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

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complication Profiles of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction in Patients With Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications of distinct implant-based breast reconstruction modality for patients with postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on breast cancer patients with stage II-III disease who performed implant-based breast reconstruction following with PMRT between September 2016 and April 2022. The patients were categorized into two matched groups: (1) patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) or (2) subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) followed by PMRT. Following reconstruction, the patients were further compared for PMRT with the tissue expander (PMRT-TE) versus PMRT with permanent implant (PMRT-PI). PROs were measured with BREAST-Q questionnaire. Early and late complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 55 eligible patients were recruited. Patients who underwent PBR reported significantly higher satisfaction with breasts scores (P = 0.003) compared with the SBR group. The PMRT-TE group had higher satisfaction with breasts (P = 0.001) but lower physical well-being (P = 0.029) scores compared with PMRT-PI group. Moreover, patients in SBR cohort had a higher risk of capsular contracture (Baker grade III or IV) (20.5% vs 6.3%) and implant dislocation (48.7% vs 12.5%) than patients in PBR cohort. Patients in PMRT-PI group had a slightly higher rate of capsular contracture (Baker grade III or IV) than PMRT-TE group (20.8% vs 12.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

PBR was associated with lower rates of late complications, especially for implant dislocation, and higher satisfaction with breasts scores compared to SBR. In addition, compared to PMRT-TE with PMRT-PI, patients in PMRT-TE cohort reported superior PROs of satisfaction with breasts.

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol Decreases Length of Stay and Postoperative Narcotic Use in Tissue Expander-based Breast Reconstruction

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have demonstrated success in reducing hospital stay and opioid consumption, but are less well studied in patients undergoing tissue expander-based breast reconstruction (TEBR). This study evaluates the effectiveness of an ERAS postoperative protocol for TEBR at a high-volume center.

Methods

All patients undergoing immediate tissue expander reconstruction after the introduction of ERAS were prospectively included from April 2019 to June 2023. An equivalent number of similar patients were retrospectively reviewed before this date as the non-ERAS control. Data included demographics, operative details, postoperative length of stay, inpatient and discharge narcotic quantities, inpatient pain assessments, postoperative radiation, and complications within 90 days.

Results

There were 201 patients in each cohort with statistically similar demographics. Patients in the ERAS cohort were more likely to undergo prepectoral reconstruction (83.1% versus 4.5%, P < 0.001), be discharged by day 1 (96.5% versus 70.2%, P < 0.001) and consume lower inpatient milligram morphine equivalent (MME) median (79.8 versus 151.8, P < 0.001). Seroma rates (17.4% versus 3.5%, P < 0.001) and hematoma incidence (4.5% versus 0%, P = 0.004) were higher in the ERAS cohort. Adjusting for implant location, ERAS was associated with a 60.7 MME reduction (β=-60.7, P < 0.001) and a shorter inpatient duration by 0.4 days (β =-0.4, P < 0.001). Additionally, prepectoral reconstruction significantly decreased MME (β=-30.9, P = 0.015) and was the sole predictor of seroma development (odds ratio = 5.2, P = 0.009).

Conclusions

ERAS protocols significantly reduce opioid use and hospital stay after TEBR.

Prospective Clinical Trial for Predicting Mastectomy Skin Flap Necrosis with Indocyanine Green Angiography in Implant-Based Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Indocyanine green angiography (ICG-A) is a useful tool for evaluating mastectomy skin flap (MSF) perfusion during breast reconstruction. However, a standardized protocol for interpreting and applying MSF perfusion after mastectomy has not been established yet. The purpose of this study is to establish criteria for assessing MSF perfusion in immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction while correlating ICG-A findings with postoperative outcomes METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted at a single institution and involved patients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction between August 2021 and August 2023. The terms "hypoperfused flap" and "hypoperfused area" were defined according to ICG-A perfusion. MSF exhibited < 30% perfusion, excluding the nipple and the corresponding region, respectively. Data on the hypoperfused flap, hypoperfused area, and MSF necrosis were collected.

RESULTS

Fifty-three breast cases were analyzed. Eight patients developed MSF necrosis (15.1%, 8/53). Of these, two patients underwent surgical debridement and revision within 3 months (3.8%, 2/53). There were nine cases of a hypoperfused flap, eight of which developed MSF necrosis. The hypoperfused flap was a significant predictor of the occurrence of MSF necrosis (p < 0.001). There was a tendency for increased full-thickness necrosis with a wider hypoperfused area.

CONCLUSIONS

The hypoperfused flap enabled the prediction of MSF necrosis with high sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Considering the presumed correlation between the extent of the hypoperfused area and the need for revision surgery, caution should be exercised when making intraoperative decisions regarding the reconstruction method.

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 .

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.

Outcomes After Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Following the National Institution of a Ban on Bacitracin Irrigation

BACKGROUND

The use of irrigation with bacitracin-containing solution is common among surgeons, as it was widely thought to have antibacterial properties and prevent postoperative infection. Current literature, however, suggests that antibiotic-containing irrigation confers little added benefit. On January 31, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration instituted a ban on bacitracin-containing irrigation for operative use. This study aimed to determine whether bacitracin has a beneficial effect on postoperative infection rates by analyzing infection rates before and after the Food and Drug Administration ban on bacitracin irrigation.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective chart review was conducted. Eligible patients underwent implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy from October 1, 2016, to July 31, 2022. Procedure date, reconstruction type, patient comorbidities, use of bacitracin irrigation, postoperative infection, and secondary outcomes were collected. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 188 female patients were included in the study. Bacitracin use did not protect against infection in univariate or multivariable analysis. Age greater than 50 years was associated with an increased risk of postoperative infection ( P = 0.0366). The presence of comorbidities, smoker status, neoadjuvant therapy treatment before surgery, implant placement, and laterality were all not significantly associated with postoperative infection development.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate a lack of association between bacitracin use and postoperative infection. Additional research into the optimal antibiotic for perioperative irrigation is needed, as bacitracin is not encouraged for use.

Complication Profiles of Smooth vs Textured Tissue Expanders in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma first linked with breast implants in 2011. The correlation between BIA-ALCL and textured devices has led to increased use of smooth devices. However, much of the data surrounding smooth and textured devices investigates breast implants specifically and not tissue expanders.

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to compare surgical outcomes for smooth tissue expanders (STEs) and textured tissue expanders (TTEs).

METHODS

A search was performed on PubMed, including articles from 2016 to 2023 (n = 419). Studies comparing TTEs and STEs and reported complications were included. A random-effects model was utilized for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 5 articles met inclusion criteria, representing 1709 patients in the STE cohort and 1716 patients in the TTE cohort. The mean duration of tissue expansion with STEs was 221.25 days, while TTEs had a mean time of tissue expansion of 220.43 days.Our meta-analysis found no differences in all surgical outcomes except for explantation risk. STE use was associated with increased odds of explantation by over 50% compared to TTE use (odds ratio = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.02; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, STEs and TTEs had similar complication profiles. However, STEs had 1.5 times higher odds of explantation. The incidence of BIA-ALCL is low, and only a single case of BIA-ALCL has been reported with TTEs. This indicates that TTEs are safe and may lower the risk of early complications requiring explantation. Further studies are warranted to further define the relationship between tissue expanders and BIA-ALCL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

The early postoperative effects of rinsing the breast pocket with tranexamic acid in prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) has been reported in breast surgery; however, its application and duration have varied across studies. This study aimed to assess the early postoperative outcomes of rinsing the breast pocket with TXA during prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction using an acellular dermal matrix (ADM).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted in consecutive patients who underwent immediate prosthetic prepectoral reconstruction between August 2021 and December 2022. For cases performed during the earlier part of the study period (up to April 2022), TXA was not administered (non-TXA group), whereas those performed after April 2022 received topical TXA application during surgery (TXA group). Postoperative outcomes including hematoma, seroma, drainage volume, and drain maintenance duration were compared between the two groups using propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 674 breasts were analyzed; 280 in the TXA group and 394 were in the non-TXA group. There were 251 breasts in each group after PSM, and their characteristics were similar. The incidence of hematoma in the first 24 hours and total drain output were significantly lower in the TXA group than the non-TXA group. In cases of direct-to-implant cases, the TXA group showed a significantly lower seroma rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Rinsing the breast pocket with TXA can potentially reduce the occurrence of hematoma and decrease drain output in prepectoral ADM-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction. Moreover, this approach may be beneficial in lowering the incidence of seroma in direct-to-implant reconstruction.

Current status prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction in the USA

Breast cancer remains the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States. In the setting of a mastectomy, implant-based reconstruction (IBR) remains the most common type of breast reconstruction performed. IBR is typically performed in two-stages (tissue expander - implant) or one stage [direct-to-implant (DTI)]. As a consequence of the limitations associated with submuscular placement of implants, prepectoral implant placement has been gaining more acceptance worldwide. The prepectoral plane eliminates the need for chest wall muscle dissection, disinsertion and manipulation avoiding the muscle related complications of the subpectoral approach such as increased pain, spasm and animation deformity. In addition, prepectoral placement shortens the recovery time and provides greater control of breast shape and contour. With the latest generation form-stable silicone implants coupled with the wide use and acceptance of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and other meshes to support the implant, this technique is becoming the mainstay of implant-based reconstruction, under these circumstances the subpectoral technique will continue to be the benchmark to which the prepectoral technique will be compared to. The authors sought to review the literature emanating from North America that pertains to this topic and provide an up-to-date assessment of the current practices of the prepectoral and submuscular technique.

Prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: U.S. medical center experience and narrative review

Background and Objective

With the incorporation of autologous fat grafting, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) products, and nipple-sparing mastectomy, prepectoral device placement has become more popular in selected patients when compared to partial submuscular (dual plane) or complete submuscular device placement. In this article, we aimed to present a review of the current state-of-the-art for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) using expanders. Additionally, we present a case series of our experience with IBBR evaluating perioperative outcomes, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO).

Methods

For our series, we retrospectively evaluated adult female patients undergoing 2-stage immediate IBBR after total mastectomy between 2011 and 2021. We performed a systematic search across PubMed MEDLINE for articles evaluating outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage IBBR with expanders published from database inception through February 28th, 2023.

Key Content and Findings

Both prepectoral and subpectoral are safe alternatives for two-stage IBBR. Due to current advancements in the field of breast reconstruction, prepectoral IBBR has gained popularity and has a comparable rate of complications compared to a subpectoral approach in selected patients according to high-quality articles. In patients with several comorbidities, current tobacco use, history of preoperative radiation, and limited perfusion of the mastectomy flaps, subpectoral device placement should be given special consideration as a layer of vascularized tissue can decrease the risk of major complications or unplanned procedures. As prepectoral device placement does not require dissection of the pectoral muscles, faster recovery, better implant position, decreased pain, and a shorter time to complete expansion is expected. The plane of reconstruction does not seem to significantly affect the time for expander-to-implant exchange or PRO for quality-of-life (QOL) according to most studies.

Conclusions

Prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR demonstrated a comparable rate of complications in selected patients. Nonetheless, perioperative outcomes seem to be improved using a prepectoral approach in terms of reduced pain, reduced time to conclude outpatient expansions, and less animation deformity.

Patient-reported outcomes: A primer for plastic surgeons

Surgical care today is no longer evaluated only on clinical outcomes but also on holistic patient wellbeing. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a representation of the patient's perspective on their results and wellbeing. The aim of this review is to establish PROs as the center of healthcare and plastic surgery, to delineate important PROs in plastic surgery practice and research, to discuss the future of PROs within our discipline, and to encourage surgeons to incorporate PROs into their practice. PROs are an important parallel of clinical outcomes in that they can use the patient's perspective to 1) support clinical findings, 2) detect differences in care when there are no clear clinical differences, 3) track progress longitudinally, and 4) support systemic improvements in healthcare. Plastic surgery as a field is naturally aligned with PROs because, as a discipline, we focus on patient form and function. The emerging forefronts of plastic surgery such as lymphedema care, gender-affirming care, peripheral nerve surgery, migraine surgery, and breast implant illness are critically dependent on PROs. In the next decade, we predict that there will be a continued proliferation of robust PRO measures and integration into healthcare delivery. Outcomes research in surgery should continue to evolve as surgeons provide increasingly more benefits to improve patient wellbeing. Plastic surgeons must continue to play a prominent role in the future of PROs.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Trends and issues in clinical research on satisfaction and quality of life after mastectomy and breast reconstruction: a 5-year scoping review

Breast reconstruction (BR) aims to improve the satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) of breast cancer survivors. Clinical studies using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can therefore provide relevant information to the patients and support decision-making. This scoping review was conducted to analyze recent trends in world regions, methods used, and factors investigated. The literature search was conducted in August 2022. Databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched for relevant English-language studies published from 2017 to 2022. Studies involving women with breast cancer who underwent BR after mastectomy and investigated PROs after BR using BR-specific scales were included. Data on the country, publication year, study design, PRO measures (PROMs) used, time points of surveys, and research themes were collected. In total, 147 articles met the inclusion criteria. BREAST-Q was the most widely used, contributing to the increase in the number and diversification of studies in this area. Such research has been conducted mainly in North America and Europe and is still developing in Asia and other regions. The research themes involved a wide range of clinical and patient factors in addition to surgery, which could be influenced by research methods, time since surgery, and even cultural differences. Recent BR-specific PROMs have led to a worldwide development of research on factors that affect satisfaction and QOL after BR. PRO after BR may be influenced by local cultural and social features, and it would be necessary to accumulate data in each region to draw clinically useful conclusion.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

The 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.

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

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