Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Exploring Plastic Surgeon Practice Patterns and Perspectives

Increasing Popularity of Tattoo-Only Nipple-Areolar Complex Reconstruction: A 15-Year Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) reconstruction can be broadly categorized into surgical reconstruction, tattooing, or both. NAC tattooing has shown continued advances recently, resulting in increased discussion of tattoo-only methods within the literature.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to quantify recent trends in choice of NAC reconstruction and explore driving factors.

METHODS

Patients who underwent postmastectomy breast and NAC reconstruction between January 2007 and December 2021 at a single academic institution were reviewed and grouped based on method of NAC reconstruction: (1) surgical-only, (2) tattoo-only, and (3) both surgical and tattoo. Trends were assessed in each group using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

The study included 138 patients; 17.4% (n = 24) were in the surgical-only group, 16.7% (n = 23) tattoo-only, and 65.9% (n = 91) both surgical and tattoo. Over the 15-year period, patients receiving tattoo-only NAC reconstruction significantly increased (β = 0.173, P < 0.0001), while those receiving both surgical and tattoo significantly decreased (β = -0.064, P = 0.007). There were no significant changes in surgical-only (β = 0.013, P = 0.563) or total (any type) NAC reconstruction (β = -0.013, P = 0.503). Rates of breast reconstruction significantly increased (β = 0.062, P < 0.0001). Variables such as autologous versus implant-based, unilateral versus bilateral, revision number, and radiation were stable over time and were not significantly associated with NAC reconstruction method.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant trend toward tattoo-only and away from surgical-only reconstruction over the past 15 years, highlighting the importance of access to tattoo-based NAC reconstruction as part of comprehensive breast reconstruction care. The less invasive nature of tattooing and increase in tattoo quality are possible reasons for the increase in popularity.

Microsurgeon Development, Attrition, and Hope for the Future: A Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

 The field of microsurgery continues to grow, yet barriers to practice still exist. This qualitative study aims to elucidate factors both strengthening and threatening this subspecialty through structured interviews with fellowship-trained microsurgeons.

METHODS

 An interview guide was designed, and structured interviews were conducted with practicing fellowship-trained microsurgeon members of the American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgeons between August 2021 and May 2022. Three independent reviewers transcribed, content-coded, and thematically analyzed the interviews. Themes and subthemes were discussed and finalized.

RESULTS

 Twenty-one practicing microsurgeons were interviewed, hailing from all four Census geographical regions of the United States. The most common practice model was academic (43%, n = 9). Five overarching themes emerged: a passion for microsurgery, training and mentorship, practical considerations, team support, and hope for the future. Microsurgeons reported early exposure to microsurgery as catalyzing their passion, whereas a strong training foundation and lifelong mentors sustained it. Practical challenges arose when establishing and maintaining a microsurgery practice, such as poor reimbursement and unfavorable referral patterns. Team support from staff and other microsurgeons (e.g., a co-surgeon model) was crucial to success. Finally, microsurgeons hoped that future advances would expand access to microsurgical reconstruction for patients and plastic surgeons.

CONCLUSION

 This unique, qualitative description of the current landscape of microsurgery revealed that though practical barriers exist, team-based models can alleviate some difficulties. Future advances that increase accessibility may further strengthen this unique and versatile field.

Does the Omission of Cefazolin in Irrigation Solution Affect Outcomes in Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction?

PURPOSE

The widely used triple-antibiotics irrigation solution, comprising cefazolin, gentamycin, and povidone-iodine solution, has been employed for preventing infection and capsular contracture in implant-based breast reconstruction. However, potential overlapping in the coverage of such antimicrobial effects and the recent emergence of cefazolin-resistant gram-positive bacteria has prompted concerns regarding the efficacy of routine use of cefazolin in irrigation solutions. This study aims to evaluate clinical safety of omitting cefazolin from the traditional triple-antibiotic irrigation solution.

METHODS

Patients who underwent immediate prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction between September 2020 and April 2022 were reviewed. They were divided into two groups: cases using the traditional triple-antibiotics for the former third and those using dual-antibiotics (omitting cefazolin) for the latter. Development of postoperative complications were compared by the type of irrigation solution and its independent associations with the adverse outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 445 cases (126 using triple- and 319 using dual-regimen solution) were analyzed with a mean follow-up period of 12 months. The two groups had generally similar baseline characteristics. Overall complications developed in 126 cases (28.3%), including 12 (2.7%) of infection and 32 (7.2%) of capsular contracture. The complication profiles did not differ between the groups. Multivariable analyses exhibited that the type of irrigation solution was not associated with the development of overall and any kind of complication including infection and capsular contracture.

CONCLUSION

Omission of cefazolin from the irrigation solution may not elevate the risks of infection and capsular contracture in prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction. Further long-term studies would be warranted.

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 .

Evaluation of a non-metallic dual-port expander for intensity modulated proton therapy

PURPOSE

To provide a methodology for characterization of the technical properties of a newly developed non-metallic tissue expander for intensity modulated proton therapy.

METHODS

Three tissue expanders (AlloX2-Pro: plastic-dual port, AlloX2: metal-dual port, and Dermaspan: metal-single port) were deconstructed, CT-scanned, and modeled in RayStation12A. A 165 MeV single spot was used to create RayStation dose planes, and the integrated depth dose profiles were calculated and the DR90 extracted to predict water equivalent thickness (WET). These predictions were compared to measurements taken with an IBA Giraffe MLIC. Native, water, and fully modelled overrides were compared for the AlloX2 Pro to quantify differences in override choices. Geometric considerations between expanders were compared using a ray-tracing technique to contour the "no-fly" zone around metallic components using a clinical, three beam arrangement. Lastly, a planning and evaluation framework was provided using a single plan as an illustration.

RESULTS

The measured AlloX2-Pro WET values were within 0.22 cm of RayStation predictions while metallic values ranged from 0.08 to 0.46 cm. Using natively scanned density values for the AlloX2 Pro improved the discrepancy in WET between predicted and measured from -0.22 to -0.09 cm (drain) and from -0.17 to -0.12 cm (injection). The "no-fly" zone volume of all three beams reduced 95% between the AlloX2-Pro and Dermaspan, which geometrically allowed more uniform coverage behind the port and reduced need for beam modulation.

CONCLUSION

The beam perturbation of the AlloX2-Pro is well modeled, but improved agreement with measured WET values was observed when utilizing native densities in calculations. The AlloX2 Pro can support beam arrangements that traverse the ports, which can enable simpler beam geometry and a reduction in dose modulation around the port to promote improved robustness and treatment delivery quality.

Outcomes of Immediate versus Delayed Autologous Reconstruction with Postmastectomy Radiation: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Postmastectomy autologous breast reconstruction can be immediate or delayed. The safety of performing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) and the impact of radiation on the newly reconstructed breast is not yet validated.

METHODS

A PubMed, Embase, and Google scholar search was conducted from inception to September 17, 2023. The authors included comparative studies that assessed complications or aesthetic outcomes of IBR versus delayed breast reconstruction (DBR) in the setting of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT).

RESULTS

The search identified 2693 articles. Thirteen were eligible for inclusion. A total of 565 patients underwent IBR followed by radiotherapy, whereas 699 had DBR. Mean follow-up time and age for both groups were comparable ( P > 0.1). None of the complications-revision surgery, infection, total flap failure, seroma, hematoma, dehiscence, or delayed wound healing-were significantly different across groups ( P > 0.1). IBR was found to have a higher risk of flap fibrosis (OR, 28.18; 95% CI, 5.15 to 154.12; P = 0.0001; I2 = 44%) and skin flap necrosis (OR, 6.12; 95% CI, 2.71 to 13.82; P < 0.0001; I2 = 27%) but a lower risk of partial flap failure (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.58; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%) when compared with DBR. Results of fat necrosis should be interpreted with caution. Patient-reported and objective aesthetic outcomes were mostly comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

IBR in the setting of PMRT is increasingly being performed and poses a specific set of challenges that surgeons usually consider. The choice between IBR or DBR in the setting of PMRT should be an individualized decision based on patient risk factors and desires.

Trends in Hospital Billing for Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Procedures from 2013 to 2020

BACKGROUND

 With greater acceptance of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) as a safe and reliable treatment option, the role of plastic surgeons in breast cancer management continues to rise. As Medicare reimbursements for surgical procedures decline, hospitals may increase charges. Excessive markups can negatively affect uninsured and underinsured patients. We aimed to analyze mastectomy and breast reconstruction procedures to gain insights into recent trends in utilization and billing.

METHODS

 We queried the 2013 to 2020 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data with 14 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes to collect service count numbers, hospital charges, and reimbursements. We calculated utilization (service counts per million female Medicare enrollees), weighted mean charges and reimbursements, and charge-to-reimbursement ratios (CRRs). We calculated total and annual percentage changes for the included CPT codes.

RESULTS

 Among the 14 CPT codes, 12 CPT codes (85.7%) with nonzero service counts were included. Utilization of mastectomy and breast reconstruction procedures decreased from 1,889 to 1,288 (-31.8%) procedures per million female Medicare beneficiaries from 2013 to 2020. While the utilization of immediate implant placements (CPT 19340) increased by 36.2%, the utilization of delayed implant placements (CPT 19342) decreased by 15.1%. Reimbursements for the included CPT codes changed minimally over time (-2.9%) but charges increased by 28.9%. These changes resulted in CRRs increasing from 3.3 to 4.4 (+33.3%) from 2013 to 2020. Free flap reconstructions (CPT 19364) had the highest CRRs throughout the study period, increasing from 7.0 in 2013 to 10.3 in 2020 (+47.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

 Our analysis of mastectomy and breast reconstruction procedures billed to Medicare Part B from 2013 to 2020 showed increasingly excessive procedural charges. Rises in hospital charges and CRRs may limit uninsured and underinsured patients from accessing necessary care for breast cancer management. Legislations that monitor hospital markups for PMBR procedures may be considered by policymakers.

Single versus Double Drainage for Immediate Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Reports evaluating plastic surgeons' practices indicate there are conflicting trends regarding the use of one or two drains for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Our study aimed to perform a matched cohort analysis to examine the postoperative outcomes and complications of immediate IBBR with tissue expander (TE) using two drains versus a single drain.

METHODS

A propensity score-matched analysis (nearest neighbor, 1:1 matching) of immediate reconstructions using two versus one drain was conducted. Female patients undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR with TEs between January 2011 and May 2021 were included. The covariables were as follows: BMI, mastectomy weight, lymph node surgery, TE surface, plane of reconstruction, use of acellular dermal matrix products, fluorescence imaging use, and intraoperative TE volume.

RESULTS

After matching using propensity scores, 192 reconstructions were included in the final analysis: 96 in each group. The rate of 30-day complications and overall complications during the first phase of IBBR were comparable between groups. The time for drain removal, time to initiate and finalize expansions, and time for TE-to-implant exchange were comparable between groups. Diabetes (OR 3.74, p = 0.025) and an increased estimated blood loss (OR 1.004, p = 0.01) were the only independent predictors for seroma formation.

CONCLUSION

In this matched cohort analysis evaluating the role of one versus two drains for two-stage IBBR, we found a comparable rate of complications and surgical outcomes between the two cohorts. Using two drains for immediate IBBR needs to be tailored depending on intraoperative findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Out-of-Pocket Costs and Payments in Autologous and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Nationwide Analysis

BACKGROUND

Many factors influence a patient's decision to undergo autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction, including medical, social, and financial considerations. This study aims to investigate differences in out-of-pocket and total spending for patients undergoing autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The IBM MarketScan Commercial Databases were queried to extract all patients who underwent inpatient autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction from 2017 to 2021. Financial variables included gross payments to the provider (facility and/or physician) and out-of-pocket costs (total of coinsurance, deductible, and copayments). Univariate regressions assessed differences between autologous and implant-based reconstruction procedures. Mixed-effects linear regression was used to analyze parametric contributions to total gross and out-of-pocket costs.

RESULTS

The sample identified 2079 autologous breast reconstruction and 1475 implant-based breast reconstruction episodes. Median out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for autologous reconstruction than implant-based reconstruction ($597 vs $250, P < 0.001) as were total payments ($63,667 vs $31,472, P < 0.001). Type of insurance plan and region contributed to variable out-of-pocket costs (P < 0.001). Regression analysis revealed that autologous reconstruction contributes significantly to increasing out-of-pocket costs (B = $597, P = 0.025) and increasing total costs (B = $74,507, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

The US national data demonstrate that autologous breast reconstruction has higher out-of-pocket costs and higher gross payments than implant-based reconstruction. More study is needed to determine the extent to which these financial differences affect patient decision-making.

Using a Machine Learning Approach to Predict the Need for Elective Revision and Unplanned Surgery after Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Two-stage implant-based reconstruction after mastectomy may require secondary revision procedures to treat complications, correct defects, and improve aesthetic outcomes. Patients should be counseled on the possibility of additional procedures during the initial visit, but the likelihood of requiring another procedure is dependent on many patient- and surgeon-specific factors. This study aims to identify patient-specific factors and surgical techniques associated with higher rates of secondary procedures and offer a machine learning model to compute individualized assessments for preoperative counseling. A training set of 209 patients (406 breasts) who underwent two-stage alloplastic reconstruction was created, with 45.57% of breasts (185 of 406) requiring revisional or unplanned surgery. On multivariate analysis, hypertension, no tobacco use, and textured expander use corresponded to lower odds of additional surgery. In contrast, higher initial tissue expander volume, vertical radial incision, and larger nipple-inframammary fold distance conferred higher odds of additional surgery. The neural network model trained on clinically significant variables achieved the highest collective performance metrics, with ROC AUC of 0.74, sensitivity of 84.2, specificity of 63.6, and accuracy of 62.1. The proposed machine learning model trained on a single surgeon's data offers a precise and reliable tool to assess an individual patient's risk of secondary procedures. Machine learning models enable physicians to tailor surgical planning and empower patients to make informed decisions aligned with their lifestyle and preferences. The utilization of this technology is especially applicable to plastic surgery, where outcomes are subject to a variety of patient-specific factors and surgeon practices, including threshold to perform secondary procedures.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in a rural population: A single-institution experience

Background

The incidence of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for unilateral breast cancer (UBC) has continued to increase, despite an absent survival benefit except in populations at highest risk for developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC). CPM rates may be higher in rural populations but causes remain unclear. A study performed at our institution previously found that 21.8 % of patients with UBC underwent CPM from 2000 to 2009. This study aimed to evaluate the CPM trend at a single institution serving a rural population and identify the CPM rate in average-risk patients.

Methods

Retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomies for UBC at our institution from 2017 to 2021 was performed. Analysis utilized frequencies and percentages, descriptive statistics, chi-square, and independent sample t-tests.

Results

A total of 438 patients were included, of whom 64.4 % underwent bilateral mastectomy for UBC (CPM). Patients who underwent CPM were significantly younger, underwent genetic testing, had germline pathogenic variants, had a family history of breast cancer, had smaller tumors, underwent reconstruction, and had more wound infections. Of CPM patients, 50.4 % had no identifiable factors for increased risk of developing CBC.

Conclusions

The rate of CPM in a rural population at a single institution increased from 21.8 % to 64.4 % over two decades, with an average-risk CPM rate of 50.4 %. Those that undergo CPM are more likely to undergo reconstruction and have more wound infections. Identifying characteristics of patients undergoing CPM in a rural population and the increased associated risks allows for a better understanding of this trend to guide conversations with patients.

Key message

This study demonstrates that the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancers performed at a single institution serving a largely rural population has nearly tripled over the last two decades, with half of these patients having no factors that increase the risk for developing contralateral breast cancers. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy was significantly associated with smaller tumors, younger age, genetic testing, germline pathogenic variants, family history of breast cancer, breast reconstruction, and increased wound infections.

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

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

Machine-Learning Prediction of Capsular Contraction after Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction

Background

Two-stage breast reconstruction is a common technique used to restore preoperative appearance in patients undergoing mastectomy. However, capsular contracture may develop and lead to implant failure and significant morbidity. The objective of this study is to build a machine-learning model that can determine the risk of developing contracture formation after two-stage breast reconstruction.

Methods

A total of 209 women (406 samples) were included in the study cohort. Patient characteristics that were readily accessible at the preoperative visit and details pertaining to the surgical approach were used as input data for the machine-learning model. Supervised learning models were assessed using 5-fold cross validation. A neural network model is also evaluated using a 0.8/0.1/0.1 train/validate/test split.

Results

Among the subjects, 144 (35.47%) developed capsular contracture. Older age, smaller nipple-inframammary fold distance, retropectoral implant placement, synthetic mesh usage, and postoperative radiation increased the odds of capsular contracture (p < 0.05). The neural network achieved the best performance metrics among the models tested, with a test accuracy of 0.82 and area under receiver operative curve of 0.79.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study that uses a neural network to predict the development of capsular contraction after two-stage implant-based reconstruction. At the preoperative visit, surgeons may counsel high-risk patients on the potential need for further revisions or guide them toward autologous reconstruction.

The International Awareness of Breast Reconstruction

Background

To our knowledge, this is the first and largest study conducted to collect data among surgeons worldwide about breast reconstruction. We have aimed to collect data about breast reconstruction worldwide, the most popular breast reconstruction techniques, and the barriers behind the low rate of breast reconstruction according to surgeons.

Methodology

A comparative cross-sectional design was used in this study. A prepared questionnaire, which was developed after reviewing the literature review conducted for this study, was used to collect data. The questionnaire is multiple choice. It was distributed among surgeons online.

Results

The study includes 812 participants who live all over the world, representing 79 countries. More than a third of surgeons perform less than 10 breast reconstructions per year (33.38%), and 45.86% of them think that immediate surgery is the most frequent practice. A higher percentage of participants prefer implants over autologous reconstruction as a technique for breast reconstruction (54.9%). Moreover, 39.02% of participants shared that a lack of knowledge about the availability of breast reconstruction was a reason for refusing the surgery.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the breast reconstruction rate is still low and that most surgeons prefer implants that are performed immediately. The lack of knowledge among patients about the availability of breast reconstruction is the most common reason for refusing reconstruction. Therefore, there is a need to increase patient awareness about the availability of this surgery.

Impact of Varying Chest Wall Target Volume Delineation on Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients with Implant-Based Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The target volume for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in breast cancer patients with reconstruction has been a subject of debate. Traditionally, the RT chest wall (CW) volume encompasses the entire implant. For patients with retropectoral implants, the deep lymphatic plexus dorsal part of the implant is no longer considered high risk and can be omitted. This study aimed to assess the radiation dose distribution and treatment outcomes associated with different CW delineation according to ESTRO ACROP guideline for patients who have undergone implant-based reconstruction.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of breast cancer patients who underwent a mastectomy followed by two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) between 2007 and 2022. The expanders/implants were positioned retropectorally. The chest wall target volumes were categorized into two groups: the prepectoral group, which excluded the deep lymphatic plexus, and the whole expander group.

RESULTS

The study included 26 patients, with 15 in the prepectoral group and 11 in the whole expander group. No significant differences were observed in normal organ exposure between the two groups. There was a trend toward a lower ipsilateral lung mean dose in the prepectoral group (10.2 vs. 11.1 Gy, p = 0.06). Both groups exhibited limited instances of reconstruction failure and local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing two-stage expander/implant retropectoral breast reconstruction and PMRT, our data provided comparable outcomes and normal organ exposure for those omitting the deep lymphatic plexus.

An Evaluation of Native Breast Dimension and Tissue Expander Inflation Rate on the Risk of Capsular Contracture Development in Postmastectomy Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Capsular contracture is a common complication after 2-stage breast reconstruction. The relationships between native breast size, the rate of tissue expander expansion, and capsule formation have not been elucidated. This study aims to evaluate how these factors contribute to capsular contracture and establish cutoff values for increased risk.

METHODS

A data set consisting of 229 patients who underwent 2-stage breast reconstruction between 2012 and 2021 was included in the study. The rate of expansion is estimated as the final expanded volume subtracted by the initial filling volume of the tissue expander over time elapsed. The native breast size was estimated using various preoperative breast measurements and the weight of mastectomy specimen (grams). Further stratified analysis evaluated patients separately based on postoperative radiation status.

RESULTS

Greater nipple-inframammary fold distance and faster tissue expander enlargement rate conferred decreased odds of developing capsular contracture ( P < 0.05). On stratified analysis, faster tissue expansion rate was not significant in the nonradiated cohort but remained a significant negative predictor in the radiation group (odds ratio, 0.996; P < 0.05). Cut-point analysis showed an expansion rate of <240 mL/mo and a nipple-inframammary fold value of <10.5 cm as conferring a greater risk of capsular contracture.

CONCLUSION

Smaller inframammary fold distance may be associated with a higher risk of capsular contracture. Slower expansion rates correlate with increased odds of contracture in patients undergoing adjuvant radiation. Breast geometry should be considered when risk stratifying various reconstruction approaches (implant vs autologous). In addition, longer delays between implant exchange and initial tissue expansion should be avoided if clinically feasible.

Factors Associated With Socioeconomic Disparities in Breast Reconstruction: Perspectives of Wisconsin Surgeons

INTRODUCTION

The objective is to expand our understanding of the factors associated with receipt of breast reconstruction for socioeconomically disadvantaged women within Wisconsin.

METHODS

A purposeful sample of general/breast and plastic surgeons were identified. One-on-one interviews were conducted, audio-recorded, and transcribed in full (n = 15). Conventional content analysis was performed to identify themes.

RESULTS

Both general/breast and plastic surgeons perceived that general/breast surgeons served as gatekeepers to which patients are offered a referral for reconstruction. Given the additional recovery time, frequent clinic visits, and potential for complications associated with reconstruction, general/breast surgeons perceived that not all women prioritize it. Surgeons perceived this to be especially true for socioeconomically disadvantaged women. Surgeons identified time off work, travel for visits, and out-of-pocket costs as specific challenges to reconstruction experienced by socioeconomically disadvantaged women. Surgeons perceived that early education, incorporating financial considerations into discussions, and reducing travel burden may help to improve access to reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Wisconsin surgeons described factors they perceived contributed to lower rates of reconstruction for socioeconomically disadvantaged women and described ways to increase reconstruction access.

The Impact of Prior Breast Augmentation on Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy

The risk of women developing breast cancer after augmentation mammaplasty may be lower than the general population, with minimal current literature on breast reconstruction in this population. We sought to evaluate the impact of previous augmentation on postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

Methods

Retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomies from 2017 to 2021 at our institution was performed. Analysis included frequencies and percentages, descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and Fisher exact test.

Results

Four hundred seventy patients were included, with average body mass index of 29.1 kg/m², 96% identifying as White, and an average age at diagnosis of 59.3 years. Twenty (4.2%) patients had a prior breast augmentation. Reconstruction was performed in 80% of the previously augmented patients compared to 49.9% of nonaugmented patients (P = 0.01). Reconstruction was alloplastic in 100% of augmented and 88.7% of nonaugmented patients (P = 0.15). All reconstructed augmented patients underwent immediate reconstruction compared with 90.5% of nonaugmented patients (P = 0.37), and two-stage reconstruction was most common (75.0% versus 63.5%; P = 0.42). Of the previously augmented patients, 87.5% increased implant volume, 75% underwent same implant plane reconstruction, and 68.75% underwent same implant-type reconstruction as their augmentation.

Conclusions

Previously augmented patients were more likely to undergo reconstruction after mastectomy at our institution. All reconstructed augmented patients underwent alloplastic reconstruction, with most performed immediately in staged fashion. Most patients favored silicone implants and maintained the same implant type and plane of reconstruction, with increased implant volume. Larger studies are required to further investigate these trends.

Adverse Outcome of Two-Staged Breast Reconstruction: More Than One Culprit

BACKGROUND

Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction with initial insertion of a tissue expander followed by change-over to an implant after a period of inflation has become a well-established option in breast reconstruction. Our aim was to analyze the feasibility of two-stage breast reconstruction in our center by following the surgical technique, number of complications and associated risk factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied 91 patients who underwent skin sparring mastectomy and tissue expander placement in our surgical unit, between January 2017 and December 2021. Axillary surgery was performed in all patients. We collected data on age, smoker status, breast size, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, neoadjuvant treatment and surgical intervention details.

RESULTS

Skin necrosis (12.08%) and seroma (16.48%) were the most common complications. 7.69% of the patients required reintervention. Patients underwent delayed reconstruction after more than 6 months in 69.7% of the cases, while the overall reconstruction rate was 86.08%. Smoker status, an increased body mass index, comorbidities, neoadjuvant treatment, type of incision and location of the implant were the main factors that led to adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Tissue expanders are a viable option for reconstruction; however, we observed a higher incidence of skin complications in smokers and in cases where periareolar incision was used.

Breast Reconstruction Trends in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy: Analysis of Practices among Plastic Surgeons in the United States

Radiation is an integral part of breast cancer therapy. The ideal type and timing of breast reconstruction with relation to radiation delivery are not well established. The study aimed to identify reconstructive practices among American plastic surgeons in the setting of pre- and postmastectomy radiation.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of members of the American Society of Plastic Surgery was performed. Practice/demographic information and breast reconstruction protocols were queried. Univariate descriptive statistics were calculated, and outcomes were compared across cohorts with χ² and Fischer exact tests.

Results

Overall, 477 plastic surgeons averaging 16.3 years in practice were surveyed. With respect to types of reconstruction, all options were well represented, although nearly 60% preferred autologous reconstruction with prior radiation and 55% preferred tissue expansion followed by implant/autologous reconstruction in the setting of unknown postoperative radiation. There was little consensus on the optimal timing of reconstruction in the setting of possible postoperative radiation. Most respondents wait 4-6 or 7-12 months between the end of radiation and stage 2 implant-based or autologous reconstruction. Common concerns regarding the effect of radiation on reconstructive outcomes included mastectomy flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, capsular contracture, tissue fibrosis, and donor vessel complications.

Conclusions

Despite considerable research, there is little consensus on the ideal type and timing of reconstruction in the setting of pre- and postoperative radiation. Understanding how the current body of knowledge is translated into clinical practice by different populations of surgeons allows us to forge a path forward toward more robust, evidence-based guidelines for patient care.

Fold Flaps to the Rescue in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

SUMMARY

Ischemic complications following postmastectomy breast reconstruction are not uncommon and can lead to reconstructive failure, especially with implant reconstruction. The authors propose a simple local flap for management of such complications. This flap is easily raised from the upper abdomen or lateral chest as a medially or laterally based fasciocutaneous flap, and the donor site is hidden in the inframammary or lateral mammary fold. The authors present a case series of these "fold flaps" that were used to manage complications following implant-based breast reconstruction. All patients between 2007 and 2021 who underwent a fold flap for breast reconstruction salvage were queried from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic variables, clinical factors, and surgical details were analyzed. Outcomes assessed included complications, appropriate wound healing, and reconstructive salvage. Fourteen patients underwent thoracoepigastric or thoracoabdominal fold flaps following breast reconstruction for soft-tissue coverage with an underlying prosthesis. The mean age was 54 years, mean body mass index was 30 kg/m 2 , and mean follow-up duration was 18.5 months. Fold flap indications included mastectomy skin flap necrosis ( n = 9), infection ( n = 4), and chronic seroma ( n = 1). Eleven reconstructions (79%) were salvaged and three (21%) required eventual prosthesis explantation secondary to infection or delayed wound healing. Fold flaps are a reliable option for managing ischemic complications following postmastectomy breast reconstruction. The benefits include improved soft-tissue coverage with a high salvage rate. These flaps are simple to raise, and their donor site is concealed within the folds. Furthermore, they provide a reliable early option to manage complications and potentially prevent reconstructive failure.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Quality of breast reconstruction service at a university hospital as assessed by the patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the quality of breast reconstruction service at a university hospital, as assessed by the patients.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study enrolled adult women who underwent immediate or delayed breast reconstruction by any technique performed at a university hospital between 1 and 24 months before the assessment. The Brazilian version of the Health Service Quality Scale (HSQS) was self-applied to the participants. The HSQS produces percentage scores, which are expressed in values ranging from 0 to 10 for each domain of the scale, and into an overall percentage quality score. The management team was asked to establish a minimum satisfactory score for the breast reconstruction service.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were included. The management team considered 8.00 the minimum satisfactory score for the service. The overall percentage score was 93.3%. Only one domain, 'Support,' had an average score lower than that considered satisfactory (7.22 ± 3.0); while the others had higher scores. The domain that scored highest was 'Qualification' (9.94 ± 0.3), followed by 'Result' (9.86 ± 0.4). There was a positive correlation between 'type of oncologic surgery' and 'intentions of loyalty to the service' (ρ = 0.272; p = 0.009) and a negative correlation between 'education' and 'quality of the environment' (ρ = -0.218; p = 0.039). The higher the patient's level of education, the higher the score attributed to 'relationship' (ρ = 0.261; p = 0.013) and the lower the score of 'aesthetics and functionality' (ρ = -0.237; p = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the breast reconstruction service was considered satisfactory, but there is a demand for structural improvements, better interpersonal relationships, and a stronger support network for patients.

Comparison of Human, Porcine, and Bovine Acellular Dermal Matrix in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to determine rates of overall complications and failure of prepectoral breast reconstruction between various types of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs).

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common reconstructive technique after mastectomy in the United States. Traditionally, the reconstruction has been performed in the subpectoral plane; however, there has been an emerging interest in prepectoral reconstruction using ADM. Human (hADM), porcine (pADM), and bovine (bADM) ADMs are available for use, but little is known about the benefits and complication profiles of each for prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Studies examining complications after the use of ADM for prepectoral breast reconstruction were identified using MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, LILACS, and the Web of Science from January 2010 to August 2021. Titles and abstracts of 1838 studies were screened, followed by full-text screening of 355 articles. Thirty-three studies were found to meet inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

From the 33 studies, 6046 prepectoral reconstructions were examined. Implant loss was comparable across the different types of ADM (pADM, 4.0%; hADM, 4.0%; bADM, 3.7%). Bovine ADM had the highest rate of capsular contracture (6.1%), infection (9.0%), skin flap necrosis (8.3%), dehiscence (5.4%), and hematoma (6.1%) when compared with both hADM and pADM. Human ADM had the highest rate of postoperative seroma (5.3%), followed by pADM (4.6%) and bADM (4.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among the prepectoral breast reconstruction studies using hADM, pADM, or bADM included in our analysis, complication profiles were similar. Bovine ADM had the highest proportion of breast complications in the following categories: capsular contracture, infection rate, skin flap necrosis, dehiscence, and hematoma. Implant loss was comparable across the cohorts. Overall, prepectoral breast reconstruction using ADM leads to relatively low complication rates with the highest rates within the bADM cohort.

Radiation Modality (Proton/Photon), Timing, and Complication Rates in Patients With Breast Cancer Receiving 2-Stages Expander/Implant Reconstruction

PURPOSE

Our purpose is to explore the effect of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) modality and timing on complication rates in breast cancer patients receiving immediate 2-stages expander/implant.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We reviewed the charts of 661 patients who underwent immediate 2-stages expander/implant with/without PMRT at our institution from 2000 to 2019. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: no radiation, PMRT to expanders (RTE), and PMRT to implants after expander exchange (RTI). PMRT was delivered either with 3-dimensional conformal photon with or without chest wall boost (CWB) or proton therapy. Reconstruction complications were defined as infection/necrosis requiring debridement, capsular-contracture requiring capsulotomy, and reconstruction failure requiring prothesis removal. Logistic regression and Cox models were used to assess the effect of different radiation therapy modalities on complication rates and local control.

RESULTS

Among 661 patients, 309 (46.7%) received PMRT, 220 of the 309 (71.2%) received RTE before exchange, and 89 (28.8%) received RTI after exchange. Seventeen out of 309 (5.5%) patients received proton therapy. The complications among RTE versus RTI cohorts were 22.7% versus 15.7% for infection/necrosis, 13.6% versus 19.1% for capsular-contracture, and 39.5% versus 31.5% for overall reconstruction failure, respectively. Among proton patients, 8/17 (47%) developed capsular contracture compared with 16.4% (24/146) and 10.3% (15/146) in CWB and non-CWB groups, respectively. Adjusted multivariable analysis showed no significant difference between RTI and RTE in terms of infection/necrosis and capsular contracture. Yet, RTE significantly increased overall reconstruction failure compared with RTI (39.5% vs 31.5%; odds ratio [OR], 2.11; P = .02). Protons significantly increased capsular contracture compared with both CWB and non-CWB groups (OR, 5.4; P = .01 and OR, 10.9; P < .001, respectively). Moreover, proton significantly increased overall reconstruction failure. The 5-year local control rates were 95.3% and 97.7% for RTE and RTI, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.2; P = .7).

CONCLUSIONS

Early radiation to the expander before the exchange to implant significantly increased overall reconstruction failure without improving local control. Protons significantly increased capsular contracture rates and overall reconstruction failure leading to more revision surgeries.

The Use of Alloderm® Coverage to Reinforce Tissues in Two-Stage Tissue Expansion Placement in the Subcutaneous (Prepectoral) Plane: A Prospective Pilot Study

Purpose: Two-stage tissue expander (TE) to implant breast reconstruction is commonly performed by plastic surgeons. Prepectoral implant placement with acellular dermal matrix (ADM, e.g., AlloDerm®) reinforcement is evidenced by minimal postoperative pain. However, the same is not known for TE-based reconstruction. We performed this study to explore the use of complete AlloDerm® reinforcement of breast pocket tissues in women undergoing unilateral or bilateral mastectomies followed by immediate, two-stage tissue expansion in the prepectoral plane.

Methods: Patients (n = 20) aged 18-75 years were followed prospectively from their preoperative consult to 60 days post-TE insertion. The pain visual analog scale (VAS), Patient Pain Assessment Questionnaire, Subjective Pain Survey, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) survey, BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module, and short-form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires were administered. Demographic, intraoperative, and 30- and 60-day complications data were abstracted from medical records. After TE-to-implant exchange, patients were followed until 60 days postoperatively to assess for complications.

Results: Pain VAS and BPI-SF pain interference scores returned to preoperative values by 30 days post-TE insertion. Static and moving pain scores from the Patient Pain Assessment Questionnaire returned to preoperative baseline values by day 60. The mean subjective pain score was 3.0 (0.5 standard deviation) with seven patients scoring outside the standard deviation; none of these seven patients had a history of anxiety or depression. Median PONV scores remained at 0 from postoperative day 0 to day 7. Patient-reported opioid use dropped from 89.5% to 10.5% by postoperative day 30. BREAST-Q: Sexual well-being scores significantly increased from preoperative baseline to day 60 post-TE insertion. Changes in SF-36 physical functioning, physician limitations, emotional well-being, social functioning, and pain scores were significantly different from preoperative baseline to day 60 post-TE insertion. Five participants had complications within 60 days post-TE insertion. One participant experienced a complication within 60 days after TE-to-implant exchange.

Conclusions: We describe pain scores, opioid usage, patient-reported outcomes data, and complication profiles of 20 consecutive patients undergoing mastectomy followed by immediate, two-stage tissue expansion in the prepectoral plane. We hope this study serves as a baseline for future research.

Guideline Awareness Disparities in Plastic Surgery: A Survey of American Society of Plastic Surgeons

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) clinical practice guidelines were constructed to help direct evidence-based surgical management in plastic surgery. Societal member awareness of the recommendations for breast reconstruction has yet to be studied among ASPS members.

Safety and efficacy of immediate autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer

PURPOSE

Immediate autologous breast reconstruction (IABR) offers fewer surgeries with better psychosocial, quality of life and aesthetic outcomes. In high-risk patients or those with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC), adjuvant postmastectomy radiotherapy decreases local recurrence and improves survival. However, it has negative effects on the reconstructed flap. Reversing the treatment protocol using neoadjuvant radiotherapy may minimise the negative effects on the reconstructed breast in women requesting IABR. We assessed the safety and efficacy of women who underwent mastectomy and IABR post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) for LABC.

METHODOLOGY

A cohort study using a retrospective and prospective analysis was performed on women with LABC who underwent mastectomy and IABR post-NACRT between 1998 and 2018. All reconstructions were performed by oncoplastic breast surgeons from a single unit. Outcome measures analysed included surgical complications, flap failure, loco-regional recurrence, overall and disease-free survival. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). This study was approved by the institutional review board.

RESULTS

A total of 28 women with a median age of 50 (33-64) were included. 25% underwent TRAM flap and 75% underwent LD flap reconstruction. The median period of follow-up was 61 months. Post-NACRT, 35.7% achieved complete pathological response (PCR). 3/28 (10.7%) had early complications (2 implant and 1 donor site infection). 7% underwent revision surgery. There was no flap loss. 1/28 (3.5%) had loco-regional recurrence, 3.2% had distant metastasis, and 2.5% had breast cancer related mortality.

CONCLUSION

In women with LABC, NACRT followed by mastectomy and IABR is safe and may not compromise oncological and cosmetic outcomes. If offers the benefits of immediate breast reconstruction and avoids delaying adjuvant therapy.

Breast Reconstruction Does Not Affect the Survival of Patients with Breast Cancer Located in the Central and Nipple Portion: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database Analysis

Background

Tumors in the central and nipple portion (TCNP) are associated with poor prognosis and aggressive clinicopathological characteristics. The availability and safety of postmastectomy reconstruction in breast cancer patients with TCNP have still not been deeply explored. It is necessary to investigate whether reconstruction is appropriate for TCNP compared with non-reconstruction therapy in terms of survival outcomes.

Methods

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we enrolled TCNP patients diagnosed between the years 2010 and 2016. The propensity score matching (PSM) technique was applied to construct a matched sample consisting of pairs of non-reconstruction and reconstruction groups. Survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan–Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were applied to estimate the factors associated with breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

In the overall cohort, a total of 6,002 patients were enrolled. The patients in the reconstruction group showed significantly better BCSS (log-rank, p < 0.01) and OS (log-rank, p < 0.01) than those in the non-reconstruction group (832 patients) after PSM. However, the multivariate Cox regression model revealed that breast reconstruction was not associated with worse BCSS and OS of TCNP patients.

Conclusion

Our study provided a new perspective showing that breast reconstruction did not affect the survival and disease prognosis in the cohort of TCNP patients from SEER databases, compared with non-reconstruction. This finding provides further survival evidence supporting the practice of postmastectomy reconstruction for suitable TCNP patients, especially those with a strong willingness for breast reconstruction.

Impact on Patient's Appearance Perception of Autologous and Implant Based Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy Using BREAST-Q

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a better quality of life with one of the two techniques and if the results are in line with those already present in the literature. The hypothesis from which we started is to demonstrate that cancer patients who undergo a deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (DIEP) breast reconstruction surgery are more satisfied and have a higher level of quality of life compared to those subjected to an intervention of reconstruction with prosthesis.

Materials and Methods

All patients undergoing reconstruction from January 2010 to July 2018 were eligible for inclusion. This is a retrospective cohort study carried out using the patients of two plastic surgery departments who have undergone monolateral or bilateral implant-based or DIEP flap breast reconstruction. We administered BREAST-Q questionnaire electronically almost 2 year after surgery. Patients were divided into two groups: implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction with DIEP flaps. Baseline demographics and patient characteristics were analyzed using a Students t-test (continuous variables) or Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test (categorical variables). Mean standard deviation BREAST-Q scores were reported for the overall cohort and by modality for the postoperative period. The linear regression model was applied to all BREAST-Q score with all predictor factors.

Results

Of the 1125 patients involved, only 325 met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in this study; specifically, 133 (41%) DIEP and 192 (59%) prosthetic reconstructions. We summarized the results of the principal scales of BREAST-Q module: satisfaction with breast, psychosocial well-being, satisfaction with outcome, and sexual well-being in which the autologous group was always more satisfied. We reported results of all linear regression models with higher values for the DIEP group independently from predictors.

Conclusion

This is the first study performed on the Italian population that compares autologous surgical techniques with the implantation of breast implants. In this population, DIEP is considered the technique that leads to the highest satisfaction in all BREAST-Q scores.

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.

Risk of Developing Breast Reconstruction Complications: A Machine-Learning Nomogram for Individualized Risk Estimation with and without Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to create a nomogram using machine learning models predicting risk of breast reconstruction complications with or without postmastectomy radiation therapy.

METHODS

Between 1997 and 2017, 1617 breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and breast reconstruction were analyzed. Those with autologous, tissue expander/implant, and single-stage direct-to-implant reconstruction were included. Postmastectomy radiation therapy was delivered either with three-dimensional conformal photon or proton therapy. Complication endpoints were defined based on surgical reintervention operative notes as infection/necrosis requiring débridement. For implant-based patients, complications were defined as capsular contracture requiring capsulotomy and implant failure. For each complication endpoint, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator-penalized regression was used to select the subset of predictors associated with the smallest prediction error from 10-fold cross-validation. Nomograms were built using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator-selected predictors, and internal validation using cross-validation was performed.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 6.6 years. Among 1617 patients, 23 percent underwent autologous reconstruction, 39 percent underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction, and 37 percent underwent tissue expander/implant reconstruction. Among 759 patients who received postmastectomy radiation therapy, 8.3 percent received proton-therapy to the chest wall and nodes and 43 percent received chest wall boost. Internal validation for each model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 73 percent for infection, 75 percent for capsular contracture, 76 percent for absolute implant failure, and 68 percent for overall implant failure. Periareolar incisions and complete implant muscle coverage were found to be important predictors for infection and capsular contracture, respectively. In a multivariable analysis, we found that protons compared to no postmastectomy radiation therapy significantly increased capsular contracture risk (OR, 15.3; p < 0.001). This was higher than the effect of photons with electron boost versus no postmastectomy radiation therapy (OR, 2.5; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Using machine learning, these nomograms provided prediction of postmastectomy breast reconstruction complications with and without radiation therapy.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Surgical and Patient Reported Outcomes After DIEP Breast Reconstruction at a Low-Volume Community Hospital Without Microvascular Fellowship Training

BACKGROUND

Microsurgical breast reconstruction is typically performed at large, academic centers by fellowship-trained surgeons. This study examines surgical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction at a community hospital by surgeons without fellowship training.

METHODS

A prospective clinical database and BREAST-Q results were obtained from 33 patients after 45 DIEP flaps performed between 2016 and 2020. PROs and complications were compared to normative data and multi-institutional series. Regression analysis of patient and surgical factors with BREAST-Q scores was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients completed BREAST-Q (response rate = 94%). Overall flap survival was 97.8%. Complications were not statistically different from larger published series (P > 0.05). Patients reported excellent outcomes after breast reconstruction: satisfaction with breasts (80.6 ± 4.3), satisfaction with outcome (88.3 ±17.7), psychosocial well-being (80.74 ± 17.4), sexual well-being (68.2 ± 24.1), physical well-being - chest (73.8 ± 16.1), and physical well-being - abdomen (73.3 ± 17.4). PROs were not statistically different from published multicenter data with the exception of superior scores in sexual well-being (P < 0.05) and breast satisfaction (P < 0.0001). Satisfaction with outcome varied by patient age and was 20.7 points higher for patients over 55 compared to patients 46 to 55 years of age (P < 0.05). Satisfaction with breasts was 29 points lower after total flap loss (P < 0.005). Psychosocial well-being scores were 26.98 points lower after a takeback (P < 0.05). Sexual well-being and physical well-being - chest scores were negatively related to increasing body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

DIEP flap breast reconstruction can be performed with high quality and excellent PROs at a community hospital by surgeons without microvascular fellowship training.

Implant risk failure in patients undergoing postmastectomy 3-week hypofractionated radiotherapy after immediate reconstruction

AIM

To evaluate reconstruction failure (RF) rate in patients receiving implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) and hypofractionated (HF) postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Stage II-III breast cancer patients, treated with HF-PMRT using intensity modulated radiotherapy were stratified in two groups according to IBR: single-stage direct-to-implant (DTI-group) and two-stage expander and implant (TE/I-group). Irradiated patients were matched with non-irradiated ones who underwent the same IBR during the same period. Prescription dose was 40.05 Gy/15 fractions to chest wall and infra/supraclavicular nodal region. Primary endpoint was RF defined as the need of major revisional surgery (MaRS) for implant removal or conversion to autologous reconstruction. Secondary endpoint was the rate of minor revisional surgeries (MiRS) including implant repositioning or substitution with another implant.

RESULTS

One hundred and seven irradiated patients (62 in TE/I-group, 45 in DTI-group) were matched with 107 non-irradiated subjects. Median follow-up was 4.2 years (0.1-6.1) In the TE/I setting, MaRS was performed in 8/62 irradiated patients (12.9%) of the irradiated TE/I group compared to 1/62 (1.6%) non-irradiated subjects (p = 0.015). In the DTI setting, MaRs occurred in 3/45 irradiated patients (6.7%) compared to 1/45 non-irradiated ones (2.2%) (p = 0.35). Overall MaRS rate was 10.3% in the irradiated group. MiRS was performed in 35.6% and 31.1% of the irradiated and non-irradiated DTI-groups (p = 0.65), respectively, and in 12.9% and 8.1% of the irradiated and non-irradiated TE/I groups (p = 0.38), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the non-irradiated counterparts, the TE/I group showed higher rate of RF, while no statistically significant difference was observed for the DTI group. The use of hypofractionation and IMRT to implant-based IBR did not seem to increase the risk of RF which appeared to be in line with the literature.

Postoperative Abdominal Bulge and Hernia Rates in Patients Undergoing Abdominally Based Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT

Bulge and hernia may occur after abdominally based breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to provide an estimate of the effects that the type of flap used for breast reconstruction (ie, transverse rectus abdominis muscle [TRAM] vs muscle-sparing [MS]-2 TRAM vs DIEP) has on the postoperative development of both abdominal bulge and abdominal hernia, taking into consideration the method of donor site closure (ie, with mesh vs without mesh), based on the available literature. Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. From these, 9 studies were comparative and suitable for meta-analysis. The results showed that, for unilateral breast reconstructions, there was no statistically significant difference in hernia/bulge rates in the following techniques: MS-2 TRAM flap without mesh, MS-2 TRAM flap with mesh, and DIEP flap without mesh, and they showed significantly lower hernia/bulge rates compared with TRAM flap without mesh, and TRAM flap with mesh, whereas for bilateral reconstructions, there was no statistically significant difference in hernia/bulge rates in the following techniques: MS-2 TRAM flaps with mesh and DIEP flaps without mesh, and they showed significantly lower hernia/bulge rates compared with TRAM flaps without mesh, TRAM flaps with mesh, and MS-2 TRAM flaps without mesh.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and implications for breast reconstruction

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates have continued to rise in the United States, impacting all stakeholders including plastic and reconstructive surgeons. Multiple factors may be influencing this trend, including patient decision-making characteristics, knowledge about breast cancer disease and prognosis, advances in genetic testing and enhanced imaging capabilities, sociodemographic factors, and access to specialty surgical services such as breast reconstruction. In this review, the authors shed light on the current state of CPM and summarize the literature analyzing its increasing prevalence in the United States, as well as outline future directions for study and dissemination of knowledge from providers to patients surrounding this important and complex treatment decision.

Optimal breast reconstruction type for patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, mastectomy followed by radiation therapy

PURPOSE

To explore the optimal type of breast reconstruction and the time interval to postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) associated with lower complications in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 300 patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, mastectomy with breast reconstruction and PMRT at our institution from 2000 to 2017. Reconstruction types included autologous flaps (AR), single-stage-direct-to-implant and two-stages expander/implant (TE/I). The primary endpoint was the rate of reconstruction complications including infection, skin and fat necrosis. Subgroup analysis compared rates of capsular contracture, implant rupture, implant exposure and overall implant failure in single-stage-direct-to-implant to TE/I. The secondary endpoint was identifying the time interval between surgery with immediate implant-based reconstruction and PMRT associated with lower probability of implant failure. Logistic regression models, Kaplan-Meier estimates and Polynomial regression were used to assess endpoints.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 43.5 months. 29.3%, 28.3% and 42.4% of the cohort had AR, TE/I and single-stage-direct-to-implant D, respectively. The 5-year cumulative incidence rate of complications was 14.0%, 29.7% and 19.4% for AR, TE/I and single-stage-direct-to-implant, respectively (Log rank p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis showed significant association between TE/I and higher risk of infection (OR 8.1, p = 0.009) compared to AR, while single-stage-direct-to-implant and AR were comparable (OR 3.2, p = 0.2). On subgroup analysis, TE/I was significantly associated with higher rates of implant failure. The mean wait time to deliver PMRT after immediate reconstruction with no adjuvant chemotherapy was 8.4 and 10.7 weeks in single-stage-direct-to-implant and TE/I, respectively (p < 0.005). Delivering PMRT after 8 weeks of surgery yielded 10% probability of reconstruction failure in single-stage-direct-to-implant versus 40% in TE/I.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to two stages reconstruction, single-stage-direct-to-implant following neoadjuvant chemotherapy has lower complications and offers timely delivery of PMRT.