Reducing Expansion Visits in Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander Placement

Predictors for Prolonged TE-to-Implant Exchange During Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Single Institution Experience

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence regarding the factors causing a prolonged time for tissue expander (TE) exchange into a definitive implant using two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). This study aimed to review our experience with IBBR, focusing on the time for TE-to-implant exchange and determining which factors cause a prolonged time for exchange.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed to include women undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR with TEs after total mastectomy between January 2011 and May 2021. Reconstructions with irradiated TEs were excluded. Cases that had a prolonged time for TE-to-implant exchange were defined as those undergoing exchange longer than 232 days, which corresponds to the 75th percentile of the overall study group.

RESULTS

We included 442 reconstructions in our analysis. The median age for our series was 51 years and the median body mass index was 26.43-kg/m2. The median time for TE-to-implant exchange was 155 days [IQR, 107-232]. Cases that had a prolonged time for TE-to-implant exchange were defined as those undergoing exchange on postoperative day 232 or afterward. Diabetes (OR 4.05, p = 0.006), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 2.76, p = 0.006), an increased length of stay (OR 1.54, p = 0.013), and a lengthier time to complete outpatient expansions (OR 1.018, p < 0.001) were independently associated with a prolonged time for exchange.

CONCLUSION

As evident from our analysis, the time for exchange is highly heterogeneous among patients. Although several factors affect the timing for TE-to-implant exchange, efforts must be directed to finalize outpatient expansions as soon as possible to expedite the transition into a definitive implant.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Minimizing Nipple-Areolar Complex Complications in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

PURPOSE

Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) viability remains a significant concern following prepectoral tissue expander (TE) reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). This study assesses the impact of intraoperative TE fill on NAC necrosis and identifies strategies for mitigating this risk.

METHODS

A chart review of all consecutive, prepectoral TEs placed immediately after NSM was performed between March 2017 and December 2022 at a single center. Demographics, mastectomy weight, intraoperative TE fill, and complications were extracted for all patients. Partial NAC necrosis was defined as any thickness of skin loss including part of the NAC, whereas total NAC necrosis was defined as full-thickness skin loss involving the entirety of the NAC. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients (83 breasts) with an average follow-up of 22 months were included. Women were on average 46 years old, nonsmoker (98%), and nondiabetic (100%) and had a body mass index of 23 kg/m2. All reconstructions were performed immediately following prophylactic mastectomies in 49% and therapeutic mastectomies in 51% of cases. Three breasts (4%) were radiated, and 15 patients (33%) received chemotherapy. Mean mastectomy weight was 346 ± 274 g, median intraoperative TE fill was 150 ± 225 mL, and median final TE fill was 350 ± 170 mL. Partial NAC necrosis occurred in 7 breasts (8%), and there were zero instances of complete NAC necrosis. On univariate analysis, partial NAC necrosis was not associated with any patient demographic or operative characteristics, including intraoperative TE fill. In multivariable models controlling for age, body mass index, mastectomy weight, prior breast surgery, and intraoperative TE fill, partial NAC necrosis was associated with lower body mass index (odds ratio, 0.53; confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.98; P < 0.05) and higher mastectomy weight (odds ratio, 1.1; CI, 1.01-1.20; P < 0.05). Prior breast surgery approached significance, as those breasts had a 19.4 times higher odds of partial NAC necrosis (95% CI, 0.88-427.6; P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Nipple-areolar complex necrosis following prepectoral TE reconstruction is a rare but serious complication. In this study of 83 breasts, 7 (8%) developed partial NAC necrosis, and all but one were able to be salvaged.

Impact of Initial Filling Medium on Outcomes of Subpectoral, Two-Stage, Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Air versus Saline

BACKGROUND

In two-stage expander-based breast reconstruction, the use of air as the initial filling medium has been suggested to confer clinical advantages over conventional saline, but this has not been demonstrated in a large series. This study aimed to evaluate the association between material type (air versus saline) for initial expander filling and postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent immediate, subpectoral, tissue expander-based breast reconstruction between January of 2018 and March of 2021. The participants were categorized into two groups according to the material used for initial filling: saline-inflated expanders, which were used during the first 22 months consecutively, and air-inflated expanders, which were used during the latter 17 months consecutively. Complications including mastectomy flap necrosis and postoperative expansion profiles were compared. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 443 breasts (400 patients), including 161 air-filled and 282 saline-filled breasts, were analyzed. The two groups had similar baseline characteristics. The air-filled group showed a significantly lower rate of mastectomy flap necrosis; this difference remained significant after adjustment for other variables in the multivariable analysis. The rates of other complications did not differ between the two groups. The air-filled group had fewer office visits and a shorter period to complete expansion.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of air for initial expander filling could provide safe and reliable outcomes with reduced patient discomfort during postoperative expansion; thus, air-filled expanders might be an effective alternative to saline-filled expanders.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

An Innovative and Highly Efficient Single-Port Endoscopic Nipple-/Skin-Sparing Mastectomy and Dual-Plane Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study from a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

The difficulty in creating and maintaining a stable workspace of the breast makes endoscopic nipple-/skin-spring mastectomy (E-N/SSM) develop slowly. This study aims to report the preliminary results of a novel endoscopic technique for N/SSM followed by dual-plane direct-to-implant (DP-DTI) breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was reviewed that included patients who underwent single-axillary-incision E-N/SSM and DP-DTI breast reconstruction from September 2020 to April 2021 at a single institution by three surgeons. The data were collected prospectively and analyzed to determine the efficacy, feasibility, safety, and esthetic results of the operation, as well as quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 68 E-N/SSM and DP-DTI reconstruction procedures through a single axillary incision were performed in 63 female patients. Among all the procedures, the majority were performed for grade 1-3 ptotic breasts (n =46, 73.0%). During the median follow-up of 26.5 months, the major and minor surgical complication rates were 1.6% (1/63) and 9.5% (6/63), respectively. The cosmetic complication rate was 14.3%. One patient suffered local recurrence 4 months postoperation. The average scores in patient-reported outcomes at 2 years postoperation of satisfaction with breast (66.57), psychosocial well-being (75.93) and sexual well-being (56.29) were not significantly different compared with the baseline, except for physical well-being: chest (69.85).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed procedure for E-N/SSM and DP-DTI breast reconstruction is feasible, time-saving and safe with good outcomes in terms of cosmetic results and QoL and expands the indications of DTI reconstruction to ptotic breasts, making it easier to popularize.

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 .

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 .

Comparison of Complication Rates Between Subpectoral vs Prepectoral Techniques in Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The location of tissue expanders in implant-based breast reconstruction remains controversial due to variation in surgical techniques and devices.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of early and late complication rates between prepectoral and subpectoral placement of tissue expanders.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all adult female patients who had undergone 2-stage implant-based breast reconstruction between 2013 and 2019 in our institution. Early complication was defined as complications that occurred within 30 days after surgery. Time-to-event analyses were performed and Cox proportional hazard models were used to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

In total, 854 patients were included; 76% of patients underwent a subpectoral tissue expander placement. After the first-stage procedure, the early complication rate was 34% and the late complication rate was 36.4%. After the second-stage procedure, the early complication rate was 16.3% and the late complication rate was 16.1%. Location of the tissue expander did not predict either overall early or late complication rates, regardless of the stages of reconstruction, after adjusting for confounders. Tissue expanders placed in prepectoral plane were associated with a higher hazard ratio (HR) for developing early and late infection after the first stage of reconstruction (HR, 2.1 and 2.4, respectively) as well as late infection after the second stage of reconstruction (HR, 5.3; all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Location of tissue expanders did not predict risk of complication. However, the prepectoral group was associated with an increased risk of developing infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

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.

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.

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.

Subpectoral versus prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction: A propensity score-matched analysis of 30-day morbidity and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Approximately 80% of patients undergoing total mastectomy in the US opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). A two-stage reconstruction with tissue expander (TE) remains the most common technique. Since the implementation of ADMs, a prepectoral approach has gained popularity and is becoming the standard of care. Herein, we compared the surgical and postoperative outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage IBBR.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed between January 2011 and December 2020. We included female patients undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR. The primary outcomes of this study were to compare the 30-day morbidity and the overall rate of complications during the first and second stages of reconstruction, and to compare the time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Propensity score matching was implemented.

RESULTS

After matching, 154 reconstructions were analyzed, 77 in each group. The two matched groups exhibited comparable (p > 0.05) characteristics for all analyzed demographic and intraoperative independent variables. Reconstructions in the prepectoral group had a shortened median time for drain removal (13-days vs. 15-days, p = 0.001). The intraoperative expansion volumes were higher in the prepectoral group (300 ml versus 200 ml, p = 0.025). The 30-day morbidity and first- and second-stage complication rates were not significantly different between groups. The time to start postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) was not significantly different between groups (134-days versus 126.5-days, p = 0.58).

CONCLUSION

Prepectoral and subpectoral TE placement had comparable complication rates during the first and second stages of IBBR. Timing for TE-to-Implant exchange and initiation of PMRT were comparable between the two approaches.

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.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has recently been introduced to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic outcomes in women having implant-based procedures. High-quality evidence to support the practice of PPBR, however, is lacking. Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b study that aimed to establish the safety, effectiveness, and stability of PPBR before definitive evaluation in an RCT. The short-term safety endpoints at 3 months after surgery are reported here.

METHODS

Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating UK centres between July 2019 and December 2020 were invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology, and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss at 3 months. Other outcomes of interest included readmission, reoperation, and infection.

RESULTS

Some 347 women underwent 424 immediate implant-based reconstructions at 40 centres. Most were single-stage direct-to-implant (357, 84.2 per cent) biological mesh-assisted (341, 80.4 per cent) procedures. Conversion to subpectoral reconstruction was necessary in four patients (0.9 per cent) owing to poor skin-flap quality. Of the 343 women who underwent PPBR, 144 (42.0 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication. Implant loss occurred in 28 women (8.2 per cent), 67 (19.5 per cent) experienced an infection, 60 (17.5 per cent) were readmitted for a complication, and 55 (16.0 per cent) required reoperation within 3 months of reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates following PPBR are high and implant loss is comparable to that associated with subpectoral mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. These findings support the need for a well-designed RCT comparing prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction to establish best practice for implant-based breast 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.

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.

Tissue Expansion after Non-Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: A Comparative Study of Expansion Courses of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement with Acellular Dermal Matrix

Although skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy has been popular in the treatment of breast cancer, the radical excision of breast tissue is unavoidable in certain circumstances. However, the ability of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to expand remains questionable, and this situation may further hinder tissue expansion. From October 2017 to January 2020, patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expander placement using ADM whose initial fill volume was less than 50 mL were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcomes were the number of visits and number of days required to complete the expansion, and the secondary outcomes were the amount of postoperative expansions, expander fill ratio and expander volume. Between the prepectoral group (n = 26) and subpectoral group (n = 39), the mean number of days (81.46 days versus 88.64 days, p = 0.365) and mean number of visits (5.08 versus 5.69, p = 0.91) required to complete expansion exhibited no significant differences. Additionally, there were no significant differences in the mean amount of postoperative expansion (314.23 mL versus 315.38 mL, p = 0.950), the mean final volume (353.08 mL versus 339.62 mL, p = 0.481) or the mean final volume ratio (0.89 versus 0.86, p = 0.35) between the two groups. Therefore, we suggest that prepectoral tissue expander placement after conventional mastectomy can be a valid option.

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.

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.

Safety Profile and Predictors of Aesthetic Outcomes After Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction With Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix

INTRODUCTION

Prepectoral acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-assisted breast reconstruction has demonstrated improved pain scores, faster return to full range of motion, and an appropriate postoperative safety profile when compared with cohorts with submuscular implant placement; however, there are limited data on aesthetic outcomes. Basic science biointegration research has previously demonstrated faster ADM incorporation with fenestrated compared with confluent ADM. We report the safety profile of anterior support meshed ADM prepectoral breast reconstruction and analyze predictive factors for aesthetic outcomes after gel implant placement.

METHODS

All consecutive immediate staged prepectoral expander-to-implant breast reconstructions with more than 6 months of follow-up were compared with a partially submuscular cohort for demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications. All patients 1 to 3.5 years after gel implant placement were evaluated for the impact of clinical characteristics on aesthetic outcomes.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-four prepectoral tissue expander placements were compared with 535 partially submuscular tissue expanders with no significant differences in demographics. There was increased wound dehiscence repaired in clinic and insignificantly decreased seromas with prepectoral expander placement. One hundred sixty breasts were reconstructed with gel implants, and 12 underwent autologous reconstruction during the conduct of the study. The remaining 21 patients were continuing expansion, and 3 succumbed to disease progression. Regression analysis of 86 breast reconstructions showed that a body mass index of greater than 30, fat grafting, and highly cohesive anatomic implants decreased rippling, whereas radiation increased capsular contracture (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral meshed ADM breast reconstruction has an equivalent safety profile to partially submuscular ADM-assisted reconstruction and early aesthetic ratings comparable with other published accounts of implant-based reconstruction. Radiated skin envelopes carry higher capsular contracture rates. Thin patients have a higher risk of visible rippling, whereas fat grafting and higher cohesivity implants are associated with less rippling.

Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Historically Controlled, Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The rising popularity of prepectoral tissue expander placement with acellular dermal matrices in immediate breast reconstruction has prompted many studies on the safety of this technique. However, a comprehensive propensity-matched, historically controlled trial comparing perioperative outcomes following prepectoral versus partial subpectoral (dual-plane) placement of tissue expanders is lacking.

METHODS

Retrospective propensity-matched cohort analysis was performed on all patients of two senior reconstructive surgeons who underwent bilateral tissue expander placement following a mastectomy with one of three breast surgeons at a single academic institution from 2012 onward (n = 260). Two matched groups (prepectoral and partial subpectoral) each consisted of 102 patients. Univariate and multivariable analyses were also performed to contextualize the risks associated with prepectoral reconstruction relative to demographic characteristics and other clinical factors.

RESULTS

Compared to dual-plane subpectoral placement, prepectoral placement resulted in similar rates of overall perioperative complications (32 percent versus 31 percent; p = 1.00) and perioperative complications that required operative treatment (21 percent versus 21 percent; p = 1.00). There were no significant differences between the groups in complication rates for hematomas, seromas, impaired wound healing, and infection. Although prepectoral placement was associated with prolonged time to drain removal, those patients completed the expansion process twice as fast, were expanded further in the operating room, and were more than twice as likely to forgo clinic-based expansion. Prepectoral reconstruction was not associated with increased risk for any complications in univariate or multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral tissue expander placement permitted greater intraoperative filling of expanders and a reduced likelihood of clinic-based expansion, with no increase in adverse outcomes compared to partial subpectoral placement. Adoption of this technique may reduce unnecessary clinic visits; shorten the delay before adjuvant therapy; and minimize patient apprehension, pain, and discomfort related to clinic-based expansion.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Mastectomy and Prepectoral Reconstruction in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Reduces Major Infectious Complication Rates

Mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction is typically performed in a hospital setting (HS) with overnight admission. The aim of this study was to evaluate postoperative complications and outcomes with same-day discharge from an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) compared with the same surgery performed in the HS.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Improving plastic surgery resident education and quality of care with outcomes feedback using the surgery report card: An initial experience

BACKGROUND

The practice of tracking and analyzing surgical outcomes is essential to becoming better surgeons. However, this feedback system is largely absent in residency training programs. Thus, we developed a Surgery Report Card (SRC) for residents performing tissue expander (TE)-based breast reconstruction and report our initial experience with its implementation.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for TE-based breast reconstructions and compared outcomes to our retrospective cohort. The primary outcome was overall complications. The SRC compares patient and complication statistics for resident-led teams to the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 12 studies, with 2093 patients (2982 breasts) that underwent TE-based reconstruction. The pooled complication rate was 26.9%; infection was most common (8.3%); failure rate was 5.9%. Our cohort included 144 patients (245 breasts) among 13 resident-led teams. Overall complication rate was 31.8%; infections were most frequent (17.6%) and failure rate was 7.3%. Our cohort had significantly higher BMIs (29.7 vs 25.4, p<0.0001) more diabetics (6.9% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.02), and more patients receiving adjuvant radiation therapy (41.4 vs 26.3%, p<0.0001). Every 3 months, residents receive a customized SRC of their cases, with the meta-analysis used as a benchmark. A survey demonstrated the SRC made residents reconsider surgical technique and more conscientious surgeons, and would like it implemented for other procedures during residency.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of our SRC for TE-based breast reconstruction establishes a baseline for surgical performance comparison for residents, demonstrates that residents can safely perform the procedure, and allows for critiquing of surgical techniques to improve patient care.