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

Trends and Early Complications in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: An Updated Analysis of the ACS-NSQIP Database

Background: Rates of direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction, in which breast implants are placed at the time of mastectomy, have been consistently rising. Advances in surgical adjuncts and technology, such as acellular dermal matrices (ADM), have made DTI reconstruction safer and more reliable. However, few studies have characterized early (30-day) postoperative complications following DTI. The aim of this study was to obtain a current understanding of early postoperative outcomes following DTI breast reconstruction. Methods: Using data from the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, we analyzed complications for female patients who underwent DTI reconstruction from 2017 to 2019, as well as trends in DTI reconstruction from data on mastectomy and DTI reconstruction from 2010 to 2019. We grouped complications into major surgical (including return to the operating room) or medical complications. Statistical analysis was performed using Fischer's exact test for categorical variables, Student's t-test for continuous variables, and logistic regression. Results: DTI breast reconstruction rates have increased since 2010. Among our 2017-2019 cohort of 4204 patients, the early major surgical complication rate was approximately 10% (422 patients) and the major medical complication rate was 0.83% (35 patients). Regression modeling identified body mass index, smoking status, hypertension, bleeding disorders, and intraoperative blood transfusion as having a relationship with surgical complications (P < .001). Conclusions: Despite increased use of ADM and indocyanine green angiography, compared to prior studies, early postoperative complications have remained stable. Further studies are needed to assess long-term complications and patient-reported outcomes in DTI breast reconstruction.

Immediate Prepectoral Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction Without Acellular Dermal Matrix Is Equally Safe Following Skin-Sparing and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has become increasingly popular over the last decade. There is a paucity of data surrounding the impact of mastectomy type on clinical outcomes when comparing prepectoral immediate breast reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix (ADM) using tissue expansion. The purpose of this study was to compare 90-day reconstructive surgical outcomes in immediate prepectoral tissue expander reconstruction between patients with nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM).

METHODS

A retrospective review of patient records was carried out on all patients undergoing NSM or SSM with immediate prepectoral tissue expander reconstruction without ADM, in a single institution, from June 2020 to December 2021. All complications were recorded, categorized, and statistically analyzed for significance.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients (97 breasts) were studied. The mean age was 51 years old (range, 31-77). Twenty-two patients suffered complications recorded in 22 breasts (22.7%). There was no statistically significant difference in the total complications between the NSM (25.7%) and SSM (21.0%) groups or in the incidence of all major and minor complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast reconstruction using tissue expanders without ADM has similar reconstructive outcomes in both NSM and SSM. There were no significant differences in complication rates between either groups. Breast reconstruction without ADM can confer institutional cost savings without compromising safety.

National trends in revision procedures in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: Autologous vs implant-based approaches

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction involves collaborative decision-making between patients and surgeons, but the need for multiple revisions after the initial reconstructive surgery process can burden patients and the healthcare system. This study explored how the type of breast reconstruction (autologous [ABR], immediate implant-based reconstruction [IBR], or two-stage IBR) impacts postreconstruction revision rates.

METHOD

Using MarketScan Databases, a retrospective database study (2007-2021) was conducted, identifying revision procedures through Current Procedural Terminology codes. Statistical analysis with linear models, adjusted for patient characteristics and surgical factors, used a significance threshold of p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Among 58,264 patients, 6.2% of ABR patients, 3.8% of immediate IBR patients, and 3.6% of two-stage IBR patients underwent future revisions. IBR had a 51% lower incidence rate of revision operations than ABR (incidence rate ratio = 0.49, p < 0.001). Within IBR, there was no significant difference in the number of operations between immediate IBR (0.06 ± 0.32) and two-stage IBR (0.05 ± 0.32, p = 0.95). Immediate IBR demonstrated 12% (OR = 0.88, p = 0.0022) and 70% (OR = 0.30, p < 0.001) lower odds of requiring breast revision and fat grafting compared to ABR, respectively. Two-stage reconstruction had 66 % lower odds of requiring only fat grafting than ABR (OR = 0.34, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ABR necessitated a higher number of total revision procedures after completion of the initial reconstruction. These findings will better equip providers and patients to counsel patients in understanding their reconstructive journey, planning their reconstructions and timing, and provide more accurate estimates of the number of procedures that will be required to reach their aesthetic goals and final outcome.

Three and twelve-month analysis of the PROM-Q study: comparison of patient-reported outcome measures using the BREAST-Q questionnaire in pre- vs. sub-pectoral implant-based immediate breast reconstruction

PURPOSE

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is being increasingly performed with implant placed above the pectoral muscle (pre-pectoral), instead of below the pectoral muscle (sub-pectoral). Currently, there is a lack of comparative data on clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- vs. sub-pectoral IBR. We investigated whether this difference in surgical approach influenced clinical or patient-perceived outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective non-randomised longitudinal cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04842240) recruited patients undergoing immediate IBR at the Leeds Breast Unit (Sep 2019-Sep 2021). Data collection included patient characteristics and post-operative complications. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures were collected using the BREAST-Q questionnaire at baseline, 2 weeks, 3- and 12-months post-surgery.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients underwent IBR (46 patients pre-pectoral; 59% vs. 32 patients sub-pectoral; 41%). Similar complication rates were observed (15.2% pre-pectoral vs. 9.4% sub-pectoral; p = 0.44). Overall implant loss rate was 3.8% (6.5% pre-pectoral vs. 0% sub-pectoral; p = 0.13). Respective median Breast-Q scores for pre- and sub-pectoral IBR at 3 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 48; p = 0.01), psychosocial well-being (60 vs. 57; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 76; p = 0.53), and Animation Q scores (73 vs. 76; p = 0.45). Respective Breast-Q scores at 12 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 53; p = 0.3), psychosocial well-being (59 vs. 60; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 78; p = 0.18), and Animation Q scores (69 vs. 73; p = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates equivalent clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- and sub-pectoral IBR. The study findings can be utilised to aid informed decision making regarding either surgical option.

Association of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With Postoperative Outcomes in Immediate Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by total mastectomy and immediate reconstruction has become an important strategy in the treatment of breast cancer. Although the safety of subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with NACT has been extensively evaluated, the safety in prepectoral reconstruction has not been clearly elucidated. We aimed to evaluate the association of NACT with immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent total mastectomy and immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction between May and December 2021 was conducted. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: those receiving NACT and those not receiving it. Postoperative complication rates were compared between the 2 groups. The independent association between NACT and the complication profiles was evaluated. Propensity score matching was also conducted.

RESULTS

We analyzed 343 cases, including 85 who received NACT treatment and 258 who did not. Compared with the non-NACT group, the NACT group was younger, had a higher body mass index, and a higher rate of adjuvant radiotherapy. There were no differences in the rates of overall complications or type of complication between the 2 groups. In the multivariable logistic analyses, NACT did not show a significant association with the development of adverse outcomes. Similar results were observed in propensity score matching analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that receiving NACT may not have a significant detrimental effect on the postoperative outcomes of immediate prepectoral prosthetic reconstructions. Conducting prepectoral implant-based reconstruction in the setting of NACT might be safe and provide acceptable outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Impact of polyurethane versus acellular dermal matrix coating on prepectoral reconstruction outcomes: Interface does matter

BACKGROUND

Interfaces continue to be used in prepectoral breast reconstruction to refine breast appearance, but more clinical data are required to assess their effectiveness. This study compares the rates of capsular contracture, breast esthetics, and patient satisfaction between two commonly used interface materials, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and polyurethane (PU) foam.

METHODS

A cross-sectional assessment was conducted on all patients who underwent prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction with an interface material between June 2018 and June 2022. We compared capsular contracture rates (assessed in-person), esthetic outcomes (evaluated by a three-member panel using a specially designed scale), and patient satisfaction (measured using the Breast-Q questionnaire) among the members of the interface groups.

RESULTS

Among the 79 reconstructed breasts (20 bilateral cases), 35 were reconstructed using ADM and 44 using PU implants. The ADM group had a significantly higher frequency of Baker III/IV capsular contracture compared with the PU group (14.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.014) and lower ratings from the panel in terms of capsular contracture (median 3.7 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001). PU reconstructions scored worse in implant visibility (median 2.3 vs. 3.3, p < 0.001) and rippling (median 3.0 vs. 3.7, p < 0.001). However, after appropriate adjustment for confounders, no significant differences in overall appearance and patient satisfaction were found.

CONCLUSIONS

ADM reconstructions are prone to capsular contracture with all their related esthetic issues, but PU implants have certain cosmetic flaws, such as implant visibility and malposition. Since each technique has its own limitations, neither the experienced surgeons nor patients exhibited a clear preference for either approach.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Direct to Implant Reconstruction

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

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q

BACKGROUND

Over the years, plastic surgery has acquired a central role in the integrated treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using the prepectoral approach has emerged as an alternative to reconstruction using the subpectoral technique to overcome the complications arising from this type of surgery resulting as a consequence of muscle elevation. The satisfaction and quality of life of patients undergoing DTI breast reconstruction were evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire, comparing the prepectoral and the subpectoral technique.

METHODS

A single-center cross-sectional study on patients who underwent mastectomy and DTI breast reconstruction at our institution between 2013 and 2021 was conducted. Eighty-one patients were included and mainly divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: 52 patients undergoing a subpectoral breast reconstruction approach and 29 patients receiving a prepectoral breast reconstruction. In order to assess the quality of life, the postoperative BREAST-Q module was administered electronically to the enrolled patients.

RESULTS

Higher scores in BREAST-Q domains were recorded from patients who underwent mastectomy and breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique: psychosocial well-being (P<0.0085), sexual well-being (P<0.0120), physical well-being: lymphoedema (P<0.0001) and satisfaction with information received (P<0.0045). There were further statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to postoperative complications (p<0.0465) and the need for reoperation (p<0.0275).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique were more satisfied in terms of psychosocial, sexual and also physical well-being. These patients also had statistically lower complications and reoperations compared to patients who received breast reconstruction with the subpectoral technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors 38 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 39 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 40 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 41 Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The impact of mastectomy and reconstruction technique on patient perceived quality of Life

BACKGROUND

We sought to evaluate the impact of mastectomy type, post-mastectomy reconstruction choice, and procedure bilaterality, on patient perceived postoperative quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

Patients who underwent post-mastectomy reconstruction between 2008 and 2020 were identified in a prospective database. QoL was assessed with the BREAST-Q and the Was It Worth It (WIWI) questionnaires. The results were compared between reconstruction type, reconstruction laterality, and type of mastectomy. Responses were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

568 patients met inclusion criteria, and 244 patients responded (43%). QoL did not significantly vary between different reconstructions selected, procedure laterality, or mastectomy type. Patients who underwent DIEP flap were significantly more satisfied with their reconstructed breasts than implant-based reconstruction. Overall, over 85% of patients experienced improved or unchanged QoL no matter what reconstruction choices were made.

CONCLUSION

Most domains of QOL are not impacted by mastectomy type, post-mastectomy reconstruction, or laterality.