A Prospective Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes of Subpectoral and Prepectoral Strattice-Based Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Quantifying the Impact of Prepectoral Implant Conversion on Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Conversion of subpectoral reconstruction to the prepectoral plane has been increasing in popularity. However, there is a paucity of research assessing patient-reported outcomes after this operation. The primary aim of this study was to examine patient-reported outcomes after conversion of implants from the subpectoral to prepectoral plane using the BREAST-Q.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively examined patients who underwent subpectoral-to-prepectoral implant conversion by three surgeons at two separate centers from 2017 through 2021. Patient demographics, primary indication for the conversion, surgical characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and BREAST-Q scores were obtained.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight breasts in 39 patients underwent implant conversion. The most common primary indications for implant conversion were chronic pain (41%), animation deformity (31%), and cosmetic concerns (28%). Average BREAST-Q scores improved significantly preoperatively to postoperatively in all the domains measured (satisfaction with breasts, satisfaction with implants, physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being) ( P < 0.01). When examined by primary indication, all cohorts had significant preoperative to postoperative score improvement in satisfaction with breasts ( P < 0.001) and physical well-being ( P < 0.01) domains. Fifteen breasts (22%) developed postoperative complications, with implant loss in 9% of breasts.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of subpectoral implants to the prepectoral plane significantly improves BREAST-Q outcomes in all aspects, including patient satisfaction with breasts and implants, as well as psychosocial, physical, and sexual well-being. Implant conversion to the prepectoral plane is becoming the authors' primary solution for most patients with chronic pain, animation deformity, or cosmetic concerns after subpectoral reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Level of Evidence 3

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Technical Tips to Reduce Implant Rippling in Staged Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is becoming increasingly popular, permitting optimal implant positioning on the chest wall, prevention of animation deformity, and reduced patient discomfort. There are, however, concerns related to increased rates of breast implant rippling in pre-pectoral (versus submuscular) IBR, which can prompt a patient to seek revisionary surgery. The aim of this study is to identify factors that can be implemented to reduce implant rippling in the setting of pre-pectoral IBR.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted using the PubMed database to determine the rate of rippling in pre-pectoral IBR. Clinical studies in English were included. Further review was then performed to explore technical strategies associated with reduced rates of rippling in pre-pectoral two-stage breast reconstruction.

RESULTS

Implant rippling has been reported with a rate varying from 0 to 53.8% in 25 studies of pre-pectoral IBR (including both direct-to-implant and two-stage IBR). The majority of studies reviewed did not demonstrate a significant association between BMI and rippling, suggesting that other factors, likely technical and device-related, contribute to the manifestation of implant rippling. Hence, we explored whether specific technical modifications could be implemented that would reduce the risk of rippling in patients undergoing pre-pectoral IBR. Specifically, we highlight the need for close attention to expansion protocol and pocket dimension, expander fill medium and implant characteristics, and the rationale behind adjunctive procedures to reduce implant rippling.

CONCLUSION

Surgical modifications may reduce the incidence of rippling in pre-pectoral breast reconstruction.

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 .

Transaxillary Single-Port Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Not: A Comparative Study with Analysis of Surgical Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In most cases, transaxillary single-port endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (E-NSM-IIBR) is conducted in patients with early-stage breast cancer, ensuring surgical safety while achieving improved breast aesthetics. However, whether E-NSM-IIBR is appropriate in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is still unclear. The aim of this study was to report the surgical safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of breast cancer patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with NAC in comparison to those who did not receive NAC.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with or without NAC at a single center between January 2021 and July 2022. Patient demographics, postoperative complications, and PROs evaluated using the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire were compared between the two groups. Factors associated with PROs at 9 months after surgery were assessed with linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 92 patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR were included in the study, with 27 patients receiving NAC and 65 patients not receiving NAC. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. The BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire was completed by 24 out of 27 patients (88.9%) in the NAC group and 59 out of 65 patients (90.8%) in the non-NAC group at 9 months after surgery. The patient-reported outcomes in various domains of the BREAST-Q did not show a significant difference between the two cohorts. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis indicated that in the both groups age (β = - 0.985, 95% CI - 1.598 to - 0.371, p = 0.003 in the NAC group; β = - 0.510, - 1.011 to - 0.009, p = 0.046 in the non-NAC group) and rippling (β = - 21.862, - 36.768 to - 6.955, p = 0.006 in the NAC group; β = - 7.787, - 15.151 to - 0.423, p = 0.039 in the non-NAC group) significantly impacted the patients' satisfaction with breasts, and PMRT was negatively associated with patients' physical well-being of chest (β = - 13.813, - 26.962 to - 0.664, p = 0.040 in the NAC group; β = - 18.574, - 30.661 to - 6.487, p = 0.003 in the non-NAC group). Our findings revealed that patients with larger implant volumes had higher scores in psychosocial well-being (β = 0.082, 0.001 to 0.162, p = 0.047), whereas implant displacement (β = - 14.937, - 28.175 to - 1.700, p=0.028) had a negative impact on patients' psychological well-being in the non-NAC group. However, our results did not demonstrate any significant influencing factors on patients' psychosocial well-being within the NAC group.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary experiences confirm that E-NSM-IIBR is a safe option for selected patients even after NAC, with favorable patient-reported outcomes comparable with those in the primary surgery setting. The postoperative long-term outcomes of patients who undergo radiation therapy after NAC merit further investigation in the future.

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 .

A Cohort Analysis of Early Outcomes After AlloDerm, FlexHD, and SurgiMend Use in Two-Stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently utilized in prepectoral breast reconstruction, but few studies have examined the role of ADM type in complication risk.

OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to determine the impact of ADM type on early complication rates in 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

We performed a cohort examination of all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction with ADM support at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2018 to 2021. ADM types utilized included AlloDerm (LifeCell Corporation, Branchburg, NJ), FlexHD (MTF Biologics, Edison, NJ), and SurgiMend (Integra LifeSciences Corporation, Princeton, NJ). Complication rates based on the number of tissue expanders (TEs) were determined for each ADM type. Performance of multivariate logistic regression determined the impact of ADM type on complication risk after accounting for confounders.

RESULTS

Overall, 726 patients (1054 TEs: 194 AlloDerm, 93 FlexHD, 767 SurgiMend) were included. The 3 cohorts differed in terms of mastectomy type (nipple-sparing: 23.5% of AlloDerm, 33.3% of FlexHD, 19.1% of SurgiMend, P = .038); ADM perforation (perforated: 94.8% of AlloDerm, 98.2% of FlexHD, 100% of SurgiMend, P < .001); and ADM size (AlloDerm: 153.2 cm2 [37.6], SurgiMend: 198.7 cm2 [10.4], FlexHD: 223.7 cm2 [37.9], P < .001). On univariate examination, no differences existed between ADM types for seroma, infection, exposure, malposition, or TE loss. Additionally, after adjustment for confounders with multivariate regression, no ADM type had higher odds of TE loss.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort of prepectoral reconstruction patients, ADM type did not significantly affect the risk of complications. Additional prospective studies are warranted to better evaluate ADM choice for prepectoral breast reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Immediate post-mastectomy prepectoral breast reconstruction with animal derived acellular dermal matrices: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Animal-derived acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are increasingly being used in prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction. However, the indications and complication profile associated with this type of reconstruction remain unclear. This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the available literature on the use of animal-derived ADM in prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Three different literature databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Embase were screened using the following keywords: "immediate" AND "pre-pectoral" OR "prepectoral" AND "ADM breast reconstruction." Animal-derived ADM used (porcine - Braxon® and non-Braxon® - and bovine - Surgimend®) anthropometric information, clinical data, and complications profile were considered.

RESULTS

A total of 340 articles were initially identified, of which only 45 articles (5089 patients and 6598 reconstructed breasts) satisfied our inclusion criteria. The most widely used ADM was Braxon® in the context of conservative mastectomies. In most studies, a subcutaneous layer > 1 cm and lack of previous radiotherapy were considered prerequisites for this type of reconstruction. An increased risk of complications was found in smokers, patients who underwent radiation treatment, patients with high breast volumes, and patients with cancers requiring axillary dissection. Data related to the role of diabetes, high body mass index, and breast implant size on surgical outcomes were instead inconcludent. Age was not directly proportional to the complications.

CONCLUSION

The complications associated with different animal-derived ADMs are generally comparable. The profile of patients required for eligibility for this type of reconstruction appears to have been identified and is in line with current recommendations.

Preservation of the pectoralis major fascia has no impact on the long-term oncologic outcomes of patients with breast cancer treated with conservative mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The oncologic safety of preserving the pectoralis major fascia (PMF) in patients with breast cancer remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to determine the impact of preserving the PMF on long-term oncologic outcomes in patients with breast cancer treated with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) following conservative mastectomy.

METHODS

We selected women with early-stage breast cancer who underwent conservative mastectomy and submuscular IBBR in our center during 2014-2019. The propensity score matching method was used to create well-balanced fascia-preserved and fascia-removed groups. Locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests between the fascia-preserved and fascia-removed groups.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 219 patients in each group. The mean follow-up time was 64.8 ± 18.1 months for the fascia-preserved group and 64.9 ± 18.4 months for the fascia-removed group. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of LRFS (91.3% vs. 93.8%; p = 0.818), DMFS (94.0% vs. 92.3%; p = 0.056), DFS (89.9% vs. 88.4%; p = 0.261), and OS (95.8% vs. 95.4%; p = 0.783) rates. In the fascia-preserved group, 61.5% of the locoregional recurrence events occurred within 2 years after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Preservation of the PMF did not significantly impact the long-term oncologic outcomes in patients with breast cancer who underwent conservative mastectomy and IBBR. The PMF might be safely preserved in patients without suspicious tumor invasion into this fascia.

Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of 694 Two-Stage Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstructions

BACKGROUND

Opinion regarding the optimal plane for prosthetic device placement in breast reconstruction patients has evolved. The purpose of this study was to assess the differences in complication rates and patient satisfaction between patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR).

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent two-stage IBR at their institution from 2018 to 2019. Surgical and patient-reported outcomes were compared between patients who received a prepectoral versus a subpectoral tissue expander.

RESULTS

A total of 694 reconstructions in 481 patients were identified (83% prepectoral, 17% subpectoral). The mean body mass index was higher in the prepectoral group (27 versus 25 kg/m 2 , P = 0.001), whereas postoperative radiotherapy was more common in the subpectoral group (26% versus 14%, P = 0.001). The overall complication rate was very similar, with 29.3% in the prepectoral and 28.9% in the subpectoral group ( P = 0.887). Rates of individual complications were also similar between the two groups. A multiple-frailty model showed that device location was not associated with overall complications, infection, major complications, or device explantation. Mean scores for Satisfaction with the Breast, Psychosocial Well-Being, and Sexual Well-Being were similar between the two groups. Median time to permanent implant exchange was significantly longer in the subpectoral group (200 versus 150 days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Prepectoral breast reconstruction results in similar surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction compared with subpectoral IBR.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with gel implant and latissimus dorsi muscle flap: Our initial experience

BACKGROUND

This study reports the preliminary results of da Vinci robot XI robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy immediate breast reconstruction (R-NSMIBR) with gel implant and latissimus dorsi muscle flap.

METHODS

A total of 15 patients who underwent R-NSMIBR with gel implant and latissimus dorsi muscle flap surgery for breast cancer between September 2022 and November 2022 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean total operative time for R-NSMIBR was 361.9 ± 77.0 min. As the learning curve increased, the robot arm docking time decreased rapidly from the initial 25-10 min. Average total blood loss was 27.8 ± 10.7 mL and posterior surgical margin positivity rate was 0%. Perioperative complications and local recurrences or deaths were not observed at a mean follow-up of 3 ± 1 month 15 patients were satisfied with postoperative aesthetic results.

CONCLUSIONS

R-NSMIBR with a gel implant and latissimus dorsi muscle flap could be a new therapeutic option for breast reconstruction.

Patient and procedure characteristics associated with postoperative pain after prophylactic versus therapeutic ambulatory bilateral breast surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether age, body mass index (BMI), and tissue expander placement were related to postoperative opioid requirement for patients undergoing therapeutic versus prophylactic breast surgery.

METHODS

Postoperative opioid consumption was evaluated for patients who underwent bilateral mastectomy with immediate implant-based reconstruction at a freestanding ambulatory cancer surgery center between 2016 and 2021. Ordinal regression tested whether surgical indication was associated with increased postoperative opioid requirements after adjusting for age, BMI, and tissue expander placement.

RESULTS

Of 2447 patients, 6% underwent prophylactic surgeries. Therapeutic mastectomy patients had lower postoperative opioid requirement (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.91; p = 0.030), but this was not significant after adjusting for covariates (OR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.53-1.07; p = 0.2). Opioid use increased with higher BMI (OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.05-1.08; p < 0.001) and decreased with age (OR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.96-0.98; p < 0.001) with therapeutic mastectomy patients being older (median 46 vs. 39). The subpectoral tissue expander group had nearly double the postoperative opioid requirement compared to prepectoral placement (OR = 1.86; 95% CI: 1.55-2.23; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased postoperative opioid requirement in women undergoing prophylactic procedures is best explained by age. Mastectomy patients should be counseled similarly about postoperative pain irrespective of indication. A larger prophylactic mastectomy sample is required to provide more precise estimates.

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

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

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.

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.

Predicting Mastectomy Skin Flap Necrosis: A Systematic Review of Preoperative and Intraoperative Assessment Techniques

Mastectomy skin-flap necrosis (MSFN) is one of the most feared complications of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IIBR). Traditionally, mastectomy skin-flap viability was based only on surgeons' clinical experience. Even though numerous studies have already addressed the patients' risk factors for MSFN, few works have focused on assessing quality of breast envelope. This review investigates mastectomy's flap viability-assessment methods, both preoperative (PMFA) and intraoperative (IMFA), to predict MSFN and its sequalae. Between June and November 2022, we conducted a systematic review of Pubmed/MEDLINE and Cochrane electronic databases. Only English studies regarding PMFA and IMFA applied to IIBR were selected. The use of digital mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and a combination of several methods before surgery was shown to be advantageous by several authors. Indocyanine performed better than other IMFA, however both thermal imaging and spectroscopy demonstrated novel and promising results. Anyway, the best prediction comes when preoperative and intraoperative values are combined. Particularly in prepectoral reconstruction, when mastectomy flaps are essential to determine a successful breast reconstruction, surgeons' clinical judgment is insufficient in assessing the risk of MSFN. Preoperative and intraoperative assessment techniques play an emerging key role in MSFN prediction. However, although there are several approaches to back up the surgeon's processing choice, there is still a dearth of pertinent literature on the subject, and more research is required.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has gained popularity due to numerous benefits in properly selected patients. Compared with subpectoral implant reconstruction, prepectoral reconstruction offers preservation of the pectoralis major muscle in its native position, resulting in decreased pain, no animation deformity, and improved arm range of motion/strength. Although prepectoral reconstruction is safe and effective, the implant sits closer to the mastectomy skin flap. Acellular dermal matrices play a critical role, allowing for precise control of the breast envelope and providing long-term implant support. Careful patient selection and intraoperative mastectomy flap evaluation are critical to obtaining optimal results with prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Postoperative Complications Following Prepectoral Versus Partial Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of evidence comparing the safety of prepectoral and partial subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADM). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the postoperative complications of the two approaches.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The rates of the complications were, respectively, pooled, and relative risk (RR) was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the incidence between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

Ten articles reporting on 2667 breast reconstructions were eligible. The hematoma rate was lower in the prepectoral group (RR  =  0.590, 95% CI 0.351-0.992). No significant difference was observed in terms of seroma (RR = 1.079, 95% CI 0.489-2.381), skin flap necrosis (RR = 0.936, 95% CI 0.587-1.493), infection (RR = 0.985, 95% CI 0.706-1.375), tissue expander/implant explantation (RR  =  0.741, 95% CI 0.506-1.085), wound dehiscence (RR = 1.272, 95% CI 0.605-2.673), capsular contracture (RR = 0.939, 95% CI 0.678-1.300) and rippling (RR = 2.485, 95% CI 0.986-6.261). The RR of animation deformity for the prepectoral group compared with the subpectoral group was 0.040 (95% CI, 0.002-0.853).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggested that with appropriate patient selection, prepectoral breast reconstruction could avoid animation deformity without incurring higher risk of early wound complications, capsular contracture or rippling than partial subpectoral breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should complete a comprehensive assessment of the patients before choosing appropriate surgical approaches in clinical practice.

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 .

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

ADM-assisted prepectoral breast reconstruction is not associated with high complication rate as before: a Meta-analysis

Implant-related breast reconstruction can be divided into subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR) and prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) according to the different anatomical planes. The previous stereotype was that PPBR had a high complication rate and was not suitable for clinical use. However, with the emergence of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), the clinical effect of PPBR has been improved. To compare the outcomes difference between SPBR and PPBR, We conducted this meta-analysis. Articles on SPBR versus PPBR were searched in PubMed, Web of Sciences, Embase, and Cochrane databases, strictly following the PRISMA guidelines. According to the set criteria, we included the literature that met the requirements. Extracted data were the incidence of adverse events and the duration of drainage. Results show that SPBR has a higher incidence rate in capsular contracture, animation deformity, infection, hematoma and delayed healing wound than PPBR. There are no significant differences in skin flap necrosis, seroma, implant loss, reoperation and duration of drainage between the two groups. Hence, PPBR is no longer a high complication surgical method and can be used in the clinical practice. However, there are few large sample studies at present, so it is necessary to carry out further studies on PPBR.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Reduces Opioid Consumption and Pain After Mastectomy: A Head-to-Head Comparison With Submuscular Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Acute pain after mastectomy is increased with concurrent breast reconstruction. One postulated advantage of prepectoral breast reconstruction is less postoperative pain; however, no comparisons to partial submuscular reconstruction have been made to date. Here, we examined the postoperative pain experienced between patients with prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from 2012 to 2019 by a single plastic surgeon. Patient demographics, surgical details, and anesthetic techniques were evaluated, and our primary outcome compared postoperative opioid usage between prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions. Our secondary outcome compared pain scores between techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 211 subpectoral and 117 prepectoral reconstruction patients were included for analysis. Patients with subpectoral reconstructions had higher postoperative opioid usage (80.0 vs 45.0 oral morphine equivalents, P < 0.001). Subpectoral patients also recorded higher maximum pain scores compared with prepectoral reconstructions while admitted (7 of 10 vs 5 of 10, P < 0.004). Multivariable linear regression suggests that mastectomy type and subpectoral reconstruction were significant contributors to postoperative opioid use (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral breast reconstruction was associated with less postoperative opioid consumption and lower postoperative pain scores as compared with subpectoral reconstruction, when controlling for other surgical and anesthesia factors. Future randomized controlled trials are warranted to study how postoperative pain and chronic pain are influenced by the location of prosthesis placement in implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

A prospective comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral methods for immediate breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: the cogwheel-shaped anterior wrapping method

Background Prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently gained wide recognition for its advantages, such as rapid recovery and less pain. This study compared the effectiveness of and differences between the prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction techniques.Methods Eighty-three patients (90 breasts) who underwent prepectoral or subpectoral breast reconstruction surgery between January 2019 and December 2020 were prospectively recruited. Patient demographics, comorbidities, oncological treatment, and intraoperative and postoperative data were evaluated to investigate the validity and stability of each surgical technique. The follow-up period was a minimum of 18 months.Results The surgical cohorts (22 prepectoral and 68 subpectoral) had comparable demographics. No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the two groups. The prepectoral group showed shorter operation times than the subpectoral group (mean: 97.27 and 127.63 minutes, respectively; P<0.001). Fewer days elapsed until drain removal and the total amount of drainage was less in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (mean: postoperative day [POD] 8.95 and 10.06, respectively; P=0.048) and (501.72 mL and 671.19 mL, respectively; P=0.009). The numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) scores at POD 7 were significantly lower in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (mean: 0.41 and 1.82, respectively; P=0.029). There were no statistically significant differences in the NPRS scores at POD 1 or the BREAST-Q questionnaire scores at 3 months.Conclusions Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix can feasibly replace the conventional subpectoral breast reconstruction technique and has the advantages of reducing operation time, length of hospitalization, and long-term postoperative pain.

Best Practices for BREAST-Q Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology

BACKGROUND

Data heterogeneity and methodologic errors hinder the ability to draw clinically meaningful conclusions from studies using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module patient-reported outcome measure. In this systematic review, the authors evaluate the quality of BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module administration in relation to the BREAST-Q version 2.0 user's guide and the reporting of key methodology characteristics. The authors also describe a framework for improving the quality of BREAST-Q data analysis and reporting.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Ovid HAPI databases to identify articles on the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module to assess postmastectomy breast reconstruction outcomes. The authors registered the protocol before study implementation on Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/c5236 ) and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data on mode of BREAST-Q administration, time horizon justification, and sample size calculation were collected.

RESULTS

The authors included 185 studies in the analysis. Errors in BREAST-Q administration were identified in 36 studies (19.5 percent). Appropriate administration of the BREAST-Q could not be determined in 63 studies (34.1 percent) because of insufficient reporting. Time horizon for the primary outcome was reported in 71 studies (38.4 percent), with only 17 (9.2 percent) reporting a sample size calculation.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors identified important yet actionable shortcomings in the BREAST-Q literature. Researchers are encouraged to review the BREAST-Q user's guide in the study design phase to mitigate errors in patient-reported outcome measure administration and reporting for future trials using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module. Adhering to these guidelines will allow for greater clinical utility and generalizability of BREAST-Q research.

Evaluation of Breast Animation Deformity following Pre- and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background  The incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) is reported to be substantial after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with subpectoral implant placement. It has, however, never been examined if BAD can occur following prepectoral implant placement. Our primary aim was to compare the incidence and degree of BAD after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement. Secondary aim of this study was to assess and compare the level of pain between sub- and prepectoral reconstructed women. Methods  In this randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to reconstruction by either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines. The degree of BAD was assessed by the "Nipple, Surrounding skin, Entire breast (NSE)" grading scale 12 months after surgery. The level of postoperative pain was assessed on a numerical pain rating scale. Results  We found a significant difference in the degree of BAD favoring patients in the prepectoral group (23.8 vs. 100%, p  < 0.0001; mean NSE grading scale score: 0.4 vs. 3.6, p  < 0.0001). The subpectoral reconstructed group reported higher levels of pain on the three subsequent days after surgery. No significant difference in pain levels could be found at 3 months postoperatively. Conclusion  The incidence and degree of BAD was significantly lower in women reconstructed by prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Unexpectedly, we found mild degrees of BAD in the prepectoral group. When assessing BAD, distortion can be challenging to discern from rippling.

Comparison of Outcomes Following Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implants for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy helps to restore quality of life while aiming at providing optimal cosmetic outcomes. Both prepectoral (PP) and subpectoral (SP) breast implants are widely used to fulfill these objectives. It is, however, unclear which approach offers stronger postoperative benefits. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature through PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ResearchGate, following the PRISMA guidelines. Quantitative analysis for postoperative pain as the primary outcome was conducted. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and postoperative complications such as seroma, implant loss, skin necrosis, wound infection, and hematoma. (3) Results: Nine articles involving 1119 patients were retrieved. Our results suggested increased postoperative pain after SP implants and significantly higher rates of seroma following PP implants (p < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was found to be similar between the two groups; however, the heterogeneity of measurement tools did not allow us to pool these results. The rates of implant loss, skin necrosis, wound infection, and hematoma showed no significant differences between the two cohorts. (4) Conclusion: Our data suggest that both implant placements are safe and effective methods for breast reconstruction following mastectomy. However, homogeneity in outcome measurements would allow one to provide stronger statistical results.

The PreQ-20 TRIAL: A prospective cohort study of the oncologic safety, quality of life and cosmetic outcomes of patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction

Background

Mastectomy currently constitutes a necessary surgical procedure in the oncologic setting and in the context of high risk. Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) has been proposed as a surgical alternative to retropectoral techniques by providing less postoperative morbidity and a better cosmetic result. However, there is a lack of prospective studies that have evaluated its safety and patient-reported satisfaction.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study to assess the safety, quality of life and cosmetic sequelae of PBR in women with breast cancer and high risk. The study’s main objective is to assess the safety of PBR in terms of postsurgical complications and the feasibility of reconstruction (loss of implants). The secondary objectives are to evaluate oncologic safety (local relapses, residual glandular tissue) and to identify factors related to quality of life and cosmetic sequelae. The evaluation of residual tissue will be conducted by MRI 12 to 18 months after the surgery, and the quality-of-life assessment will be performed using the Breast-Q questionnaire. An initial patient evaluation will be conducted 12–18 months after the surgery, and a second evaluation will be performed at 5 years. The estimated sample size is 81 patients.

Discussion

The PreQ-20 study will analyze the impact of PBR on 3 separate measures: safety, quality of life and cosmetic sequelae. Unlike other studies that analyzed these three measures jointly for women with breast cancer and high risk, this study will individualize the results for these 2 patient groups. This differentiation is necessary from the methodological point of view, given that the 2 patient groups have separate clinical and emotional implications. The assessment of these groups will focus on the following aspects: postoperative complications, local relapses, evaluation of residual glandular tissue and incidence rate of primary tumors in the same, the cosmetic sequelae and the satisfaction and the quality-of-life assessment by the patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04642508.

A Retrospective Study Assessing the Outcomes of Immediate Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant and Mesh-Based Breast Reconstruction

(1) Introduction: In response to patient concerns about breast cancer recurrence, increased use of breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing, and advancements in breast reconstruction techniques, mastectomy rates have been observed to rise over the last decade. The aim of the study is to compare the outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral implants and long-term, dual-stage resorbable mesh-based breast reconstructions in mutation carriers (prophylactic surgery) and breast cancer patients. (2) Patients and methods: This retrospective, two-center study included 170 consecutive patients after 232 procedures: Prepectoral surgery was performed in 156 cases and subpectoral was performed in 76. (3) Results: Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with more frequent minor late complications (p < 0.001), but not major ones (p = 0.101), while postoperative chemotherapy was related to more frequent serious (p = 0.005) postoperative complications. Postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of minor complications (31.03%) than no-radiotherapy (12.21%; p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression found complications to be significantly associated with an expander (OR = 4.43), skin-reducing mastectomy (OR = 9.97), therapeutic mastectomy vs. risk-reducing mastectomy (OR = 4.08), and postoperative chemotherapy (OR = 12.89). Patients in whom prepectoral surgeries were performed demonstrated significantly shorter median hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and lower minor complication rates (5.77% vs. 26.32% p < 0.001), but similar major late complication rates (p = 0.915). (4) Conclusions: Implant-based breast reconstruction with the use of long-term, dual-stage resorbable, synthetic mesh is a safe and effective method of breast restoration, associated with low morbidity and good cosmesis. Nevertheless, prospective, multicenter, and long-term outcome data studies are needed to further evaluate the benefits of such treatments.

Complication Profile of Total Submuscular Versus Prepectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare the safety profile of prepectoral breast reconstruction with total submuscular tissue expander reconstruction, previously our standard. Primary outcomes of interest in this retrospective cohort study were incidence of infection, hematoma, seroma, mastectomy flap necrosis, and reconstruction loss.

METHODS

Total submuscular and prepectoral with acellular dermal matrix reconstructions consecutively performed by a single surgeon (P.D.S.) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, were compared. Demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as complications and complication types, were extracted for all patients. A t test was used to assess differences in continuous variables. Multivariate logistics regression was used to assess the association between type of reconstruction and complication rate. The statistical significance was set at 0.05 for all comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients (234 breasts) were included. There was a significantly greater incidence of infection (16.5% vs 5.5%, P < 0.01) in the prepectoral/acellular dermal matrix cohort. However, reconstructive loss was low in both cohorts (2.5% and 3.0%, P = 0.83). Adjusted odds ratio for complications in the prepectoral cohort was 2.26, but this was not statistically significant (adjusted P = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral breast reconstruction shares an overall complication profile that is not greater than that of total submuscular reconstruction. It is associated with a greater risk of infection; however, the ability to salvage the reconstruction with early, aggressive intervention results in low rates of reconstructive loss, comparable with those of total submuscular reconstruction.

Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix for Two-Staged Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: An Institutional Experience

The introduction of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to breast reconstruction has allowed surgeons to reexplore the prepectoral implant placement technique in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Our institution adopted a novel approach using meshed ADM to lessen the financial burden of increased ADM utilization with the prepectoral breast reconstruction. This is a retrospective, single-center review of two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction using meshed human-derived ADM for anterior prosthesis coverage. Patient demographics, oncologic data, perioperative characteristics, and complications were examined and reported as means with standard deviations. Cost-saving with the meshed technique was evaluated. Forty-eight patients (72 breasts) with a mean age of 48.5 ± 15.0 years (range 26–70 years) were included in the study. The mean follow-up time was 13.2 ± 4.4 months (range 4.1–25.8 months). Nineteen breasts (24.6%) experienced complications, with seromas being the most common complication (12.5%, n  = 9). Expander removal and reoperation occurred at a rate of 8.3 and 9.7%, respectively. The average time to drain removal was 18.8 ± 6.6 days (range 8–32 days). Meshed ADM provided an average cost savings of $6,601 for unilateral and $13,202 for bilateral reconstructions. Our study found that human-derived meshed ADM can be safely used in two-staged prepectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction and can result in significant cost savings.

Comparison of nine methods of immediate breast reconstruction after resection of localized breast cancer: A cost-effectiveness Markov decision analysis of prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction without radiation therapy have reconstruction methods available with uncertain long-term costs associated with complications requiring surgery and revisions. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of nine methods of immediate breast reconstruction for women with localized breast cancer.

METHODS

Markov modeling was performed over 10-years for unilateral/bilateral breast reconstructions from healthcare/societal perspectives. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched to derive data from 13,744 patients in 79 prospective studies. Complications requiring surgery (mastectomy necrosis, total/partial flap necrosis, seroma, hematoma, infection, wound dehiscence, abdominal hernia, implant removal/explantation) and revisions (fat necrosis, capsular contracture, asymmetry, scars/redundant tissue, implant rupture/removal, fat grafting) were evaluated over yearly cycles. Reconstructions included: direct-to-implant (DTI), tissue expander-to-implant (TEI), latissimus dorsi flap-to-implant (LDI), latissimus dorsi (LD), pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM), free TRAM, deep inferior epigastric perforator/superficial inferior epigastric artery (DIEP/SIEA), thigh-based, or gluteal based flaps. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and net monetary benefits (NMB). Willingness-to-pay thresholds were $50,000 and $100,000.

RESULTS

From a healthcare perspective for unilateral reconstruction, compared to LD, the ICER for DTI was -$42,109.35/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), LDI was -$25,300.83/QALY, TEI was -$22,036.02/QALY, DIEP/SIEA was $8307.65/QALY, free TRAM was $8677.26/QALY, pedicled TRAM was $13,021.44/QALY, gluteal-based was $17,698.99/QALY, and thigh-based was $23,447.82/QALY. NMB of DIEP/SIEA was $404,523.47, free TRAM was $403,821.40, gluteal-based was $392,478.64, thigh-based was $387,691.70, pedicled TRAM was $376,901.83, LD was $370,646.93, DTI was $339,668.77, LDI was $334,350.30, and TEI was $329,265.84.

CONCLUSIONS

All nine methods of immediate breast reconstruction were considered cost-effective from healthcare/societal perspectives. LD provided the lowest costs, while DIEP/SIEA provided the greatest effectiveness and NMB.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Prepectoral and Subpectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of 90-Day Clinical and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral placement of tissue expanders for two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction potentially minimizes chest wall morbidity and postoperative pain. The authors explored 90-day clinical and health-related quality-of-life outcomes for prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors conducted a propensity score-matching analysis (nearest neighbor, 1:1 matching without replacement) of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral or subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction between December of 2017 and January of 2019. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, race/ethnicity, smoking status, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and laterality of reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were perioperative analgesia use, 90-day postoperative patient-reported pain, complication rates, and BREAST-Q physical well-being of the chest scores.

RESULTS

Of the initial cohort of 921 patients, 238 were propensity-matched and included in the final analysis. The matched cohort had no differences in baseline characteristics. Postoperative ketorolac (p = 0.048) use was higher in the subpectoral group; there were no other significant differences in intraoperative and postoperative analgesia use. Prepectoral patients had lower pain on postoperative days 1 to 2 but no differences on days 3 to 10. BREAST-Q physical well-being of the chest scores did not differ. Prepectoral patients had higher rates of seroma than subpectoral patients (p < 0.001). Rates of tissue expander loss did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

This matched analysis of 90-day complications found lower early postoperative pain in prepectoral tissue expander patients but no longer-term patient-reported differences. Although prepectoral reconstruction patients experienced a higher rate of seroma, this did not translate to a difference in tissue expander loss. Long-term analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes is needed to understand the full profile of the prepectoral technique.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

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.

Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Best-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10081873.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction: an ideal approach to bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy

Background

Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) has increased its popularity in the last years because of its aim to minimise the chances of developing breast cancer in high-risk patients. Women undergoing this procedure must be considered highly demanding patients given the need to combine aesthetical, functional and preventive desires. This study aims to present the authors' experience in performing BRRM followed by single-stage prepectoral reconstruction (PPBR) with implant completely covered by acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and to report indications, surgical techniques, functional and aesthetic results.

Methods

A single-centre prospective data collection was carried out from January 2017 to January 2021 of patients at high risk of developing breast cancer undergoing BRRM and immediate PPBR with ADM. Patients were subdivided into two groups according to the breast shape: Group A had small and medium size breasts and Group B had large and ptotic breasts. Oncological and surgical outcomes were collected. Satisfaction with reconstruction and related quality of life were evaluated through the BREAST-Q questionnaire.

Results

A total of twenty-three patients met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen patients were included in group A and six patients in group B. Average follow-up was 18.4 months. Minor complications occurred in four breasts: one seroma, one hematoma and two cases of wound dehiscence. Capsular contracture was not observed. All patients were satisfied with the final result according to the post-operative BREAST-Q questionnaire.

Conclusions

Immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction could represent the ideal reconstruction option after BRRM and should be offered to all women that fulfil the inclusion criteria.

Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: early and long-term safety evaluation of 146 unselected cases of the early pre-pectoral era of a single-institution, including cases with previous breast irradiation and post-mastectomy radiation therapy

We re-evaluated acute and early-late toxicity-related factors among pre-pectoral immediate tissue expander/implant (TE/I) breast reconstruction (BR) unselected, first-era, cases, including previous breast radiation treatment and post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). A retrospective analysis of 146 (117 therapeutic and 29 prophylactic) pre-pectoral reconstructions, between 2012 and 2016, considered patient-related (age, body mass index [BMI], smoke-history, comorbidity, BRCA mutation), and treatment-related characteristics (previous irradiation, axillary surgery, PMRT, pre- and postoperative chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and target-therapy). Safety was evaluated as acute and early-late complications, and TE/I failures. At multivariate analysis of the 146 cases (117 patients submitted to BR) a significant factor related to acute toxicity was: BMI ≥ 25 (31.3% [≥ 25] vs 8.8% [< 25]; OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.56-12.6; p = 0.003), while previous breast surgery on ipsilateral side presented a borderline significance (31.6% [previous surgery] vs 7.4% [no previous surgery]; OR 3.74, 95% CI 0.97-14.40; p = 0.055). Factors significantly related to TE/I failure were: current or previous smoking exposition (13.8% [smokers] vs 2.6% [non-smokers]; OR 7.32, 95% CI 1.37-39.08; p = 0.02) and preoperative chemotherapy (18.8% [yes] vs 3.5% [no]; OR 8.16, 95% CI 1.29-51.63; p = 0.026). At 4-year median follow-up, 3 deaths, 5 locoregional recurrences, and 14 distant metastases occurred. Immediate pre-pectoral BR is safe and effective, with low rates of acute and early-late complications. BMI and previous breast surgery were related to higher complications but not failure; smoking and preoperative chemotherapy were related to TE/I explant. Previous RT and PMRT were related neither to early-late toxicity nor failure.

Comparing post-surgical outcomes of pre-pectoral versus dual-plane direct-to-implant breast reconstruction without increasing the use of acellular dermal matrix

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction when performed using the dual-plane technique can be associated with increased postoperative pain, longer recovery, functional impairment, and animation deformity. These issues can be avoided by using the pre-pectoral technique that traditionally uses larger pieces of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and results in increased costs. It is unclear how these two methods compare when the technique is modified to avoid the use of additional ADM.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction using a dual-plane or pre-pectoral technique between January 2014 and December 2019. Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction was performed using a partial anterior coverage technique, and therefore no additional ADM was used per case as compared to the dual-plane technique. Rates of post-surgical complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 77 patients, 48 (86 breasts) underwent dual-plane reconstruction, whereas 29 (48 breasts) underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction. Mean follow-up time for the dual-plane and pre-pectoral groups was 23.3 and 8.7 months, respectively (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in the rates of any of the short-term post-surgical outcomes between the two groups: seroma (14% vs 6.3%, p = 0.175); hematoma (2.3% vs 4.2%, p = 0.617); skin/nipple necrosis (7% vs 10.4%, p = 0.522); wound skin infection (2.3% vs 2.1%, p = 1.0); wound dehiscence (4.7% vs 2.1, p = 0.654); and implant loss (1.2% vs 8.3%, p = 0.055).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-pectoral reconstruction using a partial anterior coverage technique appears to be a safe alternative to dual-plane reconstruction when considering short-term post-surgical complications.

Human Acellular Dermal Matrix (Epiflex®) in Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Skin- and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Treatment of Capsular Fibrosis: Results of a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational NOGGO-AWOGyn Study

Background

Over the last decades, the number of acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-assisted implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBR) has substantially increased. However, there is still a lack of prospective data on complication rates.

Methods

We performed a non-interventional, multicenter, prospective cohort study to evaluate complication rates of a human ADM in patients undergoing an IBBR after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomies. Patients with primary reconstruction (cohort A) and patients undergoing a secondary reconstruction after capsular fibrosis (cohort B) using the human ADM Epiflex® (DIZG gGmbH, Berlin, Germany) were enrolled in this study. Patients were followed-up for 12 months after surgery.

Results

Eighty-four eligible patients were included in this study of whom 28 women underwent a bilateral breast reconstruction, leading to 112 human ADM-assisted reconstructions in total (cohort A: 73, cohort B: 39). In 33.0% of the reconstructed breasts at least one of the complications of primary interest occurred, including implant loss 7.1%, seroma 15.2%; infection 5.4%, rash 8.0%, and Baker grade III/IV capsular fibrosis 2.7%, with no statistically significant differences between the cohorts. Previous radiation therapy was significantly associated with occurrence of any postoperative complication (OR 20.41; p value 0.027).

Conclusion

The rates of most complications were comparable to the rates reported for other ADMs with relatively low rates of capsular fibrosis and infections. The rate of seroma was increased in our study. Prior radiation therapy increased the risk of any postoperative complications. Therefore, the use of ADM in these patients should be considered carefully.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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

Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (OPBC-02/ PREPEC): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial

INTRODUCTION

The emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life (QoL) has motivated surgeons to develop skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy (SSM/ NSM) for breast cancer treatment or prevention. During the same operation, a so-called immediate breast reconstruction is performed. The breast can be reconstructed by positioning of a breast implant above (prepectoral) or below (subpectoral) the pectoralis major muscle or by using the patients' own tissue (autologous reconstruction). The optimal positioning of the implant prepectoral or subpectoral is currently not clear. Subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is still standard care in many countries, but prepectoral IBBR is increasingly performed. This heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice is calling for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to guide treatment decisions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

International, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial. The primary objective of this trial is to test whether prepectoral IBBR provides better QoL with respect to long-term (24 months) physical well-being (chest) compared with subpectoral IBBR for patients undergoing SSM or NSM for prevention or treatment of breast cancer. Secondary objectives will compare prepectoral versus subpectoral IBBR in terms of safety, QoL and patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes and burden on patients. Total number of patients to be included: 372 (186 per arm).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will be conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval has been obtained for the lead investigator's site by the Ethics Committee 'Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz' (2020-00256, 26 March 2020). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, independent of the results, following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials standards for RCTs and good publication practice. Metadata describing the type, size and content of the datasets will be shared along with the study protocol and case report forms on public repositories adhering to the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse) principles.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04293146.

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.

Comparative Analysis of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Recent advances in mastectomy and reconstruction have allowed for an evolution in implant-based breast reconstruction to a muscle-sparing, prepectoral approach. Advantages of this technique may include reductions in postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, less narcotic usage, and improved aesthetic outcomes. Postoperative complication rates are described as comparable to subpectoral techniques; however, little comparative data exist to adequately assess prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement.

Methods

To address this knowledge gap, we performed a single institution retrospective review of 186 (83 prepectoral, 103 subpectoral) consecutive immediate breast reconstructions. All cases were tracked for a minimum of 2 years between 2016 and 2021.

Results

Prepectoral patients demonstrated an overall higher seroma rate (P = 0.001), with all other postoperative complications being comparable. Prepectoral patients tolerated higher intraoperative tissue expander fill volumes (P < 0.001), shorter hospital stays (P = 0.007), fewer clinic visits for tissue expansion (P < 0.001), and experienced less animation deformity (P = 0.005). Both groups demonstrated similar pain scores (P = 0.65) and needs for narcotics (P = 0.8) as well as comparable scores of capsular contracture (P = 0.791).

Conclusions

Our comparative analysis of consecutive immediate implant-based breast reconstructions finds prepectoral reconstruction to be safe and effective. Compared with subpectoral reconstruction, the prepectoral approach may offer quicker tissue expansion, less postoperative office visits, less need for muscle relaxants, and a shorter hospital stay with a comparable complication profile.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction in High-Body Mass Index Patients

BACKGROUND

The effect of body mass index (BMI) on complication rates in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is not well established. The purpose of this study was to compare complication rates between different BMI groups in subpectoral and prepectoral reconstruction.

METHODS

A single-surgeon, 4-year, retrospective review was performed of consecutive prosthetic breast reconstructions. During this time, the senior author's practice shifted from a subpectoral to prepectoral technique. Patients were stratified into BMI subgroups (<25, 25-35, and >35 kg/m2) and complication rates were analyzed. A survey was administered to blinded medical personnel and patients comparing esthetic results.

RESULTS

Implant-based reconstructions were performed in 195 patients (103 subpectoral and 92 prepectoral). No significant difference in major complication rate was observed between techniques. Among patients with BMI greater than 35 kg/m2, implant exposure occurred at a significantly higher rate in the prepectoral group (P = 0.04). In patients with BMI greater than 25 kg/m2, minor asymmetry was more prevalent with prepectoral reconstruction (12.3% vs 0%; P = 0.02). Regardless of technique, the odds of reoperation increased by 7% per point increase in BMI, although this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.07; odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.15).A total of 66 survey responses were received. Physicians rated esthetic results more positively than patients did. Patients with a BMI of less than 25 kg/m2 were rated better than other BMI groups in nearly all categories. The position of submuscular reconstruction was rated significantly better than prepectoral.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a trend toward higher complication rates in prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction with increasing BMI. Nonetheless, the technique appears to be safe, with comparable clinical and cosmetic results.

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.

Evaluation of Dual-port versus Single-port Tissue Expanders in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Background

Immediate tissue expander placement in postmastectomy breast reconstruction can be complicated by seroma or infection, requiring further imaging studies or interventions. This study compares dual-port tissue expanders, with both an aspiration and expansion port, with single-port expanders in terms of postoperative complications and further interventions.

Methods:

Patients with immediate tissue expander placement from March 2019 to March 2020 were reviewed. Complications included seroma, infection, hematoma, necrosis, and malposition of the expander. Further intervention included aspiration, ultrasound imaging, interventional radiology (IR) drainage, or return to operating room.

Results:

In total, 128 dual-port expanders were compared with 125 single-port expanders. Patients with single-port expanders were younger (P = 0.022) and of lower BMI (P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in key complications between these groups. In multivariate analysis, single-port expanders had a 3.4× higher odds of postoperative ultrasound imaging when controlling for texture, placement, and age (P = 0.01). Mean time to IR drain placement in the dual-port group was approximately 30 days after placement in single port (51.1 versus 21.4 days, P = 0.013). Thirty-four percent of dual-port expanders had at least one aspiration in clinic performed by plastic surgery, versus 2% of single port that required ultrasound-guided aspiration (P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

There were no differences in key postoperative complications between the two expander cohorts. Dual-port expanders significantly reduced postoperative ultrasound imaging, and delayed IR drain placement. The added convenience of clinic aspirations likely reduced costs related to utilization of resources from other departments.