tissue of Wistar rats. The probability of generating an infection was different according to the type of implant studied and to the time from implantation to implant removal. Infection was achieved in 88.9% of macrotextured implants (i.e., McGhan), 37.0% of microtexturized implants (i.e., Mentor), and 18.5% of smooth implants (i.e., Allergan Smooth) in the short-term (p < 0.001). Infection was achieved in 47.2% of macrotextured implants, 2.8% of microtexturized implants, and 2.8% of smooth implants (i.e., Allergan Smooth) in the long-term (p < 0.001). There was a clear positive correlation between biofilm formation on any type of implant and capsule colonization/infection. Uniformly, the capsules formed around the macro- or microtexturized implants were consistently macroscopically thicker than those formed around the smooth implants regardless of the time at which they were removed (i.e., 1−2 weeks or 3−5 weeks). We have shown that there is a difference in the ability of S epidermidis to develop in vivo biofilms on macrotextured, microtextured, and smooth implants. Smooth implants clearly thwart bacterial adherence and, consequently, biofilm formation and persistence are hindered.

Is Iatrogenic Implant Contamination Preventable Using a 16-Step No-Touch Protocol?

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative contamination of the surgical field during aesthetic breast augmentation may lead to implant infection with devastating consequences. This study covers a period of 30 years and is divided into 2 phases: a retrospective phase from 1992-2004 when a standard approach was used and a prospective phase from 2004-2022 when a no-touch approach was implemented to avoid contamination.

METHODS

Patients in the standard and no-touch groups underwent aesthetic breast augmentation by the same senior surgeon (FDP) in the same outpatient surgical facility during the 30-year period of the study. Patients are divided into 2 groups: from 1992-2004 and from the implementation of the no-touch protocol in 2004-2022.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent breast augmentation using the no-touch approach developed no infections, whereas the standard group had an infection rate of 3.54% (P = .017). The validity of this finding is discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

The no-touch approach as described in this article was effective in reducing implant infection rate when performing aesthetic breast augmentation by 1 surgeon at 1 surgical center during an 18-year observation period. Multicenter prospective cooperative studies are necessary to validate perioperative iatrogenic contamination as the cause of implant infection and to explore optimal approaches that could eliminate implant contamination.

Evolving Trends in Breast-Implant-Based Procedures in Israel: A National Survey

Rare reports linking textured breast implants to anaplastic large-cell lymphoma have generated controversies regarding their relative advantage over smooth implants. To evaluate trends in implant use in Israel, we sent a seven-item questionnaire to all active board-certified breast plastic surgeons in the country. About half responded. Approximately 60% of responders reported a moderate-to-considerable decrease in both the relative number of augmentation mammoplasty procedures and the use of implants during mastopexies in the last year. Nearly 40% had switched from textured to smooth implants to some extent. More than 40% still used textured implants for aesthetic procedures, and reconstructive procedures. Surgeons with more experience demonstrated a greater preference for smooth implants. The uncertainty regarding the safety of textured breast implants has led to a partial transition to the use of smoother implants and, importantly, to a general reduction in all breast-implant-based procedures.

Implant Malposition in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Experience with Natrelle® Cohesive Implants over 6.5 Years

Implant malposition has been reported to be a common reason for revision surgery after implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). With the recent increase in the use of smooth implants due to concerns for breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma with textured implants, we compared and reported the rates of malposition in prepectoral IBR and identified risk factors. A retrospective review of patients who underwent prepectoral IBR with Natrelle® (Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) implants at our institution between January 2014 and May 2020 was performed. Clinical characteristics, implant types, and the rate of malposition, defined as implant flipping or rotation, were recorded. Univariate and multivariable time-to-event analyses using the Cox proportional-hazards model were performed to identify predictors of malposition. Three hundred seventy-five patients (660 breasts) were included. Four hundred forty-one (66.8%) breasts had smooth round implants whereas 219 (33.2%) had textured anatomical devices. Malposition requiring either a manual correction or surgical intervention occurred in 26 (5.9%) smooth round implants versus 3 (1.4%) textured anatomical. Multivariable analysis showed that having a smooth round implant (aHR: 7.19, 95% CI: [2.04 - 25.4]) and an increase in implant volume (aHR: 1.003, 95% CI: [1.001 - 1.006]) were associated with having a malposition requiring intervention. Among smooth round implants; INSPIRA® Cohesive implants were more likely to result in a malposition requiring intervention (p<0.0001) compared to other smooth round implants. Overall, malposition requiring intervention occurred in 5.9% of smooth round implants and 1.4% of textured anatomical implants. Statistical analysis demonstrates that smooth round implants and an increase in implant volume both are associated with a malposition requiring intervention.

Quality of life, pain of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with a discussion on cost: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PIBR) has regained popularity, despite decades-long preference for subpectoral implant placement. This paper aims to compare patient-reported outcomes (PRO) between prepectoral and subpectoral approaches to implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The primary PRO was with the BREAST-Q, and postoperative pain scores, while the secondary outcomes were complication rates.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed library was performed. All studies on patients undergoing IBBR after mastectomy that compared prepectoral to subpectoral placement and PROM or postoperative pain were included.

RESULTS

A total of 3789 unique studies of which 7 publications with 216 and 332 patients who received prepectoral and subpectoral implants, respectively, were included for meta-analysis. Patients with prepectoral implant placement had significantly higher satisfaction with the outcome (p = 0.03) and psychosocial well-being (p = 0.03) module scores. The pain was lower in patients with prepectoral implants on postoperative day 1 (p<0.01) and day 7 (p<0.01). The subgroup analysis of prepectoral breast implants showed that complete acellular dermal matrix coverage had lower rates of wound dehiscence (p<0.0001), but there were no significant differences in complications between one-stage and two-stage procedures.

CONCLUSION

Overall, patients with prepectoral implants reported higher BREAST-Q scores and lower postoperative pain and lower complications rates than patients with subpectoral implants. In appropriately selected patients, prepectoral implant placement with ADM coverage, be it the primary placement of an implant or placement of a tissue expander before definitive implant placement, should be the modality of choice in patients who choose IBBR. Further research should focus on patient selection, strategies to reduce cost and cost-benefit analysis of PIBR.

Optimizing Symmetry after Unilateral Mastectomy and Reconstruction with a Less Form-stable Prepectoral Implant

Implant-based breast reconstruction after bilateral mastectomy allows for excellent symmetry between the reconstructed breasts. After unilateral mastectomy, it is difficult to achieve symmetry between the reconstructed and native breast. In the past, anatomical implants provided a reconstruction that more closely resembled the shape of a native breast compared with the cohesive, round subpectoral implants commonly placed today. Here, we describe the use of a less form-stable round implant placed in the prepectoral plane after mastectomy which provides improved symmetry with the contralateral native breast.

Smooth versus Textured Implant Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications

BACKGROUND

The association between textured surface breast implants and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma has led to an increase in surgical procedures to exchange textured devices to smooth surface implants. Because patient satisfaction is an integral part of breast reconstruction, the purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes between smooth and textured implant recipients.

METHODS

Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction with either smooth or textured devices from 2009 to 2017 and completed the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure following reconstruction were included in this analysis. The primary outcomes of interest were mean and median BREAST-Q scores and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 1077 patients were included-785 who underwent breast reconstruction with smooth implants and 292 who underwent breast reconstruction with textured implants. No statistical differences were observed between the textured and smooth implant groups for any of the BREAST-Q domain scores at any of the early (3-month) to late (2-year) postoperative time points. Smooth implant recipients reported significantly more rippling (p = 0.003) than textured implant recipients. In contrast, textured implant recipients had a higher rate of cellulitis than smooth implant recipients (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that postoperative satisfaction with breasts or health-related quality of life following immediate postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction is likely independent of implant surface type. However, smooth breast implants may result in more rippling. The authors' findings represent an important aid in counseling patients who have questions about the risks and benefits of replacing their textured implants with smooth surface devices.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Quantifying the Effect of Topical Nitroglycerin on Random Pattern Flap Perfusion in a Rodent Model: An Application of the ViOptix Intra.Ox for Dynamic Flap Perfusion Assessment and Salvage

BACKGROUND

Near-infrared spectroscopy can detect changes in tissue oxygenation postoperatively that predict flap necrosis. The authors hypothesized that this technology can be applied along with topical nitroglycerin to measure an improvement in tissue oxygenation that correlates with tissue salvage.

METHODS

Dorsal, random pattern flaps measuring 10 × 3 cm were raised using Sprague-Dawley rats. Tissue oxygenation was measured after flap elevation in 10 locations using the ViOptix Intra.Ox. Animals were divided into three groups that received 30 mg of topical nitroglycerin daily, twice-daily, or not at all. Oxygenation measurements were repeated on postoperative day 1 and animals were euthanized on day 7 and evaluated for tissue necrosis.

RESULTS

Tissue necrosis was greatest in controls (51.3 mm) compared to daily (28.8 mm) and twice-daily nitroglycerin (18.8 mm; p = 0.035). Three flap perfusion zones were identified: healthy (proximal, 50 mm), necrotic (distal, 20 mm), and watershed. Immediate postoperative tissue oxygenation was highest in healthy tissue (57.2 percent) and decreased to 33.0 and 19.3 percent in the watershed and necrotic zones, respectively (p < 0.001). One day after treatment with nitroglycerin, oxygenation in the healthy zone did not increase significantly (mean difference, -1.5 percent). The watershed (17.8 percent; p < 0.001) and necrotic zones (16.3 percent; p <0.001) did exhibit significant improvements that were greater than those measured in control tissues (7.9 percent; both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Serial perfusion assessment using the ViOptix Intra.Ox measured a significant improvement in flap oxygenation after treatment with topical nitroglycerin. Within the watershed area of the flap, this increase in tissue oxygenation was associated with the salvage of ischemic tissue.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Judging an Expander by Its Cover: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Impact of Tissue Expander Surface Texture on First-Stage Breast Reconstruction Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is increased scrutiny of texturing on implants and a paucity of data looking at texturing on expanders. Because of the difficulty in controlling potential confounders with these comparative studies, the authors performed propensity matching between smooth and textured tissue expander cohorts to provide definitive insight into the impact of expander texture on breast reconstruction outcomes.

METHODS

A single-surgeon experience with immediate two-stage breast reconstruction was reviewed for 90-day postoperative complications after mastectomy and expander placement. Variables extracted included demographics, comorbidities, tissue expander texturing, mastectomy type, infection, seroma, skin flap necrosis, dehiscence, explantation, and overall complication rates. Subjects were 1:1 propensity matched using the nearest neighbor matching algorithm with caliper (maximum propensity score difference) of 0.2, and chi-square test was performed for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

After 1:1 propensity matching, 282 reconstructed breasts were analyzed (141 textured versus 141 smooth expanders). Textured expanders had higher minor infection rates than smooth expanders (5.0 percent versus 0 percent; p = 0.024). Smooth expanders had higher seroma rates than textured expanders (5.0 percent versus 0.7 percent; p = 0.031). Smooth expanders also had longer drain retention (20.4 days versus 16.8 days; p = 0.001). There was no difference in other complications, including major infection, explantation, or any complication, between textured and smooth expanders.

CONCLUSIONS

Textured expanders are associated with increased minor infection risk, whereas smooth expanders are associated with increased seroma formation. However, these differing complication profiles coalesce to equal explantation rates.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

In search for the 'perfect' breast implant: are textured implants still indicated in today's breast augmentation practice?

The popularity of breast augmentation procedure has driven research and debate as to whether any given implant characteristic offers a functional advantage. One such debate exists about the role of surface texturing. In the aftermath of the recent withdrawal of aggressively textured surfaces we would like to summarize the first author's experience of nearly 1500 primary aesthetic breast augmentations with different surfaces and offer our thoughts on this topic. All consecutive primary breast augmentations operated by the first author from January 2010 to June 2019 were included. All patients had silicone implants inserted via inframammary incision. Of all the operated cases, 1029 consecutive female patients had at least 6 months' follow-up (mean 15.1 months). Their mean age was 31.2 years, mean BMI 20.8 kg/m² and mean implant volume was 311 cc. 997(96.9%) patients had dual plane and 32(3.1%) had sub-glandular implant placement. In total 113 patients (11.0%) developed a complication. This represented 15.1% of those with round and 10.0% of anatomical shape (or 10.6% of textured and 14.5% of smooth surface implants). As clinicians, we like patients to receive all the advantages of an implant but not be exposed to any risks. However, in reality, such a 'perfect implant' still does not exist. New literature continues to shed light on this trade-off between an implant's perceived utility and its complications profile. We hope that the search for an alternative technology, with more beneficial surface characteristics and less drawbacks, continues.

Review of silicone surface modification techniques and coatings for antibacterial/antimicrobial applications to improve breast implant surfaces

Silicone implants are widely used in the medical field for plastic or reconstructive surgeries for the purpose of soft tissue issues. However, as with any implanted object, healthcare-associated infections are not completely avoidable. The material suffers from a lack of biocompatibility and is often subject to bacterial/microbial infections characterized by biofilm growth. Numerous strategies have been developed to either prevent, reduce, or fight bacterial adhesion by providing an antibacterial property. The present review summarizes the diverse approaches to deal with bacterial infections on silicone surfaces along with the different methods to activate/oxidize the surface before any surface modifications. It includes antibacterial coatings with antibiotics or nanoparticles, covalent attachment of active bacterial molecules like peptides or polymers. Regarding silicone surfaces, the activation step is essential to render the surface reactive for any further modifications using energy sources (plasma, UV, ozone) or chemicals (acid solutions, sol-gel strategies, chemical vapor deposition). Meanwhile, corresponding work on breast silicone prosthesis is discussed. The latter is currently in the line of sight for causing severe capsular contractures. Specifically, to that end, besides chemical modifications, the antibacterial effect can also be achieved by physical surface modifications by adjusting the surface roughness and topography for instance.

Correction of malrotation in two-stage breast reconstruction: outcomes and risk-factor analysis

Although an anatomical implant is no longer recommended in practice, frequent use of the implants in the past decade left apprehension to surgeons, and malrotation is one of the concerns. However, a limited amount of literature has focused on malrotation to date, especially in breast reconstruction, and there also exists a lack of consensus regarding the correction of malrotation. Given that implant-based reconstruction has increased in frequency and there remain many potential patients who have used earlier models of anatomical implants, this study sought to analyze predisposing risk factors and approaches to correct implant malrotation. A total of 132 implants in 118 patients who underwent expander/implant reconstruction were identified and retrospectively reviewed. Seventeen (12.9%) implants showed malrotation. The results of multivariate logistic regression revealed that tissue expander malrotation in the first stage and capsular contracture were significant risk factors associated with malrotation in two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (both p < 0.001). When a patient presents with malrotation, it is recommended that the implant be changed to a round type if a patient has multiple risk factors because malrotation tends to recur after correction. Also, even when using a round implant during two-stage breast reconstruction, additional care should be adopted for those who experienced rotation after expander insertion.

Comprehensive Comparison Between Shaped Versus Round Implants for Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic breast reconstruction has been gaining popularity and a variety of implant options are currently available. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the safety and efficacy of newly developed shaped implants compared with those of conventional round implants. To date, few studies have investigated the outcomes of breast reconstruction with shaped versus round implants.

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to comprehensively compare, via meta-analytic methodology, shaped and round breast implant reconstruction in terms of complication profiles and aesthetic satisfaction.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, Ovid, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant studies presenting the complication rates for shaped and round implant groups. The relative risks of the following complications between the groups were calculated: infection, seroma, capsular contracture, rupture, rippling, reconstruction failure, and implant exchange or removal. Outcomes of aesthetic satisfaction included aesthetic results and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of 8 retrospective cohort studies, representing 2490 cases of implant-based breast reconstruction, was performed. There were no significant differences in the risks of infection, seroma, capsular contracture, and reconstruction failure between the 2 groups. The risks of implant rupture and rippling were significantly reduced with shaped implants. In a subgroup analysis of shaped/textured and round/smooth implants, the risk of infection was significantly enhanced in the former, whereas incidences of other complications, including capsular contracture and reconstruction failure, were similar. Aesthetic satisfaction analysis of the 2 groups demonstrated similar outcome scores with favorable overall results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that both shaped and round implants might provide favorable breast reconstruction outcomes with similarly low complication rates and aesthetic results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction in the Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Plane: An Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction is becoming an increasingly important and accessible component of breast cancer care. We hypothesize that prepectoral patients benefit from lower short-term complications and shorter periods to second-stage reconstruction compared with individuals receiving reconstruction in the subpectoral plane.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved retrospective review of all adult postmastectomy patients receiving tissue expanders (TEs) was completed for a 21-month period (n = 286).

RESULTS

A total of 286 patients underwent mastectomy followed by TE placement, with 59.1% receiving prepectoral TEs and 40.9% receiving subpectoral TEs. Participants receiving prepectoral TEs required fewer clinic visits before definitive reconstruction (6.4 vs 8.8, P <0.01) and underwent definitive reconstruction 71.6 days earlier than individuals with subpectoral TE placement (170.8 vs 242.4 days, P < 0.01). Anesthesia time was significantly less for prepectoral TE placement, whether bilateral (68.0 less minutes, P < 0.01) or unilateral (20.7 minutes less, P < 0.01). Operating room charges were higher in the prepectoral subgroup ($31,276.8 vs $22,231.8, P < 0.01). Partial necrosis rates were higher in the prepectoral group (21.7% vs 10.9%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing breast reconstruction using prepectoral TE-based reconstruction benefit from less anesthesia time, fewer postoprative clinic visits, and shorter time to definitive reconstruction, at the compromise of higher operating room charges.

Analysis of Secondary Surgeries after Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Cancer Compared with Risk Reduction

Background:

This study sets out to compare reconstructive practice between patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) for cancer and those who opted for risk reduction (RR), with an emphasis on examining patterns of secondary surgery.

Methods:

Data collection was performed for patients undergoing mastectomy and IBR at a teaching hospital breast unit (2013–2016).

Results:

In total, 299 patients underwent IBR (76% cancer versus 24% RR). Implant-based IBR rate was similar in both groups (58% cancer versus 63% RR). Reconstruction loss (5.3% cancer versus 4.2% RR) and complication (16% cancer versus 12.9% RR) rates were similar. Cancer patients were more likely to undergo secondary surgery (68.4% versus 56.3%; P = 0.025), including contralateral symmetrization (22.8% versus 0%) and conversion to autologous reconstruction (5.7% versus 1.4%). Secondary surgeries were mostly planned for cancer patients (72% planned versus 28% unplanned), with rates unaffected by adjuvant therapies. This distribution was different in RR patients (51.3% planned versus 48.7% unplanned). The commonest secondary procedure was lipomodeling (19.7% cancer versus 23.9% RR). For cancer patients, complications resulted in a significantly higher unplanned secondary surgery rate (82.5% versus 38.8%; P = 0.001) than patients without complications. This was not evident in the RR patients, where complications did not lead to a significantly higher unplanned surgery rate (58.9% versus 35.2%; P = 0.086).

Conclusions:

Most of the secondary surgeries were planned for cancer patients. However, complications led to a significantly higher rate of unplanned secondary surgery. Approximately 1 in 4 RR patients received unplanned secondary surgery, which may be driven by the desire to achieve an optimal aesthetic outcome.

Safety and Efficacy of Smooth Surface Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Traditional 2-stage breast reconstruction involves placement of a textured-surface tissue expander (TTE). Recent studies have demonstrated textured surface devices have higher propensity for bacterial contamination and biofilm formation.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of smooth surface tissue expanders (STE) in immediate breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive women who underwent STE breast reconstruction from 2016 to 2017 at 3 institutions. Indications and outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total 112 patients underwent STE reconstruction (75 subpectoral, 37 prepectoral placement), receiving 173 devices and monitored for a mean follow-up of 14.1 months. Demographics of patients included average age of 53 years and average BMI of 27.2 kg/m2, and 18.6% received postmastectomy radiation therapy. Overall complication rates were 15.6% and included mastectomy skin flap necrosis (10.4%), seroma (5.2%), expander malposition (2.9%), and infection requiring intravenous antibiotic therapy (3.5%). Six (3.5%) unplanned reoperations with explantation were reported for 3 infections and 3 patients requesting change of plan with no reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

STEs represent a safe and efficacious alternative to TTE breast reconstruction with at least equitable outcomes. Technique modification including tab fixation, strict pocket control, postoperative bra support, and suture choice may contribute to observed favorable outcomes and are reviewed. Early results for infection control and explantation rate are encouraging and warrant comparative evaluation for potential superiority over TTEs in a prospective randomized trial.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Breast Implant Surfaces and Their Impact on Current Practices: Where We Are Now and Where Are We Going?

Most commercially available breast implants feature some degree of elastomer surface modifications to increase surface roughness, in part because several clinical series have demonstrated positive outcomes from texturizing. However, the literature shows that textured implants support higher rates of bacterial growth, and there is a clear association between increased bacterial contamination and host response in vivo, such as capsular contracture. Furthermore, the infectious theory related to bacterial contamination has recently been described as a potential cause in the etiology of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. Recent research has focused on the physiology of breast implant surfaces advances and how they interact with the body, creating new surface technologies which have the potential to affect all aspects of breast surgery. Understanding how surface properties affect inflammatory cell response will be essential in designing implants that can provide an esthetic solution while also minimizing long-term clinical complications. This special topic highlights the current knowledge on silicone implant surfaces, as well as innovations that have shaped and will continue to change the silicone breast implant industry in the future. It also provides an overview of the principal surfaces that exist and may find clinical applications in esthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. As additional advances emerge, objective tools will be required to evaluate the different surfaces available on the market, along with the long-term efficacy of new technologies.

Anatomic Implants in Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison of Outcomes and Aesthetic Results Compared to Smooth Round Silicone Implants

BACKGROUND

Direct comparison studies of outcomes and aesthetic satisfaction of anatomic implants compared to other implants are scarce in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and aesthetic satisfaction of patients who underwent breast reconstruction with anatomic implants vs other implants (smooth round silicone).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction over 3 years. Outcomes including complications, number of surgeries, need for revisions, and aesthetic satisfaction of patients were tracked and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. A total of 123 underwent reconstruction with a round implant, and 33 underwent reconstruction with an anatomic implant. Of the 156 patients, 38 underwent a 1-stage direct-to-implant reconstruction and the remainder underwent a 2-stage implant reconstruction. The round and anatomic implant groups did not differ with regards to number of surgeries, revisions, utilization of contralateral symmetry procedures, implant-related reoperations, complications, implant loss, infection, capsular contracture, and seroma. The Breast Q survey had a response rate of 27%. On all parameters, the round and anatomic implant groups did not significantly differ.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences among round and shaped implants in regards to complications, revision surgeries, and overall outcomes. Furthermore, patients showed no differences regarding satisfaction and well-being when surveyed on the Breast Q survey. The decision of implant choice in breast reconstruction should be based on surgeon comfort and the patient's needs/body type.

Level of Evidence: 4.

The role of fat grafting in prepectoral breast reconstruction

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has reemerged as a promising alternative to submuscular implants, as they place the patient at lower risk for pain, muscular impairment, and animation deformity. However, the thinner amount of overlying tissue in prepectoral reconstruction presents its own unique set of challenges. A "rippling" deformity is seen in some prepectoral patients, which is typically corrected with fat grafting. This report details our recommended technique for fat grafting in the prepectorally implanted patient.

The Effect of Implant Type on Nipple Position Geometry and Aesthetics Following Tissue Expander Reconstruction After Nipple Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

While recent studies have reported modest to no difference in breast aesthetics for shaped and round implant types in breast augmentations, the anatomy and biomechanics in the setting of breast reconstruction is different.

OBJECTIVES

Accordingly, we endeavored to evaluate whether two implant types impacted nipple position and aesthetic features in prosthetic breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was carried out on patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction. Patients were divided into two cohorts: smooth round implants and textured shaped implants. Postoperative photographs were evaluated to assess nipple displacement vis-à-vis a vector of maximal projection and aesthetic outcome for features of breast shape.

RESULTS

Of 102 breasts meeting the inclusion criteria, 41 had tissue expander-implant reconstruction with anatomical shaped implants, and 61 had reconstruction with smooth round implants. The shaped implant cohort had less nipple deviation from the point of maximal projection (3.69 ± 6.24 vs 7.52 ± 10.50; P < 0.0001). Graded semi-quantitative aesthetic scores were also higher (4.04 ± 0.67 vs 3.72 ± 0.93; P = 0.0044) in the shaped implants than in the round cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike breast augmentation, there is a paucity of overlying breast tissue and larger dissected spaces in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Our analysis suggests that in this setting, textured anatomic implants result in less nipple deviation from the point of maximum projection and improved aesthetic outcomes compared to round implants. When considering implant choice in NSM reconstruction, the manifold risks of shaped textured implants must thus be informed by potential aesthetic benefits with respect to shape and enhanced nipple sensation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4