An Algorithmic Approach to Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Version 2.0

Direct-to-Implant vs Tissue Expander Placement in Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction after mastectomy has gained increasing popularity. While concerns over ischemic complications related to tension on the mastectomy flap persist, newer techniques and technologies have enhanced safety of this technique.

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of DTI and 2-stage tissue expander (TE) reconstruction.

METHODS

A prospective cohort design was utilized to compare the incidence of reconstructive failure among patients undergoing DTI and TE reconstruction by unadjusted bivariate and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses. Secondary clinical outcomes of interest included specific complications requiring intervention (infection, seroma, hematoma, mastectomy flap necrosis, incisional dehiscence, device exposure) and time to final drain removal. Patient-reported outcomes on BREAST-Q were also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients (257 breasts) underwent DTI reconstruction and 222 patients (405 breasts) received TEs. DTI patients were significantly younger with lower BMIs; less diabetes, hypertension, and smoking; and smaller breast sizes; they also underwent more nipple-sparing mastectomies with prepectoral reconstructions. Rates of any complication (18% DTI vs 24% TE, P = .047), reconstructive failure (5.1% vs 12%, P = .004), and seroma (3.9% vs 11%, P < .001) were significantly lower in the DTI cohort on unadjusted analyses; however, there were no significant differences on adjusted regressions. Patient-reported satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being were more substantively improved with DTI reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral DTI reconstruction is a viable option for postmastectomy reconstruction in carefully selected patients, with no significant increase in reconstructive failure or other complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Acellular Dermal Matrix-Assisted, Prosthesis-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison of SurgiMend PRS, AlloDerm, and DermACELL

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are frequently employed in immediate prosthesis-based breast reconstruction (iPBR) to provide structural support. Despite differences in ADM derivatives, few studies directly compare their outcomes in the setting of iPBR. We sought to conduct a large head-to-head study comparing 3 ADMs used across our institution.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective review of patients undergoing iPBR with SurgiMend PRS (fetal bovine-derived; Integra Lifesciences, Princeton, NJ), AlloDerm (human-derived; LifeCell Corp, Bridgewater, NJ), or DermACELL (human-derived; Stryker Corp, Kalamazoo, MI) between January 2014 to July 2022 was performed. Primary outcomes included rates of unplanned explantation and total reconstructive failure. Secondary outcomes included 90-day postoperative complications and long-term rates of capsular contracture development.

RESULTS

A total of 738 patients (1228 breasts) underwent iPBR during the study period; 405 patients received DermACELL (54.9%), 231 received AlloDerm (31.3%), and 102 received SurgiMend PRS (13.8%). Rates of short-term complications, total reconstruction failure, reoperation within 90 days, capsular contracture, and unplanned explantation were comparable. These findings remained true upon multivariate analysis accounting for baseline differences between cohorts, whereby ADM type was not an independent predictor of any outcome of interest. Conversely, factors such as body mass index, diabetes mellitus, smoking history, neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, skin-sparing mastectomy, Wise pattern and periareolar incisions, use of tissue expanders, and a subpectoral plane of insertion were significant predictors of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Low rates of complications support the equivalency of fetal bovine and human-derived ADMs in iPBR. Patient characteristics and operative approach are likely more predictive of postoperative outcomes than ADM derivative alone.

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.

Associated Factors and Prevention of Upper Pole Rippling in Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

Background  Despite its many advantages, prepectoral breast reconstruction also carries the risk of implant rippling. The recent introduction of partial superior implant coverage using a pectoralis muscle slip in prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction has shown the potential to minimize upper pole rippling. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with rippling and the effectiveness of our surgical technique. Methods  In total, 156 patients (186 breasts) who underwent prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction between August 2019 and March 2021 were identified retrospectively. Patient data were analyzed from medical records. Univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were performed to contextualize the risks associated with rippling deformity relative to demographic characteristics and other clinical factors. Retrospective propensity-matched analysis was performed to identify the relationship between rippling deformity and the reconstruction method. Results  Patients with body mass index (BMI; odds ratio [OR], 0.736; p  < 0.001), those with a postoperative chemotherapy history (OR, 0.324; p  = 0.027) and those who received breast reconstruction via the superior coverage technique (OR, 0.2; p  = 0.004), were less likely to develop rippling deformity. The median follow-up period was 64.9 weeks, and there were no significant differences between patients in types of mastectomy, implant, or acellular dermal matrix. Patients who underwent superior coverage technique-based reconstruction showed significantly reduced rippling (OR, 0.083; p  = 0.017) Conclusion  Patients with higher BMI and prior postoperative chemotherapy were less likely to develop rippling deformity. The superior coverage technique can be effective in minimizing upper pole rippling.

Difference in the outcomes of anterior tenting and wrapping techniques for acellular dermal matrix coverage in prepectoral breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) play an essential role in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions; however, the most appropriate method for ADMs is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of our institutional database. Patients who underwent mastectomy and prepectoral breast reconstruction using tissue expanders or breast implants covered with ADMs between March 2018 and June 2021 were included. Patient characteristics, postoperative complications, and long-term outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

In total, 112 patients (126 breasts) were included. The anterior tenting and wrapping techniques were used in the reconstruction of 32 (25.3%) and 94 (74.7%) breasts, respectively. Using propensity score matching, nine breasts were selected for each technique within the direct-to-implant reconstruction group, while 16 breasts were selected for each technique within the 2-stage reconstruction group. The choice of technique (anterior vs. wrapping) in implementing ADM did not generate any significant differences in postoperative complications, including seroma formation and capsular contracture, for the direct-to-implant and 2-stage reconstruction groups. Regarding the direct-to-implant reconstruction group, the average postoperative drain volume was less in the anterior tenting group than that in the wrapping group (anterior tenting vs. wrapping; 495.09 ± 156.118 mL vs. 673.43 ± 307.954 mL, p = 0.006), but the difference was insignificant after propensity score matching.

CONCLUSION

We report our experience with covering prosthetic devices with ADMs during postmastectomy breast reconstruction. No differences in the postoperative drain volume or postoperative outcomes were found between the study groups. Future studies are needed to determine the method that provides the most satisfactory results.

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.

Direct to Implant Reconstruction

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

Clinical and Healthcare Resource Use Outcomes between Dual-plane and Prepectoral Techniques in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

This multicenter, retrospective study compared clinical outcomes and healthcare resource use in patients who underwent dual-plane (DP) or prepectoral (PP) implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy in the United States.

Methods

Medical records were selected for patients at five sites undergoing immediate one-stage direct-to-implant (first hospitalization) or two-stage IBR (first and second hospitalization) using either DP or PP. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for potential confounders. Complications and healthcare resource use were assessed with logistic regression; pain severity was assessed with ordinary least-squares regression.

Results

After inverse probability of treatment weighting, data from 255 patients (DP = 130, PP = 125) and 441 breasts (DP = 226, PP = 215) were analyzed. Mean pain severity scores were lower with PP versus DP immediately after IBR for first (P = 0.0002) and second hospitalizations (P = 0.0145), and before discharge for first (P < 0.0001) and second hospitalizations (P = 0.0002). A greater proportion of PP versus DP patients had a shorter hospital length of stay (≤ 23 hours) for first hospitalization (P = 0.0052); proportions were similar for second hospitalization (P = 0.5499). Intravenous narcotics were prescribed less frequently to PP versus DP patients during first (61.1% versus 69.8%, respectively; P = 0.1486) and second (37.5% versus 55.3%, respectively; P = 0.0172) hospitalizations. Complication rates were low in both groups after first hospitalization discharge (DP: 13.6%, PP: 12.5%, P = 0.7225).

Conclusion

This retrospective study suggests that the PP technique in IBR may offer benefits related to clinical outcomes and health resource utilization; however, larger studies, including randomized controlled trials, are needed to confirm.

Single Institution Evolution in Defining an Algorithm for Prevention and Management of Severe Complications in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Complications including infection and wound dehiscence are major concerns for direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction. However, the risk factors associated with severe complications and implant salvage remain unclear.

METHODS

Retrospective study of all patients undergoing unilateral DTI breast reconstruction from 2014 through 2019. The risk factors associated with complications and prosthesis explantation were identified using multivariate logistic regression modeling and interaction analyses.

RESULTS

Among 1027 patients enrolled, 90 experienced severe complications, 41of which underwent prosthesis explantation, while 49 were successfully salvaged. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with larger implant size (p=0.003), use of bovine mesh (p<0.001), adjuvant radiotherapy (p=0.047), low plasma albumin (p=0.013), and elevated blood glucose (p=0.006) were significantly more likely to suffer complications. Adjuvant radiation (OR: 7.44; 95%CI, 1.49-37.18; p = 0.014) and obesity (OR, 4.17; 95%CI, 1.17-14.88; p = 0.028) had significantly lower rates of implant salvage as well as surgical site infection (SSI) and wound dehiscence, while mastectomy skin flap necrosis was not associated with device explanation. There were no differences in complication and explantation rates between nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomies. However, the combined impact of SSI and wound dehiscence added over fourteen-fold higher risk of prosthesis explantation (95%CI, 9.97-19.53).

CONCLUSION

Success in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is multifactorial. Larger implant size, adjuvant radiation therapy, diabetes, and malnutrition demonstrate increased risk of complications in the DTI approach. Surgical site infections and wound dehiscence should be treated aggressively, but the combination of both complications portends poor salvage rates.

From Salvage to Prevention: A Single-Surgeon Experience with Acellular Dermal Matrix and Infection in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Increasing amounts of acellular dermal matrix are being used with the adoption of prepectoral breast reconstruction. Postoperative infection remains a challenge in breast reconstruction, and the contribution of acellular dermal matrix type, processing, and sterility assurance level to risk of complications in prepectoral reconstruction is not well studied.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction from February of 2017 to July of 2020. Because of an increase in the rate of infection, the drain protocol was changed and acellular dermal matrix type was switched from AlloDerm (sterility assurance level, 10-3) to DermACELL (sterility assurance level, 10-6) in January of 2019. Demographic and surgical variables were collected, in addition to details regarding development and management of infection.

RESULTS

Despite higher rates of direct-to-implant reconstruction and bilateral procedures and increased implant volumes, the rate of infection was significantly lower in patients who received DermACELL instead of AlloDerm [two of 38 (5.3 percent) versus 11 of 41 (26.8 percent); p = 0.014]. Drain duration was slightly longer in the DermACELL group, consistent with the change in drain protocol. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics remained similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With increased reliance on large amounts of acellular dermal matrix for prepectoral breast reconstruction, it directly follows that the properties of acellular dermal matrix with respect to incorporation, sterility, and implant support are that much more important to consider. There have been few studies comparing different types of acellular dermal matrix in prepectoral breast reconstruction, and further research is required to determine the contribution of acellular dermal matrix type and processing techniques to development of postoperative infection.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

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.

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 .

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.

Outcomes and quality of life in immediate one-stage versus two-stage breast reconstructions without an acellular dermal matrix: 17- years of experience

BACKGROUND

Advantages of one-stage implant-based reconstructions include expedited surgery and recovery. This study aimed to investigate clinical and patient-reported outcomes in one-stage implant-based breast reconstructions without acellular dermal matrix (ADM).

METHODS

A prospectively collected database from 2002 to 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. One-stage and two-stage groups were compared for demographics, implant properties, early complications (hematoma, seroma, poor wound healing, implant removal), late complications (skin necrosis, capsular contracture, implant exposure, implant rupture), revision procedures, and Breast-Q questionnaire outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 223 patients, 187 one-stage (84%) and 36 two-stage (16%) patients were recruited. At a mean follow-up of 124.9 and 92.5 months, respectively (p < .01), there were no differences in early (p = .85) or late (p = .23) complications or revision procedures (p = .12). Eighty patients (36%) returned the Breast-Q questionnaire (60 one-stage, 20 two-stage patients). There were no statistical differences in patient reported outcomes in breast well-being (p = .07), psychosocial well-being (p = .84), or sexual well-being (p = .78).

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage implant-based breast reconstruction without an ADM is a viable reconstruction providing comparable outcomes to two-stage procedures, with the benefit of minimal complications, a shorter reconstructive journey, and satisfactory quality of life.

Prepectoral immediate breast reconstruction with polyurethane foam-coated implants: Feasibility and early results in risk-reducing and therapeutic mastectomies

BACKGROUND

There is a renewed interest for prepectoral reconstruction. We aimed to describe the feasibility and the early complications associated with immediate one-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using prepectoral anatomical polyurethane (PU) foam-coated implants alone, for women with breast cancer or mutation carriers undergoing risk-reducing surgery.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, retrospective review of 50 patients (mean age of 49 years), who underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and immediate prepectoral PU implant-based reconstruction. All procedures were performed by the same senior operator, from July 2018 to March 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 64 mastectomies (25 SSMs and 39 NSMs) with one-stage prepectoral PU foam-coated implant reconstruction were performed. Out of 50 patients, 6 required surgical revision within 30 days, because of hematoma (2), wound dehiscence (2) infection (1), and full thickness nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis (1). Four patients developed a cutaneous rash with spontaneous resolution. Statistical analysis showed a significant influence of hypothyroidism and previous radiotherapy on the risk of complications. The association with prior radiotherapy (pRT) was not significant using binary logistic regression. When excluding oncological reasons and patient's wish for NAC excision, our decision to perform an NSM was influenced by breast cup size, preoperative measurements, and breast weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Early experience with immediate prepectoral DTI reconstruction with PU-covered implants alone suggests that it is a reliable procedure. Prior breast irradiation does not increase postoperative complication rates in our series. NAC preservation was decided according to preoperative lower breast measurements.

Comparing Surgical Site Occurrences in 1 versus 2-stage Breast Reconstruction via Federated EMR Network

TriNetX (TriNetX Inc., Cambridge, Mass.) is a federated electronic medical record network. The TriNetX system conducts customized search queries of over 36 million electronic medical records, and returns results in just minutes. To our group’s knowledge, TriNetX has not been previously used in plastic surgery research. This study aimed to utilize a continuously updated federated network of 36,000,000 electronic medical records (TriNetX) for comparing 90-day postoperative outcomes between prosthetic breast reconstruction techniques.

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.

Biologic Mesh in Surgery: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis of Selected Outcomes in 51 Studies and 6079 Patients

BACKGROUND

In recent decades, biologic mesh (BM) has become an important adjunct to surgical practice. Recent evidence-based clinical applications of BM include but are not limited to: reconstruction of abdominal wall defects; breast reconstruction; face, head and neck surgery; periodontal surgery; other hernia repairs (diaphragmatic, hiatal/paraesophageal, inguinal and perineal); hand surgery; and shoulder arthroplasty. Prior systematic reviews of BM in complex abdominal wall hernia repair had several shortcomings that our comprehensive review seeks to address, including exclusion of laparoscopic repair, assessment of risk of bias, use of an acceptable meta-analytic method and review of risk factors identified in multivariable regression analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We sought articles of BM for open ventral hernia repair reporting on early complications, late complications or recurrences and included minimum of 50. We used the quality in prognostic studies risk of bias assessment tool. Random effects meta-analysis was applied.

RESULTS

This comprehensive review selected 62 articles from 51 studies that included 6,079 patients. Meta-analytic pooling found that early complications are present in about 50%, surgical site occurrences (SSOs) in 37%, surgical site infections (SSIs) in 18%, reoperation in 7%, readmission in 20% and mortality in 3%. Meta-analytic estimates of late outcomes included overall complications (42%), SSOs (40%) and SSIs (22%). Specific SSOs included seroma (14%), hematoma (4%), abscess (10%), necrosis (5%), dehiscence (8%) and fistula formation (5%). Reoperation occurred in about 17%, mesh explantation in 9% and recurrence in 36%.

CONCLUSION

Estimates of nearly all outcomes from individual studies were highly heterogeneous and sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions generally failed to explain this heterogeneity. Recurrence is the only outcome for which there are consistent findings for risk factors. Bridge placement of BM is associated with higher risk of recurrence. Prior hernia repair, history of reintervention and history of mesh removal were also risk factors for increased recurrence.

lncRNA TTN-AS1 facilitates proliferation, invasion, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition of breast cancer cells by regulating miR-139-5p/ZEB1 axis

Breast cancer is a common malignant tumor suffered predominantly by women worldwide, which results in serious levels of morbidity and mortality. To control the effects of the cancer, it is critically important to elucidate the pathophysiological processes by which it occurs and develops. Reports have demonstrated that long noncoding RNAs perform a critical role in the development and metastasis of cancers. The lncRNA TTN-AS1 is considered carcinogenic. Nevertheless, the importance and biological functions of TTN-AS1 in breast cancer require greater exploration. In the current paper, we observed that TTN-AS1 expression was significantly upregulated in breast cancer tissues/cells compared with those that are healthy. TTN-AS1 enhanced the proliferation, migration, invasion, and epithelial-mesenchymal transformation of breast cancer cells. Furthermore, a direct target of TTN-AS1, miR-139-5p was negatively regulated. In addition, zinc finger E-box binding homeobox 1 (ZEB1) is an important nuclear transcription factor, the expression of which is increased in multiple tumors. Here, we also found that ZEB1 is a target of miR-139-5p, of which TTN-AS1 could regulate the expression through competition with miR-139-5p. That is, TTN-AS1 promoted proliferation and invasion of breast cancer cells by interaction with the miR-139-5p/ZEB1 axis. In conclusion, the present study aimed to illustrate the significance of TTN-AS1 in breast cancer metastasis and contribute to potentially innovative strategies for its treatment.

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.

Prepectoral implant pocket conversion in breast reconstruction

Introduction

While many authors have reported their experience in immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction (BR), implant pocket conversion from a submuscular to a prepectoral plane is less well described. The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive review on plane conversion in implant-based BR, including the indications, surgical techniques, functional, and esthetic results.

Materials and Methods

A literature search via PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed using the following MeSH terms: “prepectoral pocket conversion”, “subcutaneous pocket conversion”, “prepectoral plane conversion”, “subcutaneous plane conversion”, and “prepectoral breast reconstruction”.

Results

Ten articles in which 504 breasts were studied were deemed eligible for inclusion. The indications to perform plane conversion were animation deformity (AD), chronic pain, and implant malposition. Seven studies described complete or partial capsulectomy. The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) was reported in all cases except for three studies. The mean follow-up was 10.64 months. There was resolution of AD in 100% of cases. Three studies reported complete resolution of chronic pain. The overall complication rate was 12.102% and capsular contracture (CC) was the most frequent complication. Cosmetic revisions were reported in six studies (9.52%). The use of ADMs and fat grafting appeared to decrease the rate of subsequent CC formation and cosmetic revisions.

Conclusions

The current article represents the first review about implant pocket conversion from a submuscular to a prepectoral plane, delineating its indications, surgical technique, postoperative complications, and functional and esthetic outcomes.

Skin-Reducing Mastectomy and Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction in Large Ptotic Breasts

OBJECTIVES

Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is increasingly offered to breast cancer patients, as the one-stage technique has proved surgical and oncological safety and aesthetic effectiveness. Nevertheless, there are limited data on outcomes after pre-pectoral breast reconstruction in large and ptotic breasts. The aim of the paper is to present the authors' experience in performing Wise pattern mastectomy with pre-pectoral implant and complete acellular dermal matrix (ADM) coverage as a single-stage procedure in patients with large ptotic breasts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of protective collected data from January 2017 to June 2019 of patients who presented with large and ptotic breasts undergoing skin-reducing mastectomy and immediate pre-pectoral breast reconstruction with complete ADM coverage and inferior dermal sling was performed. Oncological and surgical outcomes were collected. Satisfaction with reconstruction and related quality of life were evaluated through BREAST-Q questionnaire.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients met the inclusion criteria. The average patient age was 55.6 years, and the mean body mass index was 31.2. Mean follow-up was 23.2 months from the initial reconstruction. One patient experienced seroma, and two cases of wound dehiscence at the T junction were observed and treated conservatively with no implant loss. All patients were satisfied with the final reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

The Wise pattern skin-reducing mastectomy and pre-pectoral breast reconstruction could be offered to patients presenting with large and ptotic breasts. Future studies should better define long-term outcomes.

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 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.