Prepectoral Immediate Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction with Anterior AlloDerm Coverage:

Osteopontin attenuates the foreign-body response to silicone implants

The inflammatory process resulting in the fibrotic encapsulation of implants has been well studied. However, how acellular dermal matrix (ADM) used in breast reconstruction elicits an attenuated foreign-body response (FBR) remains unclear. Here, by leveraging single-cell RNA-sequencing and proteomic data from pairs of fibrotically encapsulated specimens (bare silicone and silicone wrapped with ADM) collected from individuals undergoing breast reconstruction, we show that high levels of the extracellular-matrix protein osteopontin are associated with the use of ADM as a silicone wrapping. In mice with osteopontin knocked out, FBR attenuation by ADM-coated implants was abrogated. In wild-type mice, the sustained release of recombinant osteopontin from a hydrogel placed adjacent to a silicone implant attenuated the FBR in the absence of ADM. Our findings suggest strategies for the further minimization of the FBR.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe indications and patient factors relevant to performing prepectoral breast reconstruction. 2. Understand the effects of different types of implants and implant support in prepectoral breast reconstruction. 3. Describe techniques for surgical revision to improve outcomes in prepectoral breast reconstruction. 4. Understand the current literature surrounding clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

SUMMARY

This article goes beyond a general review of prepectoral breast reconstruction, providing a working framework and important considerations for any surgeon utilizing prepectoral breast reconstruction techniques. This article also addresses current controversies, provides practice tips and technical pearls, and addresses gaps in knowledge with both opinion and a review of the most current literature.

Mastectomy Skin Flap Perfusion Assessment Prior to Breast Reconstruction: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Predicting the viability of the skin flaps after mastectomy is of high importance and significance in immediate breast reconstruction. Numerous methods have been used and are readily available. This review aims to describe and compare the current preferred perfusion assessment tools.

METHODS

Four major scientific databases-Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus-were consulted to retrieve reviews, meta-analyses, clinical trials, experimental studies, and case reports focused on skin flap perfusion assessment following mastectomy. English-language articles published within the last 10 years were included. The most recent search was conducted on 31 July 2024.

RESULTS

A summary focused on the relevant information of all included studies was drafted, and the results of the studies have been synthetized and compared. A total of 58 studies have been included in this review.

CONCLUSION

Indocyanine green angiography (ICG-A) is the preferred and most-used method of evaluating perfusion, especially in high-risk patients, while new technologies show promising results and might be of great interest in the future. Perfusion assessment tools complement and should not replace clinical evaluation.

Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant versus Staged Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison of Complications

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction has multiple advantages over a staged tissue expander (TE) approach. However, its use may be limited by concerns of increased complications. This study is the largest series to date comparing postoperative outcomes for DTI versus TE reconstruction in the prepectoral plane.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed 348 patients who underwent 536 total immediate, prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions between January of 2018 and December of 2021. The authors compared the presence of risk factors and the rate of six separate complications between patients who underwent DTI versus TE reconstruction up to 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

Of 348 patients, 147 (42%) and 201 (58%) underwent TE and DTI reconstruction ( P = 0.1813), respectively. The overall infection rate was 16.4% ( n = 57). DTI patients had a significantly greater incidence of wounds ( P < 0.0001), including minor ( P < 0.0011) and major wounds ( P < 0.0053). Significantly greater mastectomy resection weights were found for DTI patients who experienced any complication ( P < 0.0076), postoperative wounds ( P < 0.0001), and major wounds specifically ( P < 0.0035). Compared with medium-thickness acellular dermal matrix (ADM), extra thick ADM was associated with significantly increased rates of infection ( P < 0.0408) and wounds ( P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral DTI reconstruction in patients with adequate flap perfusion may have complication rates comparable to staged TE reconstruction, apart from a higher incidence of postoperative wounds. Greater mastectomy resection weights and thickness of ADM may specifically contribute to infection and wound-healing complications. Prepectoral DTI reconstruction is encouraged in the patients with adequate flap perfusion and moderate to low mastectomy resection weights who desire comparable or smaller implant volumes.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Early Complications after Prepectoral Tissue Expander Placement in Breast Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has become popularized with the concurrent use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). The authors sought to compare 3-month postoperative complication rates and explantation rates for first-stage, tissue-expander-based, prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without the use of ADM.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective chart review was performed to identify consecutive patients undergoing prepectoral tissue-expander-based breast reconstruction from August of 2020 to January of 2022. Chi-square tests were used to compare demographic categorical variables, and multiple variable regression models were used to identify variables associated with 3-month postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The authors enrolled 124 consecutive patients. Fifty-five patients (98 breasts) were included in the no-ADM cohort and 69 patients (98 breasts) were included in the ADM cohort. There were no statistically significant differences between the ADM and no-ADM cohorts with regard to 90-day postoperative outcomes. On multivariable analysis, there were no independent associations between seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, mastectomy skin flap necrosis, infection, unplanned return to the operating room, or explantation in the ADM and no-ADM groups after controlling for age, body mass index, history of diabetes, tobacco use, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and postoperative radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' results reveal no significant differences in odds of postoperative complications, unplanned return to the operating room, or explantation between the ADM and no-ADM cohorts. More studies are needed to evaluate the safety of prepectoral, tissue expander placement without ADM.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Paradigm Shifts in Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction: A Nationwide Analysis of Direct-to-Implant Trends

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is an attractive choice for appropriately selected patients, as a single-stage procedure can enhance global metrics of care. In an era of high-value health care, therefore, it is important to investigate use of such procedures. This study investigated direct-to-implant trends over the past decade on a nationwide basis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective investigation of direct-to-implant reconstruction between 2010 and 2018 in the United States, using the National Inpatient Sample database. All study analyses were undertaken using Stata version 15.0.

RESULTS

The weighted sample included 287,093 women who underwent implant-based reconstruction between 2010 and 2018, of whom 43,064 (15%) underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction. Across the study period, the proportion of direct-to-implant procedures increased significantly ( P = 0.03), relative to staged and delayed implant-based procedures. Although direct-to-implant patients were younger and more likely to be White and privately insured, the proportion of non-White, publicly insured patients undergoing direct-to-implant reconstruction increased significantly by 2018 ( P < 0.05). Furthermore, direct-to-implant use among Medicaid patients was 2.2 times the rate in Medicaid expansion states compared with nonexpansion states. Direct-to-implant patients had significantly higher All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group risk scores in 2018 than in 2010 ( P = 0.02), indicating expanding clinical indications for this procedure. Direct-to-implant reconstruction had significantly lower inpatient charges than staged procedures ( P = 0.03), when considering expander placement and expander-to-implant exchange.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, use of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction has significantly increased over the past decade, facilitated by expanding clinical indications and improved insurance coverage. However, certain disparities continue to exist. Further work should investigate drivers of disparities to allow continued expansion of direct-to-implant reconstruction as clinically appropriate.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Risk factors for severe complications and salvage management in direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction: A retrospective study

Controversies regarding the risk factors affecting direct-to-implant (DTI) immediate breast reconstruction still exist. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors for severe complications in DTI breast reconstruction and explore potential salvage management strategies. We conducted a retrospective review of 238 patients (240 breasts) who underwent DTI immediate breast reconstruction between 2011 and 2020. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the risk factors predicting severe complications. Seventeen (7.08%) reconstructed breasts experienced severe complications, of which only 5 were successfully salvaged through surgical revision, while the others failed and resulted in implant removal. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that mesh use [odds ratio (OR) = 4.054, 95% confidence interval: 1.376-11.945, P = .011] and post-mastectomy radiotherapy (odds ratio = 4.383, 95% confidence interval 1.142-16.819, P = .031) were independent predictors of severe complications. Mesh use and post-mastectomy radiotherapy for breast reconstruction increase the risk of severe complications. Despite positive surgical treatment, the successful salvage rate was poor.

Prepectoral versus Submuscular Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Comparison of Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common reconstructive approach after mastectomy. Prepectoral implants offer advantages over submuscular implants, such as less animation deformity, pain, weakness, and postradiation capsular contracture. However, clinical outcomes after prepectoral reconstruction are debated. The authors performed a matched-cohort analysis of outcomes after prepectoral and submuscular reconstruction at a large academic medical center.

METHODS

Patients treated with implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy from January of 2018 through October of 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were propensity score exact matched to control demographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative differences. Outcomes assessed included surgical-site occurrences, capsular contracture, and explantation of either expander or implant. Subanalysis was done on infections and secondary reconstructions.

RESULTS

A total of 634 breasts were included (prepectoral, 197; submuscular, 437). A total of 292 breasts were matched (146 prepectoral:146 submuscular) and analyzed for clinical outcomes. Prepectoral reconstructions were associated with greater rates of SSI (prepectoral, 15.8%; submuscular, 3.4%; P < 0.001), seroma (prepectoral, 26.0%; submuscular, 10.3%; P < 0.001), and explantation (prepectoral, 23.3%; submuscular, 4.8%; P < 0.001). Subanalysis of infections revealed that prepectoral implants have shorter time to infection, deeper infections, and more Gram-negative infections, and are more often treated surgically (all P < 0.05). There have been no failures of secondary reconstructions after explantation in the entire population at a mean follow-up of 20.1 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is associated with higher rates of infection, seroma, and explantation compared with submuscular reconstructions. Infections of prepectoral implants may need different antibiotic management to avoid explantation. Secondary reconstruction after explantation can result in long-term success.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Outcomes after tissue expander exchange to implant in two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix: A retrospective cohort study

As prepectoral implant placement becomes widely adopted, recent studies investigating the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) during tissue expander placement have demonstrated no major benefit with regard to postoperative outcomes. We sought to evaluate second-stage outcomes 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant with and without ADM. Consecutive patients who underwent prepectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction with and without ADM were identified. Patients were followed up for 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest including implant rippling, capsular contracture, implant explantation, additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported outcomes were collected and compared. Sixty-eight breasts in the ADM cohort and sixty-one breasts in the no ADM cohort underwent tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest were similar between the ADM and no ADM cohorts with no statistically significant differences identified regarding incidences of implant rippling (24.6% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.08), capsular contracture (4.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 1.00), and explantation (6.6% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.67) between the two cohorts. BREAST-Q scores were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of physical wellbeing and satisfaction in terms of implant rippling, as can be seen, which improved in the no ADM cohort (p = 0.04). Our study reports no major benefit for the inclusion of ADM with respect to implant rippling, capsular contracture, explantation, need for additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported satisfaction in prepectoral second-stage implant-based breast reconstruction.

Do we need acellular dermal matrix in prepectoral breast reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are commonly used in prepectoral breast reconstruction. However, ADM is associated with high cost and potentially infection and seroma. Comparative studies on prepectoral reconstruction with and without ADM are limited to small, single-institution series. The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of prepectoral reconstruction with and without ADM. A systematic literature review was performed to identify studies comparing prepectoral reconstruction with and without ADM using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Pooled rates of patient demographics and outcomes were analyzed. Meta-analytic effect size estimates were calculated for reconstructive complications in studies comparing reconstruction with and without ADM. In total, 515 reconstructions from four studies were included. Most cases were nipple-sparing mastectomies and utilized tissue-expander reconstructions. Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the rate of complications between cohorts with and without ADM. Short-term complications included reconstructive failure (1.2% in ADM cohort and 2.8% in no-ADM), seroma (1.2% and 8.3%, respectively), hematoma (1.2% and 2.1%), infection (4.7% and 4.2%), and mastectomy flap ischemia and/or necrosis (2.4% and 5.2%). Long-term complications included rippling (3.3% in ADM and 5.1% in no-ADM cohorts) and capsular contracture (6.8% and 3.4%, respectively). This meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in the rate of complications between cases with and without ADM. However, the outcomes data from no-ADM reconstruction mostly reflect robust mastectomy flaps. Surgeon discretion as informed by specific clinical scenarios should guide decisions regarding the use of ADM in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Do Corporate Payments Influence Research Related to the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Surgery?

BACKGROUND

No study has assessed the impact of financial conflicts of interests (COIs) on the reporting of breast reconstruction outcomes with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in peer-reviewed publications. The authors hypothesized that there is (1) an association between financial COIs and likelihood of studies reporting benefits in using ADM, and (2) inconsistent reporting of financial COIs.

METHODS

The PubMed database was used to identify articles that reported on the use of ADM in breast surgery in four leading plastic surgery journals from January of 2014 to December of 2019. Financial COIs for authors were determined using the open payments database.

RESULTS

Fifty-five articles were included. Twenty-four articles (43.6%) supported use of ADM, 12 (21.8%) did not promote ADM use, and 19 (34.5%) were neutral. Fifty-one studies (92.7%) had either a first or senior author with a COI, and authors with a COI more commonly reported positive outcomes ( P = 0.02). Studies with positive outcomes featured first authors who received significantly larger financial payments ($95,955 versus $15,642; P = 0.029) compared with studies with negative or neutral outcomes. Receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated that studies with first authors receiving over $376.28 were more likely to report positive results. Eight senior authors and three first authors received greater than $500 from ADM producers yet did not report any financial disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial COI is associated with higher likelihood of studies reporting benefit of using ADM in breast surgery. There remains inconsistent reporting of COIs, and better oversight is needed to ensure unbiased publication on the use of ADM in breast surgery.

Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Risk-Reducing Mastectomy in BRCA Mutation Carriers: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Women with BRCA gene mutations have a higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Furthermore, cancer is usually diagnosed at a younger age compared to the wild-type counterpart. Strategies for risk management include intensive surveillance or risk-reducing mastectomy. The latter provides a significant reduction of the risk of developing breast cancer, simultaneously ensuring a natural breast appearance due to the preservation of the skin envelope and the nipple-areola complex. Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common technique after risk-reducing surgery and can be achieved with either a submuscular or a prepectoral approach, in one or multiple stages. This study analyzes the outcomes of the different reconstructive techniques through a retrospective review on 46 breasts of a consecutive, single-center case series. Data analysis was carried out with EpiInfo version 7.2. Results of this study show no significant differences in postoperative complications between two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction and direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, with DTI having superior aesthetic outcomes, especially in the prepectoral subgroup. In our experience, the DTI prepectoral approach has proven to be a safe and less time-consuming alternative to the submuscular two-stage technique, providing a pleasant reconstructed breast and overcoming the drawbacks of subpectoral implant placement.

Single Stitch Vicryl Mesh Wrap for Prepectoral Implant Breast Reconstruction

Acellular dermal matrices are commonly used in prepectoral breast reconstruction for implant coverage and support, but they are associated with significant costs. The authors describe a technique for prepectoral breast reconstruction in which the implant is completely wrapped in a knitted Vicryl mesh and then positioned on the chest, without the need for any tacking sutures. A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive prepectoral breast reconstructions, using this technique at a single institution. A separate cohort undergoing prepectoral reconstruction with a conventional acellular dermal matrix technique was also reviewed for comparison. Patient demographics, oncologic and reconstruction characteristics, outcomes, complications, and materials cost were analyzed. Twelve patients (23 breasts) underwent prepectoral reconstruction with Vicryl mesh, and 34 patients (55 breasts) underwent prepectoral reconstruction with acellular dermal matrices. Overall complication rates in the Vicryl group were low (two infections, one case of skin necrosis, one hematoma) and did not differ statistically from the acellular dermal matrix group. Operative time per breast was nearly twice as fast (35.7 versus 68.0 min, P < 0.01). Calculated materials cost savings was $8273 per breast. Prepectoral breast reconstruction with Vicryl mesh only is a safe technique that is much faster and significantly cheaper compared with conventional reconstructive techniques utilizing acellular dermal matrices.

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.

Direct-to-Implant Subcutaneous Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Complications and Patient's Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

The use of direct-to-implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction has increased over the last years. The goal of this systematic review is to deliver an updated review of the safety of this technique and its impact on quality of life. We also compare subcutaneous vs submuscular complications, through meta-analysis.

METHODS

Literature review through PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were performed by PRISMA criteria. Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria for subcutaneous review and 15 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. All included studies were evaluated for complications and answers to the BREAST-Q. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel, IBM SPSS, and Cochrane RevMan.

RESULTS

In 2863 patients and 3988 breasts that undergone direct to implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction, 8,21% had rippling, 5,64% seroma, 1,74% hematoma, 3,40% infection, 3,01% wound dehiscence, 3,93% skin necrosis, 3,34% nipple-areolar-complex (NAC) necrosis, 3,07% capsular contracture, 0,00% animation deformity, and 3,83% an implant removal. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in the odds ratio of animation deformity, a but statistically significant higher odds ratio of rippling. Subcutaneous and submuscular reconstructions had similar BREAST-Q scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct-to-implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction does not harm the patient's quality of life, comparatively with submuscular, saving the pectoral muscle from dissection and preventing animation deformity, but increasing the risk of rippling.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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

Early Clinical Outcomes of Polydioxanone Mesh for Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

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

Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently experienced a resurgence in popularity because of its lower levels of postoperative pain and animation deformity. BREAST-Q, a well-validated patient-reported outcomes tool, was used to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life. The goal of this study was to assess patient-reported outcomes at 6-month and 1-year follow-up after direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Sixty-nine consented adult patients undergoing a total of 110 direct-to-implant, prepectoral, postmastectomy breast reconstructions completed BREAST-Q questionnaires immediately preoperatively, and at 6 and 12 months thereafter.

RESULTS

Mean breast satisfaction decreased nonsignificantly from 61.3 preoperatively to 58.6 at 12 months after reconstruction (p = 0.32). Psychosocial well-being improved nonsignificantly from 67.1 preoperatively to 71.1 at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.26). Physical well-being of the chest was insignificantly different, from 74.4 to 73.3 at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.62). Finally, sexual well-being similarly remained nonsignificantly changed from 60.2 preoperatively, to 59.1 at 12 months (p = 0.80). The use of acellular dermal matrix and postmastectomy radiotherapy did not have any significant effects on patient-reported outcomes. Through regression analysis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, increased age, and incidence of rippling were found to negatively influence BREAST-Q results.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction demonstrated an overall satisfaction with their outcomes. As prepectoral breast reconstruction continues to advance and grow in popularity, patient-reported outcomes such as those presented in this study become of paramount importance in practice.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Assessing Postsurgical Outcomes with Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Literature Review and Meta-analysis Update

Background:

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is an alternative to subpectoral/dual-plane reconstruction.

Methods:

This study examined outcomes of prepectoral reconstruction using a meta-analysis of data pooled with data from our previous review. Thirty studies were included.

Results:

Explantation, seroma, and infection were the most common complications with no animation deformity reported. Significantly lower odds of infection were observed with prepectoral compared with dual-plane reconstruction.

Conclusions:

Current literature suggests that prepectoral reconstruction may be associated with lower rates of postsurgical infections.

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with TiLOOP® Bra Pocket - a single-centre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant-based reconstruction using synthetic meshes is feasible with good outcomes. We present our data using TiLOOP® Bra Pocket, a novel ready-to-use mesh pocket which acts as an internal bra and prevents the implant from dislocating or twisting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-centre retrospective cohort study was performed to assess short-term complication rates and cosmetic outcomes in patients with prepectoral implant-based reconstruction using the TiLOOP® Bra Pocket. The primary endpoint was complication rates during the first 6 months. The secondary endpoint was the cosmetic outcome after 6 to 12 months, which was judged by two breast surgeons using the Harvard score.

RESULTS

A total of 63 breasts (43 patients) were reconstructed using the TiLOOP® Bra Pocket between 2018 and 2020, 57 were immediate reconstructions. The overall complication rate was 30,2% (n = 19/63). Major complications occurred in seven breasts (n = 7/63; 11,1%) and minor complications occurred in 12 breasts (12/63; 19,0%). The unplanned revision rate was 12,7%. The cosmetic outcome was good (Harvard score: mean 3, range 1-4; SD 0,75). Seventeen cosmetic complications were observed (17/63; 27,0%) and six cosmetic revision surgeries were performed (6/63; 9,5%).

CONCLUSION

The use of the TiLOOP® Bra Pocket is convenient and standardized because the pocket is preformed and does not require to be sewn first. Cosmetic outcome is good; however, the surgical morbidity needs to be addressed in future reconstructions. Careful patient selection and preparation techniques are vital in order to achieve acceptable complication rates and satisfying cosmetic results.

Understanding the Evidence and Improving Outcomes with Implant-Based Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the risks, benefits, and safety profile of prepectoral breast reconstruction. 2. Have knowledge of primary immediate and delayed prepectoral breast reconstruction techniques and secondary procedures required. 3. Describe data on outcomes of prepectoral breast reconstruction.

SUMMARY

Once considered to have an unacceptable complication profile, prepectoral breast reconstruction is increasing in popularity because of decreased surgical invasiveness and postoperative pain and the absence of animation deformity. Short-term outcomes studies comparing prepectoral breast reconstruction to partially submuscular techniques demonstrate similarly acceptable rates of postoperative complications. Aesthetic outcomes demonstrate similar rates of capsular contracture but increased rippling and implant palpability of the upper pole. Postoperative functional data are limited but overall show decreased pain and more rapid return of function but equivalent satisfaction on the BREAST-Q. Long-term aesthetic data and rates of revision are lacking.

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.

Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM

Background:

The majority of two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction has been described utilizing acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Although reports of prepectoral breast reconstruction without ADM exist, there is a paucity of comparative studies.

Methods:

A single-institution retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients undergoing immediate prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from 2017 to 2019. Short-term reconstructive and aesthetic complications were compared between cases that utilized ADM for support and those that did not.

Results:

In total, 76 cases (51 patients) were identified, of which 35 cases utilized ADM and 41 did not. Risk factors and demographics were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of body mass index, which was higher in the ADM cohort (29.3 versus 25.4, P = 0.011). Average follow-up length was also longer in patients who received ADM (20.3 versus 12.3 months, P < 0.001). Intraoperative expander fill was higher in patients who did not receive ADM (296.8 cm³ versus 151.4 cm³, P < 0.001) though final implant size was comparable in both cohorts (P = 0.584). There was no significant difference in the rate of any complication between the ADM and no ADM cohorts (25.7% versus 17.1%, respectively P = 0.357), including major mastectomy flap necrosis (P = 0.245), major infection (P = 1.000), seroma (P = 0.620), expander explantation (P = 1.000), capsular contracture (P = 1.000), implant dystopia (P = 1.000), and rippling (P = 0.362).

Conclusions:

Immediate two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with tissue expanders has comparable rates of short-term complications with or without ADM support. Safety of prepectoral expander placement without ADM may warrant more selective ADM use in these cases.

Splitting the Difference: Using Synthetic and Biologic Mesh to Decrease Cost in Prepectoral Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction

SUMMARY

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has minimized morbidity and dynamic deformities associated with submuscular implant-based breast reconstruction. However, reliance on implant coverage with acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant reconstruction remains limited by high material costs. The authors describe a technique in which anterior implant coverage in prepectoral reconstruction is split into acellular dermal matrix inferolaterally and synthetic, absorbable mesh superiorly. Use of acellular dermal matrix inferiorly provides coverage and reinforces the inframammary fold, whereas the absorbable mesh is trimmed and sutured to the acellular dermal matrix at the appropriate tension to support the implant and relieve pressure on mastectomy flaps. A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive prepectoral one-stage breast reconstructions using this technique at a single institution. Patient demographics, mastectomy and reconstruction characteristics, reconstructive outcomes, and cost of support materials were queried and analyzed. Eleven patients (21 breasts) underwent prepectoral immediate implant reconstruction with Vicryl and acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage. Average mastectomy weight was 775.8 g. Smooth, round cohesive implants were used in all cases and average implant size was 514.5 ml. Overall complication rates were low and included one minor infection (4.8 percent) and one case of minor mastectomy flap and partial nipple necrosis each (4.8 percent). Calculated cost savings of Vicryl and acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage was up to $3415 in unilateral and $6830 in bilateral cases. Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix inferiorly and Vicryl mesh superiorly is a safe technique that decreases material costs associated with support materials and allows the surgeon to precisely control the implant pocket and position.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Review of Outcomes in Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction with and without Surgical Mesh Assistance

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, surgeons have increasingly advocated for a return to prepectoral breast reconstruction with claims that surgical mesh (including acellular dermal matrix) can reduce complication rates. However, numerous surgical and implant advancements have occurred in the decades since the initial prepectoral studies, and it is unclear whether mesh is solely responsible for the touted benefits.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic review of all English language articles reporting original data for prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Articles presenting duplicate data were excluded. Complications were recorded and calculated on a per-breast basis and separated as mesh-assisted, no-mesh prior to 2006, and no-mesh after 2006 (date of first silicone gel-filled breast implant approval). Capsular contracture comparisons were adjusted for duration of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 58 articles were included encompassing 3120 patients from 1966 to 2019. The majority of the included studies were retrospective case series. Reported complication outcomes were variable, with no significant difference between groups in hematoma, infection, or explantation rates. Capsular contracture rates were higher in historical no-mesh cohorts, whereas seroma rates were higher in contemporary no-mesh cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited data exist to understand the benefits of surgical mesh devices in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Level I studies with an appropriate control group are needed to better understand the specific role of mesh for these procedures. Existing data are inconclusive but suggest that prepectoral breast reconstruction can be safely performed without surgical mesh.

Pre-pectoral one-stage breast reconstruction with anterior biological acellular dermal matrix coverage

Background

Pre-pectoral implant breast reconstruction (IBR) is gaining popularity. Several techniques using different types of meshes and methods of placement have been described, but no method is currently considered standard. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of pre-pectoral IBR using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for anterior implant cover.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent pre-pectoral IBR between November 2016 to August 2018. Data on demographics, adjuvant therapies and operative technique was collected. Postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and secondary cosmetic procedures were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics, non-parametric tests and logistic regression.

Results

One hundred and eleven pre-pectoral IBR were performed in 65 patients. Median age was 41 [interquartile range (IQR), 35-51.5] years, and BMI 22 (IQR, 20.4-24.4) kg/m². Therapeutic mastectomy was performed in 33 procedures with nipples preservation in 78 cases. The median mastectomy weight and implant volume was 360 (IQR, 220-533) gr, and 445 (IQR, 400-475) cc respectively. At a median follow-up of 18 (IQR, 12-22.5) months, 37 mastectomies had at least 1 complication, but only 12 required surgery. The implant loss rate was 4.5% (5 cases). Lipofilling as secondary procedure was performed in 10.8% of cases. Factors associated with post-operative complications on univariate analysis were nipple preservation (P=0.028), BMI (P=0.01) and implant volume (P=0.027) but these did not remain significant on multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

Pre-pectoral IBR using ADM for anterior implant cover is associated with low complication and reconstructive failure rate. Patient selection and meticulous surgical technique are important for successful outcome.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct to Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction is currently the most common postmastectomy breast reconstruction modality with over 86,000 procedures performed in 2017. Although various methods for reconstruction techniques have been described, partial subpectoral implant placement with or without acellular dermal matrix coverage remains the most popular approach. Recently, prepectoral implant placement has gained increased recognition as a method that avoids some of the potential morbidities of submuscular implant placement. Currently, few studies have examined the outcomes of performing this approach. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral direct to implant (DTI) immediate breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Data from a prospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing prepectoral DTI immediate breast reconstructions at our institution from February 2016 to November 2017 were collected. The incidence of complications such as mastectomy skin flap necrosis, seroma, hematoma, infection, implant loss, and unexpected reoperation were recorded and compared with a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent subpectoral DTI immediate breast reconstruction from May 2014 to July 2015.

RESULTS

One hundred twelve prepectoral DTI immediate breast reconstructions were performed on 62 patients. Four breasts (4.4%) were diagnosed with infection. There were 8 breasts (7.1%) that suffered from mastectomy skin flap necrosis (5 partial thickness necrosis, 3 full thickness necrosis). There was 1 implant loss related to full thickness necrosis that required salvage with autologous tissue reconstruction. Prepectoral breast reconstruction had less esthetic revisions and comparable complications when compared with the historical subpectoral cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with the subpectoral DTI approach, prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction grants favorable complication rates and improved esthetic outcomes. Prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction is a safe modality that should be considered in any patient who is a candidate for immediate breast reconstruction.

A comparative study of pre- or subpectoral expander position with the fenestrated Acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage, on drainage volume and Seroma Formation after Non-Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that the use of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in expander-based breast reconstruction is related to an increase in seroma-related complications. The aim of this study is to compare the actual drainage volume, time to drain removal, and seroma formation rate in patients with prepectoral expander placement with anterior coverage of a fenestrated ADM to those patients with partial subpectoral expander placement with inferior coverage of a fenestrated ADM.

METHODS

This is a single-surgeon retrospective review of patients who underwent prepectoral expander-based breast reconstruction following non-nipple-sparing mastectomy. Patient demographics, operative data, and complications were analyzed and multivariate linear regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the significance of factors that influences total volume of fluid formation.

RESULTS

A total of 89 breasts from 87 patients were included in the study. Twenty-seven breasts had prepectoral expander reconstruction and 62 breasts had partial subpectoral expander reconstruction. Mean total volumes of fluid formation (total drainage volume + additional aspirated volume) were not significantly different (p = 0.190) in the two groups. In the subpectoral group only, high body mass index (BMI) was correlated with the total volume of fluid formation among the independent factors. (p = 0.017) CONCLUSIONS: Although total drainage volume was not significantly different between prepectoral and subpectoral groups, prepectoral positioning of the expander can be a protective factor against seroma formation in high BMI patients. Further definitive studies with larger patient numbers are warranted to corroborate these data and draw definitive conclusions.

Dual-Plane Retro-pectoral Versus Pre-pectoral DTI Breast Reconstruction: An Italian Multicenter Experience

Background

The use of conservative mastectomies has risen significantly during the last few years. The reconstructive choice of direct-to-implant reconstruction has become more practicable with modern mastectomy techniques. The initial trend in Italian centers was to use dual-plane hybrid reconstruction. However, a high level of complications has been registered. From 2015 onward, in our centers, a pre-pectoral approach has been adopted. The authors sought to describe the Italian trend to gradually discard the sub-pectoral technique with lower lateral pole coverage of the prosthesis using ADMs comparing it with the pre-pectoral approach with ADMs, without any muscle dissection, in terms of complication rates.

Materials and Methods

A multicenter retrospective clinical study was performed from January 2010 to June 2018. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: Cases with an ADM-only coverage pre-pectoral reconstruction made up the first group (Group 1). Those with the retro-pectoral muscular position + ADM implant coverage comprised the second one (Group 2). Complications such as seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, surgical site infection, reconstruction failure, animation deformity and capsular contracture were recorded.

Results

We performed 716 direct-to-implant reconstructions: 509 were partially sub-pectoral and 207 were pre-pectoral. Minimum follow-up was 1 year. Incidence of complications was higher in dual-plane reconstructions. There were statistical significant differences in the rates of seroma and hematoma.

Conclusion

Using the pre-pectoral approach, the authors have experienced favorable aesthetics and superior clinical and functional outcomes. Retro-pectoral muscular ADM implant coverage has to be considered only in specific complicated second-stage surgeries.

Level of Evidence V

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

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00266-020-01892-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Sustainable Approach to Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Using Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix

Background:

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction provides an alternative to submuscular reconstruction, but the increased acellular dermal matrix (ADM) required has the potential to lead to increased costs and decreased supply of this limited-resource material. We present a method for prepectoral reconstruction utilizing skin-graft meshing techniques to increase the surface area of usable ADM.

Methods:

Forty-four patients underwent this technique from February 2019 to February 2020. Patient characteristics, operative details, and outcomes, including complications and patient satisfaction utilizing the BREAST-Q, were analyzed. Cost analysis relative to projected cost of nonmeshed techniques was performed.

Results:

There were 20 unilateral and 24 bilateral procedures, for a total of 68 breast reconstructions. Mean age was 45.9 years (32–71). Mean implant volume was 485 cm³ (265–800), and one sheet of ADM was used for each breast with an average surface area of 161 cm². Median follow-up was 350 days (212–576). Minor complications included an infection treated with oral antibiotics. Major complications included one axillary hematoma and one delayed implant loss. One patient underwent revision for asymmetry. Mean BREAST-Q score was 47.4/60. Cost ranged from $4113 to 5025 per breast, compared with the projected $9125–18250 per breast for other techniques in the literature.

Conclusions:

In contrast to previously described uses of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction, meshing maximizes resource utilization by expanding the coverage of a single sheet. Early findings demonstrate minimal complications and high patient satisfaction, suggesting the approach has potential to provide the benefits of prepectoral reconstruction while responsibly preserving product availability and tempering healthcare costs.

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.

Complication Rate of Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Using Human Acellular Dermal Matrices

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is currently the most frequently performed reconstructive technique post mastectomy. Even though submuscular IBR continues to be the most commonly used technique, mastectomy technique optimization, the possibility to check skin viability with indocyanine green angiography, the enhanced propensity of patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomies, and the introduction of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have paved the way to the rediscovery of the subcutaneous reconstruction technique. The aim of this article is to update the complication rate of immediate and delayed prepectoral IBR using human ADMs (hADMs).

METHODS

A literature search, using PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and Google Scholar database according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, was conducted to evaluate complication rates of prepectoral implant-based reconstructions using hADMs. The following MeSH terms were used: "prepectoral breast reconstruction acellular dermal matrix," "prepectoral breast reconstruction ADM," "human ADM breast reconstruction," and "human acellular dermal matrix breast reconstruction" (period: 2005-2020; the last search took place on April 2, 2020).

RESULTS

This meta-analysis includes 1425 patients (2270 breasts) who had undergone immediate or delayed prepectoral IBR using different types of hADMs. The overall complication rate amounted to 19%. The most frequent complication was represented by infection (7.9%), followed by seroma (4.8%), mastectomy flap necrosis (3.4%), and implant loss (2.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall complication rate was 19%. The most frequent complications were infection, seroma, and mastectomy flap necrosis, while capsular contracture was rare.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Optimizing the Mastectomy Flap to Improve Aesthetic Outcomes

The aesthetics of breast reconstruction inherently rely on both the ablative and reconstructive procedures. Mastectomy flap quality remains one of the most critical factors in determining the success of a reconstruction and its aesthetic outcome. Maintaining the segmental perfusion to the nipple and skin envelope during mastectomy requires preserving the subcutaneous tissue superficial to the breast capsule. Because this layer of tissue varies in thickness among different patients and within each breast, anatomic dissection along the appropriate planes is required rather than a "one-size-fits-all" mentality. A team-based approach between the breast surgeon and plastic surgeon will optimize both the ablative and reconstructive procedures while engaging in a process of shared decision-making with the patient. Preoperative clinical analysis and utilization of imaging to assess individual breast anatomy will help guide mastectomies as well as decisions on reconstructive modalities. Critical assessment of mastectomy flaps is paramount and requires flexibility to adapt reconstructive paradigms intraoperatively to minimize the risk of complications and provide the best aesthetic result.

Factors Associated With Complications in Immediate Breast Reconstruction in 1 Stage With Completely Submuscular Implants

BACKGROUND

Immediate breast reconstruction in 1 stage using permanent implants is gaining popularity and can be performed with or without the use of acellular dermal matrices. This study aimed to investigate the results of breast implants placed submuscularly without acellular dermal matrix and assess the factors affecting surgical complications.

METHODS

From November 2009 to March 2018, 138 patients underwent immediate breast reconstruction with permanent submuscular implants after concomitant skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomies in a single institution. All implants were covered with sufficient soft tissue under a submuscular pocket.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight patients were enrolled, and a total of 196 breasts were operated. The average age and body mass index (BMI) of the patients were 44.9 ± 8.8 years and 23.7 ± 3.6 kg/m, respectively. The majority of the mastectomies were therapeutic (81%). The average volume of implants was 389 ± 89 mL, and the mean follow-up was 33 months. The overall complication rate was 17% (n = 23), with skin necrosis being the most common complication followed by infections. Having a BMI equal to or greater than 25 kg/m was found to be a statistically significant predictor for overall complications (P = 0.002), whereas smoking history, age, and implant volume were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate breast reconstruction in 1 stage using permanent implants can be performed with acceptable complication rates and cosmetic outcomes. Our study demonstrated that high BMI is a risk factor for overall complications. With proper patient selection and surgical technique, implants could be completely covered under a submuscular pocket.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Capsular Contracture of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Single-Arm Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A large number of clinical studies have suggested that acellular dermal matrix (ADM) can decrease the incidence of capsular contracture in implant-based breast reconstruction. Yet, there is currently no high-level epidemiological evidence to prove this. The goal of this meta-analysis was to clarify the efficacy of ADM in capsular contracture, and provide a reference value for plastic surgeons.

METHODS

We systematically performed a search on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible studies from inception up to October 1, 2019. A random-effects model was used to obtain a pooled incidence rate. We conducted subgroup analysis according to geographic region, type of ADM, body mass index (BMI), duration of follow-up, and proportion of participants who have received radiotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies involving 2941 cases were included. Overall, the pooled incidence rate of capsular contracture was 2.4% (95% CI 1.2-3.9%). The results from subgroup analyses indicated an even lower incidence in North America (1.6%, 95% CI 0.5-3.3%) and in human-derived ADM (HADM) (1.2%, 95% CI 0.2-3.0%). In addition, the results showed that the patients with BMI < 24, or who have received radiotherapy, were more prone to capsular contracture.

CONCLUSION

The application of ADM can effectively reduce the incidence of capsular contracture in implant-based breast reconstruction. And we infer that it might also apply to breast augmentation. However, additional high-quality trials are warranted to corroborate the findings of this meta-analysis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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

Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Safety Outcome Endpoints and Delineation of Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

Continued evolution of implant-based breast reconstruction involves immediate placement of the implant above the pectoralis muscle. The shift to prepectoral breast reconstruction is driven by goals of decreasing morbidity such as breast animation deformity, range-of-motion problems, and pain, and is made possible by improvements in mastectomy skin flap viability. To define clinical factors to guide patient selection for direct-to-implant prepectoral implant reconstruction, this study compares safety endpoints and risk factors between prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction cohorts. The authors hypothesized that prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, performed by a team of five surgical oncologists and two plastic surgeons. Univariate analysis compared patient characteristics between cohorts. A penalized logistic regression model was constructed to identify relationships between postoperative complications and covariate risk factors.

RESULTS

A cohort of 114 prepectoral direct-to-implant patients was compared with 142 subpectoral direct-to-implant patients. The results of the penalized regression model demonstrated equivalence in safety metrics between prepectoral direct-to-implant and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, including seroma (p = 0.0883), cancer recurrence (p = 0.876), explantation (p = 0.992), capsular contracture (p = 0.158), mastectomy skin flap necrosis (p = 0.769), infection (p = 0.523), hematoma (p = 0.228), and revision (p = 0.122).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction. Given the low morbidity and elimination of animation deformity, prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction should be considered when the mastectomy skin flap is robust.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Indocyanine Green Angiography in Breast Reconstruction: Utility, Limitations, and Search for Standardization

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

During reconstructive breast surgery, intraoperative assessment of tissue perfusion has been solely based on subjective clinical judgment. However, in the last decade, intraoperative indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) has become an influential tool to visualize blood flow to the tissue of interest. This angiography technique produces real-time blood flow information to provide an objective assessment of tissue perfusion.

Exploration of Robotic Direct to Implant Breast Reconstruction

Breast reconstruction has undergone significant innovation over the past 50 years. Both the development of nipple sparing mastectomy and the use of acellular dermal matrices have facilitated the concept of direct to implant (DTI) reconstruction. The next step in this evolution is further limiting the length of incisions as well as placing access in a more remote location. A robot-assisted surgical approach for DTI reconstruction (R-DTI) with an acellular dermal matrix scaffold is feasible and addresses limitations with open approaches and ergonomics. The authors performed a cadaveric exploration to demonstrate proof of concept and feasibility for an R-DTI following a robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy. Tremor stabilization, direct visualization, endo-wristed robotic instrumentation, and exposure were noted as key benefits over existing open DTI reconstruction techniques. Additionally, the ability to have a more remote access to entry at the perimeter of the breast eliminated incisional tension which can jeopardize reconstructive results. Further exploration and procedure refinements are warranted.

Fat Grafting in Breast Reconstruction

The past two decades have witnessed a growing application of autologous fat grafting in the setting of breast reconstruction after surgical treatment of breast cancer. While traditionally used to correct contour deformities during secondary revisions, fat grafting has since evolved to achieve desired breast shape and size both as a complementary adjunct to established reconstructive techniques as well as a standalone technique for whole breast reconstruction. In this article, we will review fat grafting as an adjunct to autologous and implant-breast based reconstruction, an option for primary breast reconstruction, and a treatment of postmastectomy pain.

Prepectoral Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix: Do We See a Difference?

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity because of advantages over the subpectoral technique. Acellular dermal matrix use with implant-based breast reconstruction has become common because of its perceived superior aesthetic outcome. Matrices are expensive, however, and recent evidence has pointed to several potential complications. This article reports a series of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions with and without acellular dermal matrix and compared their outcomes.

METHODS

This is a single-surgeon retrospective review of patients who underwent staged prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy over two periods. Patients with well-perfused mastectomy skin flaps with a homogeneous thickness underwent reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix initially. On evolution of the practice, it was not used. Patient demographics, operative data, and complications were analyzed. Aesthetic outcome was measured by the BREAST-Q survey and the Aesthetic Item Scale. A cost analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included (acellular dermal matrix group, n = 19; non-acellular dermal matrix group, n = 21). The nonmatrix group had one case (5 percent) of seroma and one case (5 percent) with hematoma; there were none in the acellular dermal matrix group. Average BREAST-Q and Aesthetic Item Scale scores were 82.3 versus 81.6 (p = 0.954) and 20.98 versus 20.43 (p = 0.640) for the matrix and nonmatrix groups, respectively. The direct cost savings for the authors' institution over 1 year if matrix was not used in all cases of implant-based breast reconstruction would be estimated at $3,105,960 to $6,211,920 for unilateral and bilateral cases, respectively, for Medicare reimbursement.

CONCLUSIONS

With adequate patient selection, acellular dermal matrix is not always required during two-stage prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction for good aesthetic outcomes. The economic burden on patients and the health care system could be lessened with selective matrix use.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

The Impact of Device Innovation on Clinical Outcomes in Expander-based Breast Reconstruction

Staged expander-based breast reconstruction represents the most common reconstructive modality in the United States. The introduction of a novel tissue expander with an integrated drain (Sientra AlloX2) holds promise to further improve clinical outcomes.

Multicentre study of prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix

Background

Single‐stage reconstruction is used widely after mastectomy. Prepectoral implant placement is a relatively new technique. This multicentre audit examined surgical outcomes following prepectoral reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix (ADM).

Methods

All patients who had a mastectomy with prepectoral breast reconstruction and ADM in the participating centres between January 2015 and December 2017 were included. Demographic and treatment details, and short‐ and long‐term operative outcomes were recorded. Factors affecting complications and implant loss were analysed: age, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, vascular disease, laterality of surgery, previous ipsilateral breast surgery or radiotherapy, indication for surgery (invasive versus in situ carcinoma, or risk reduction), type of mastectomy, axillary clearance, breast volume, implant volume, and neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

A total of 406 reconstructions were performed across 18 centres. Median follow‐up was 9·65 months. Median hospital stay was 1 day. The 90‐day unplanned readmission rate was 15·7 per cent, and the return‐to‐theatre rate 16·7 per cent. Some 15·3 per cent of patients had a major complication, with a 90‐day implant loss rate of 4·9 per cent. A further six patients had delayed implant loss. In multivariable analysis, no factor was significantly associated with complications or implant loss.

Conclusion

Prepectoral breast reconstruction with ADM has satisfactory surgical outcomes. The duration of follow‐up needs to be extended to examine outcomes in patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy.