Does 2-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Allow for a Larger Volume of the Definite Implant Compared With 1-Stage Reconstruction?

Safety of Augmenting Breast Volume in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction With Contralateral Breast Augmentation: Comparison With 2-Stage Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a standard method of implant-based reconstruction; however, the risk of skin necrosis and implant failure exists. During simultaneous contralateral augmentation, an implant larger than the resected tissue must be inserted to balance both sides, which may increase the risk of complications. This study examined the differences in the incidence of complications between the single-stage direct-to-implant reconstruction and 2-stage reconstruction when contralateral augmentation was performed simultaneously.

METHODS

This study included 99 patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction with contralateral augmentation between 2012 and 2020. A retrospective chart review was conducted and the patients were divided into 2 groups: the single-stage reconstruction (n = 61) and 2-stage reconstruction (TSR, n = 38) groups. Demographic data and surgical and oncological information were collected. Complications including skin necrosis and reconstruction failure were investigated as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Implant volume and contralateral implant volume were significantly greater in TSR group than in the single-stage reconstruction group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications and reconstruction failure rates between both groups. The nipple-sparing mastectomy was the risk factor for complications. Furthermore, the risk factors for mastectomy skin necrosis were implant volume and differences in the volume of both implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-stage reconstruction did not increase the risk of complications compared with TSR when implants that were larger than the resected tissue were inserted after mastectomy. Proper patient selection and selection of implants that are not excessively large could satisfy patients' cosmetic needs in a single operation.

Initial Assessment of VECTRA Three-Dimensional Imaging to Accurately Simulate Breast Volume Changes in Transfeminine Patients: A Mannequin Study

BACKGROUND

Methods that aim to accurately measure and predict breast development can be utilized in gender-affirming treatment planning, patient education, and research.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to evaluate whether three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry accurately measures transfeminine breast volume changes on a masculine frame when simulating anticipated changes in soft tissue after gender-affirming surgical therapy. Then, we describe the innovative application of this imaging modality in a transgender patient to illustrate the potential role of 3D imaging in gender-affirming surgical care.

METHODS

A 3D VECTRA scanner (Canfield, Fairfield, NJ) was used to measure anthropometric breast measurements. Postoperative changes in breast volume were simulated on a cardiopulmonary resuscitation mannequin using 450 cc MENTOR breast implants (Mentor Worldwide LLC, Irvine, CA). To demonstrate the ability of the VECTRA to accurately simulate transfeminizing augmentation in practice, we describe its use in a 30-year-old transgender female with a 2-year history of gender-affirming hormone therapy, presenting for gender-affirming surgical care.

RESULTS

In the mannequin, mean breast volumes were 382 cc on the right (range 375-388 cc), and 360 cc on the left (range 351-366 cc). The average calculated difference in volume between the 2 sides was 22 cc (range 17-31 cc). There were no instances where the left side was calculated to be larger than the right or where the calculated size was smaller than the actual implant size.

CONCLUSIONS

The VECTRA 3D camera is a reliable and reproducible tool for preoperative assessment, surgical planning, and simulating breast volume changes after gender-affirming surgery.

Best Practices for BREAST-Q Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology

BACKGROUND

Data heterogeneity and methodologic errors hinder the ability to draw clinically meaningful conclusions from studies using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module patient-reported outcome measure. In this systematic review, the authors evaluate the quality of BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module administration in relation to the BREAST-Q version 2.0 user's guide and the reporting of key methodology characteristics. The authors also describe a framework for improving the quality of BREAST-Q data analysis and reporting.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Ovid HAPI databases to identify articles on the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module to assess postmastectomy breast reconstruction outcomes. The authors registered the protocol before study implementation on Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/c5236 ) and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data on mode of BREAST-Q administration, time horizon justification, and sample size calculation were collected.

RESULTS

The authors included 185 studies in the analysis. Errors in BREAST-Q administration were identified in 36 studies (19.5 percent). Appropriate administration of the BREAST-Q could not be determined in 63 studies (34.1 percent) because of insufficient reporting. Time horizon for the primary outcome was reported in 71 studies (38.4 percent), with only 17 (9.2 percent) reporting a sample size calculation.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors identified important yet actionable shortcomings in the BREAST-Q literature. Researchers are encouraged to review the BREAST-Q user's guide in the study design phase to mitigate errors in patient-reported outcome measure administration and reporting for future trials using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module. Adhering to these guidelines will allow for greater clinical utility and generalizability of BREAST-Q research.

Biological Matrix-Assisted One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications

BACKGROUND

Biological matrix-assisted one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) could improve the inframammary fold to achieve good esthetic results. However, whether biological matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR yields better postoperative outcomes compared with two-stage IBBR remains unclear. We aimed to compare and analyze surgical complications and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire between biological matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR and traditional two-stage IBBR.

METHODS

From May 2015 to June 2019, eligible patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR or two-stage IBBR were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. PROs were measured with BREAST-Q version 2.0, which scored the health-related quality of life, satisfaction, and experience domains. Complications were divided into major complications (patients requiring reoperation) and minor complications (patients who could be treated in the dressing room). PROs and complications were compared between the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR and two-stage IBBR groups. A multivariate linear regression analysis was used to identify the social and surgical factors that affected PROs.

RESULTS

At our institution, 124 eligible patients were recruited. Seventy-nine patients (63.7%) underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR reconstruction, and 45 patients (36.3%) underwent tissue expander/implant reconstruction (two-stage IBBR). Postoperative BREAST-Q version 2.0 was completed by 68 of 79 patients (86.1%) in the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR group and by 35 of 45 patients (77.8%) in the two-stage IBBR group. In the satisfaction-related quality of life domain, satisfaction with breast was 9.27 points higher in the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR group (p = 0.012) compared with the two-stage IBBR group. The multivariate linear regression analysis showed that implant volume (p = 0.031) and postoperative radiotherapy (p = 0.036) significantly influenced the PRO of satisfaction with breast. However, patients in the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR group had a higher minor complication rate compared with patients in the two-stage IBBR group (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective study showed that although patients treated with biological matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR tended to have higher postoperative complication rates, this technique correlated with better PROs compared with two-stage IBBR.

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 .