The P1 Method: Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction to Minimize the Palpable Implant Edge and Upper Pole Rippling

Prepectoral versus Submuscular Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Comparison of Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common reconstructive approach after mastectomy. Prepectoral implants offer advantages over submuscular implants, such as less animation deformity, pain, weakness, and postradiation capsular contracture. However, clinical outcomes after prepectoral reconstruction are debated. The authors performed a matched-cohort analysis of outcomes after prepectoral and submuscular reconstruction at a large academic medical center.

METHODS

Patients treated with implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy from January of 2018 through October of 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were propensity score exact matched to control demographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative differences. Outcomes assessed included surgical-site occurrences, capsular contracture, and explantation of either expander or implant. Subanalysis was done on infections and secondary reconstructions.

RESULTS

A total of 634 breasts were included (prepectoral, 197; submuscular, 437). A total of 292 breasts were matched (146 prepectoral:146 submuscular) and analyzed for clinical outcomes. Prepectoral reconstructions were associated with greater rates of SSI (prepectoral, 15.8%; submuscular, 3.4%; P < 0.001), seroma (prepectoral, 26.0%; submuscular, 10.3%; P < 0.001), and explantation (prepectoral, 23.3%; submuscular, 4.8%; P < 0.001). Subanalysis of infections revealed that prepectoral implants have shorter time to infection, deeper infections, and more Gram-negative infections, and are more often treated surgically (all P < 0.05). There have been no failures of secondary reconstructions after explantation in the entire population at a mean follow-up of 20.1 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is associated with higher rates of infection, seroma, and explantation compared with submuscular reconstructions. Infections of prepectoral implants may need different antibiotic management to avoid explantation. Secondary reconstruction after explantation can result in long-term success.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

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 .

Early Seroma Treatment Protocol Based on US-Guided Aspiration in DTI Prepectoral Reconstruction: A Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Seroma is a common complication after prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction with ADM, leading to wound dehiscencse, infection, and even loss of reconstruction at last. A new ultrasound (US) guided follow-up protocol has been applied to compare primary and secondary complications incidence and their treatment, and evaluate the effect of precocious seroma detection and its evacuation in reducing secondary complications.

METHODS

We enrolled 406 patients from January 1st, 2021 to July 1st, 2023 who underwent mastectomy and 1-stage prepectoral reconstruction with ADM. Experimental group counted 96 patients, whom have been treated as protocol fashion, therefore with multiple US-guided evaluations and eventual evacuations along with postoperative period; control group (310 patients) has exclusively been clinically evaluated.

RESULTS

Seroma incidence detected rate among experimental group, after 1-year follow-up, was 32.2%, compared to 16.8% in control cohort, additionally no other secondary complications were detected in the first group. Referring to the wound dehiscence incidence, a statistically significant higher frequency was observed in control group compared with treatment 1 (21.2% vs. 0%; P = .0027).

CONCLUSIONS

Seroma and correlated secondary complications may lead to additional surgeries, higher sanitary costs and even reconstructive failure. With a seriated US follow-up protocol application, the surgeon could promptly manage and treat seroma, decreasing additional complications rate, particularly wound dehiscence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Immediate post-mastectomy prepectoral breast reconstruction with animal derived acellular dermal matrices: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Animal-derived acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are increasingly being used in prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction. However, the indications and complication profile associated with this type of reconstruction remain unclear. This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the available literature on the use of animal-derived ADM in prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Three different literature databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Embase were screened using the following keywords: "immediate" AND "pre-pectoral" OR "prepectoral" AND "ADM breast reconstruction." Animal-derived ADM used (porcine - Braxon® and non-Braxon® - and bovine - Surgimend®) anthropometric information, clinical data, and complications profile were considered.

RESULTS

A total of 340 articles were initially identified, of which only 45 articles (5089 patients and 6598 reconstructed breasts) satisfied our inclusion criteria. The most widely used ADM was Braxon® in the context of conservative mastectomies. In most studies, a subcutaneous layer > 1 cm and lack of previous radiotherapy were considered prerequisites for this type of reconstruction. An increased risk of complications was found in smokers, patients who underwent radiation treatment, patients with high breast volumes, and patients with cancers requiring axillary dissection. Data related to the role of diabetes, high body mass index, and breast implant size on surgical outcomes were instead inconcludent. Age was not directly proportional to the complications.

CONCLUSION

The complications associated with different animal-derived ADMs are generally comparable. The profile of patients required for eligibility for this type of reconstruction appears to have been identified and is in line with current recommendations.

Associated Factors and Prevention of Upper Pole Rippling in Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

Background  Despite its many advantages, prepectoral breast reconstruction also carries the risk of implant rippling. The recent introduction of partial superior implant coverage using a pectoralis muscle slip in prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction has shown the potential to minimize upper pole rippling. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with rippling and the effectiveness of our surgical technique. Methods  In total, 156 patients (186 breasts) who underwent prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction between August 2019 and March 2021 were identified retrospectively. Patient data were analyzed from medical records. Univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were performed to contextualize the risks associated with rippling deformity relative to demographic characteristics and other clinical factors. Retrospective propensity-matched analysis was performed to identify the relationship between rippling deformity and the reconstruction method. Results  Patients with body mass index (BMI; odds ratio [OR], 0.736; p  < 0.001), those with a postoperative chemotherapy history (OR, 0.324; p  = 0.027) and those who received breast reconstruction via the superior coverage technique (OR, 0.2; p  = 0.004), were less likely to develop rippling deformity. The median follow-up period was 64.9 weeks, and there were no significant differences between patients in types of mastectomy, implant, or acellular dermal matrix. Patients who underwent superior coverage technique-based reconstruction showed significantly reduced rippling (OR, 0.083; p  = 0.017) Conclusion  Patients with higher BMI and prior postoperative chemotherapy were less likely to develop rippling deformity. The superior coverage technique can be effective in minimizing upper pole rippling.

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.

Difference in the outcomes of anterior tenting and wrapping techniques for acellular dermal matrix coverage in prepectoral breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) play an essential role in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions; however, the most appropriate method for ADMs is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of our institutional database. Patients who underwent mastectomy and prepectoral breast reconstruction using tissue expanders or breast implants covered with ADMs between March 2018 and June 2021 were included. Patient characteristics, postoperative complications, and long-term outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

In total, 112 patients (126 breasts) were included. The anterior tenting and wrapping techniques were used in the reconstruction of 32 (25.3%) and 94 (74.7%) breasts, respectively. Using propensity score matching, nine breasts were selected for each technique within the direct-to-implant reconstruction group, while 16 breasts were selected for each technique within the 2-stage reconstruction group. The choice of technique (anterior vs. wrapping) in implementing ADM did not generate any significant differences in postoperative complications, including seroma formation and capsular contracture, for the direct-to-implant and 2-stage reconstruction groups. Regarding the direct-to-implant reconstruction group, the average postoperative drain volume was less in the anterior tenting group than that in the wrapping group (anterior tenting vs. wrapping; 495.09 ± 156.118 mL vs. 673.43 ± 307.954 mL, p = 0.006), but the difference was insignificant after propensity score matching.

CONCLUSION

We report our experience with covering prosthetic devices with ADMs during postmastectomy breast reconstruction. No differences in the postoperative drain volume or postoperative outcomes were found between the study groups. Future studies are needed to determine the method that provides the most satisfactory results.

Diversity of interpretations of the concept "patient-centered care for breast cancer patients"; a scoping review of current literature

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Patient-centered care is considered a vital component of good quality care for breast cancer patients. Nevertheless, the implementation of this valuable concept in clinical practice appears to be difficult. The goal of this study is to bridge the gap between theoretical elaboration of "patient-centered care" and clinical practice. To that purpose, a scoping analysis was performed of the application of the term "patient-centered care in breast cancer treatment" in present-day literature.

METHOD

For data-extraction, a literature search was performed extracting references that were published in 2018 and included the terms "patient-centered care" and "breast cancer". The articles were systematically traced for answers to the following three questions: "What is patient-centered care?", "Why perform patient-centered care?", and "How to realize patient-centered care?". For the content analysis, these answers were coded and assembled into meaningful clusters until separate themes arose which concur with various interpretations of the term "patient-centered care".

RESULTS

A total of 60 publications were retained for analysis. Traced answers to the three questions "what", "why", and "how" varied considerably in recent literature concerning breast cancer treatment. Despite the inconsistent use of the term "patient-centered care," we did not find any critical consideration about the nature of the concept, regardless of the applied interpretation. Interventions that are supposed to contribute to the heterogeneous concept of patient-centered care as such, seem to be judged desirable, virtually without empirical justification.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose, contrary to previous efforts to define "patient-centered care" more accurately, to embrace the heterogeneity of the concept and apply "patient-centered care" as an umbrella-term for all healthcare that intends to contribute to the acknowledgement of the person in the patient. For the justification of measures to realize patient-centered care for breast cancer patients, instead of a mere contribution to the abstract concept, we insist on the demonstration of desirable real-world effects.

"Tear-Drop Appearance" Wrap: A Novel Implant Coverage Method for Creating Natural Contour in Prepectoral Prosthetic-Based Breast Reconstruction

Various implant wrapping methods with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) have been introduced, but most focus on random trimming and suturing aimed to maximize implant coverage. Here we present our clinical experience using a “tear-drop appearance” wrapping method to achieve natural contours through upper pole volume replacement. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 56 consecutive cases of prepectoral prosthetic-based breast reconstruction (PPBR) using this wrapping method following nipple-sparing mastectomy between March 2020 and June 2021. The “tear-drop appearance” wrapping design creates an anatomical tear-drop–shaped pocket to encourage lower pole fullness and create a natural contour through upper pole volume replacement by ADM. Patients’ baseline characteristics, operative data, and complications were analyzed. Aesthetic outcomes were measured using the BREAST-Q and Aesthetic Item Scale (AIS). A successful reconstruction was achieved without major complications and using a single ADM sheet. Four types and three sizes of ADMs were used. The mean resected breast tissue weight was 274.3 g, while the mean implant volume was 230.0 cc. The average BREAST-Q and AIS scores were 4.6 ± 0.8 and 4.5 ± 0.7, respectively. Owing to its simplicity, reproducibility, and effectivity, this method is an excellent implant coverage option that achieves a natural contour in PPBR.

Hybrid Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant and Autologous Fat Graft Simultaneously in Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Single Surgeon's Experience with 25 Breasts in 15 Consecutive Cases

BACKGROUND

The direct-to-implant method depends on the quality of the mastectomy flaps and can be used only when the flaps are adequately perfused. Even though the method was designed to be a definitive reconstruction procedure, it has been associated with an increased likelihood that additional operative revision will be required in order to achieve the expected final cosmetic outcome. The authors describe a hybrid prepectoral direct-to-implant method that combines autologous fat grafting in the superior medial pole with immediate reconstruction.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 15 patients (25 reconstructed breasts) underwent simultaneous hybrid prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction together with autologous fat grafting performed by a single senior plastic surgeon (Y.G).

RESULTS

The mean quantity of autologous fat grafted in the superior medial aspect of the breast was 59.4 ± 12.8 cc. The mean total volume of the hybrid reconstructed breast, including implant and autologous fat graft, was 497.2 ± 89.1 cc. Satisfying final outcomes were achieved in all cases. There were no major complications, although minor complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' hybrid approach allows the surgeon to achieve a more satisfying outcome with regard to the cleavage area. It results in a better natural appearance, an improved contour, and reduced upper pole rippling and deflation, with a lower likelihood that an additional operative revision will be required to achieve the desired final aesthetic outcome. The authors believe that their hybrid approach should be implemented as an integral part of the direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction procedure.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Assessing Postsurgical Outcomes with Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Literature Review and Meta-analysis Update

Background:

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is an alternative to subpectoral/dual-plane reconstruction.

Methods:

This study examined outcomes of prepectoral reconstruction using a meta-analysis of data pooled with data from our previous review. Thirty studies were included.

Results:

Explantation, seroma, and infection were the most common complications with no animation deformity reported. Significantly lower odds of infection were observed with prepectoral compared with dual-plane reconstruction.

Conclusions:

Current literature suggests that prepectoral reconstruction may be associated with lower rates of postsurgical infections.

Radiation-Induced Tissue Damage: Clinical Consequences and Current Treatment Options

Radiation therapy is a valuable tool in the treatment of numerous malignancies but, in certain cases, can also causes significant acute and chronic damage to noncancerous neighboring tissues. This review focuses on the pathophysiology of radiation-induced damage and the clinical implications it has for plastic surgeons across breast reconstruction, osteoradionecrosis, radiation-induced skin cancers, and wound healing. The current understanding of treatment modalities presented here include hyperbaric oxygen therapy, autologous fat grafting and stem cells, and pharmaceutical agents.

Robot-assisted breast reconstruction using the prepectoral anterior tenting method

PURPOSE

Prosthetic breast reconstruction in the prepectoral plane with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) support has been gaining popularity and the use of robotic assistance could enhance this procedure. This study introduces robot-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction using the anterior tenting method.

METHODS

Sixteen patients (16 breasts) undergoing surgery from July 2019 to April 2020 were included in this study. The breast oncology team performed mastectomies with direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using the da Vinci Xi^TM (Intuitive Surgical Corp., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) system. The prepectoral plane anterior tenting method using ADM was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 16 patients, 14 underwent a nipple-sparing mastectomy and two underwent a skin-sparing mastectomy. The average patient age was 44.9 years, body mass index (BMI) was 22.9 kg/m², and mastectomy weight was 367.6 g. The breast oncology team had an average operating time of 194.7 minutes, and the plastic surgery team had an average operating time of 80.8 minutes. The average postoperative drainage was 943.6 mL, and minor complications occurred in two patients.

CONCLUSION

With the robot, only a small incision of approximately 4.5 cm is necessary and areas that are not readily visible, such as the side of the axilla, can be accessed during the surgery. Using a smaller ADM size, the implant pocket under the ADM can be easily created under a magnified view. Inframammary fold (IMF) restoration is also possible with robotic surgery and delayed bleeding from the pocket can be easily controlled.

Pre-pectoral one-stage breast reconstruction with anterior biological acellular dermal matrix coverage

Background

Pre-pectoral implant breast reconstruction (IBR) is gaining popularity. Several techniques using different types of meshes and methods of placement have been described, but no method is currently considered standard. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of pre-pectoral IBR using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for anterior implant cover.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent pre-pectoral IBR between November 2016 to August 2018. Data on demographics, adjuvant therapies and operative technique was collected. Postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and secondary cosmetic procedures were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics, non-parametric tests and logistic regression.

Results

One hundred and eleven pre-pectoral IBR were performed in 65 patients. Median age was 41 [interquartile range (IQR), 35-51.5] years, and BMI 22 (IQR, 20.4-24.4) kg/m². Therapeutic mastectomy was performed in 33 procedures with nipples preservation in 78 cases. The median mastectomy weight and implant volume was 360 (IQR, 220-533) gr, and 445 (IQR, 400-475) cc respectively. At a median follow-up of 18 (IQR, 12-22.5) months, 37 mastectomies had at least 1 complication, but only 12 required surgery. The implant loss rate was 4.5% (5 cases). Lipofilling as secondary procedure was performed in 10.8% of cases. Factors associated with post-operative complications on univariate analysis were nipple preservation (P=0.028), BMI (P=0.01) and implant volume (P=0.027) but these did not remain significant on multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

Pre-pectoral IBR using ADM for anterior implant cover is associated with low complication and reconstructive failure rate. Patient selection and meticulous surgical technique are important for successful outcome.

Dual-Plane Retro-pectoral Versus Pre-pectoral DTI Breast Reconstruction: An Italian Multicenter Experience

Background

The use of conservative mastectomies has risen significantly during the last few years. The reconstructive choice of direct-to-implant reconstruction has become more practicable with modern mastectomy techniques. The initial trend in Italian centers was to use dual-plane hybrid reconstruction. However, a high level of complications has been registered. From 2015 onward, in our centers, a pre-pectoral approach has been adopted. The authors sought to describe the Italian trend to gradually discard the sub-pectoral technique with lower lateral pole coverage of the prosthesis using ADMs comparing it with the pre-pectoral approach with ADMs, without any muscle dissection, in terms of complication rates.

Materials and Methods

A multicenter retrospective clinical study was performed from January 2010 to June 2018. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: Cases with an ADM-only coverage pre-pectoral reconstruction made up the first group (Group 1). Those with the retro-pectoral muscular position + ADM implant coverage comprised the second one (Group 2). Complications such as seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, surgical site infection, reconstruction failure, animation deformity and capsular contracture were recorded.

Results

We performed 716 direct-to-implant reconstructions: 509 were partially sub-pectoral and 207 were pre-pectoral. Minimum follow-up was 1 year. Incidence of complications was higher in dual-plane reconstructions. There were statistical significant differences in the rates of seroma and hematoma.

Conclusion

Using the pre-pectoral approach, the authors have experienced favorable aesthetics and superior clinical and functional outcomes. Retro-pectoral muscular ADM implant coverage has to be considered only in specific complicated second-stage surgeries.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00266-020-01892-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Decreased postoperative pain and opioid use following prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective cohort study: Pain after pre- versus subpectoral reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral (PP) breast reconstruction is now commonly performed and minimizes dissection of the pectoralis major muscle. Data are lacking comparing the immediate postoperative recovery of these patients as compared with traditional subpectoral (SP) breast reconstruction.

METHODS

From December 2015 to February 2017, 73 patients underwent PP prosthetic-based reconstruction at a single academic institution. PP cases were matched 1:1, by age and stage, to patients undergoing traditional SP reconstruction. Analysis of postoperative pain (visual analog scale) and opioid use (oral morphine equivalents, OME), was performed with both bi- and multivariate analyses. Additional outcomes explored included length of stay (LOS) and reconstructive intervention by plane of prosthetic reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 146 patients were included in the final cohort. PP reconstruction was associated with higher rates of direct-to-implant reconstruction (84.9% vs. 34.3%, p <0.001) and higher rates of initial prosthetic fill (401.53 mL vs. 280.88 mL, p<0.001). Patients undergoing PP reconstruction had significantly reduced postoperative pain (4.29 vs. 5.44, p<0.001) and in-hospital opioid use (62.63 mg OME vs. 98.84 mg OME, p = 0.03) compared with SP patients. This result remained in multivariate analysis for both pain (3.94 vs. 5.25, p<0.001) and opioid use (17.14 mg OME vs. 63.03 mg OME, p = 0.03). Additionally, patients undergoing PP reconstruction had significantly reduced overall LOS on multivariate analysis (21.36 vs. 26.28 h, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Following mastectomy, PP breast reconstruction results in significantly reduced pain, opioid use, and hospital LOS compared with SP reconstruction.

Acute Postoperative Complications in Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Reconstruction following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is associated with improved aesthetics and oncologic safety. Recently, there has been a resurgence in prepectoral reconstruction. Because of limited data comparing complication rates on patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction, this study compared 30-day postoperative complications by plane of prosthetic placement.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on all consecutive patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction with either prepectoral or subpectoral placement from 2014 to 2018. The primary outcome was a composite, acute 30-day postoperative complication, including nipple-areola complex necrosis, mastectomy flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, hematoma, and seroma. Secondary outcomes included nipple loss and rates of unintended reoperations. Univariate and mixed effects multivariate logistic regression were used to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 228 patients and 405 breasts were included in the final cohort, with 202 in the subpectoral cohort and 203 in the prepectoral cohort. The overall complication rate was 7.65 percent, with no significant difference between subpectoral and prepectoral cohorts (9.41 percent versus 5.91 percent, respectively; p = 0.148). Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly reduced ischemic complications, including nipple loss because of necrosis (2.97 percent versus 0.49 percent, respectively; p = 0.015) and mastectomy flap necrosis (5.45 percent versus 0 percent; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in rates of infection, hematoma, seroma, or implant loss/exchange.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral reconstruction is associated with similar overall 30-day postoperative complications and reoperations compared to traditional subpectoral implants. However, prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly decreased ischemic complications, including mastectomy flap necrosis and nipple-areola complex loss because of necrosis.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Submuscular and Pre-Pectoral ADM Assisted Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Literature Review

Background and objectives: Breast cancer treatment has deeply changed in the last fifty years. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) were introduced for breast reconstruction, with encouraging results, but with conflicting reports too. The present paper aims to summarize the current data on breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the literature regarding the use of ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction. Results: The main techniques were analyzed and described. Conclusions: Several authors have recently reported positive results. Nevertheless, an increased complications' rate has been reported by other authors. Higher cost compared to not-ADM-assisted breast reconstruction is another concern.

Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Safety Outcome Endpoints and Delineation of Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

Continued evolution of implant-based breast reconstruction involves immediate placement of the implant above the pectoralis muscle. The shift to prepectoral breast reconstruction is driven by goals of decreasing morbidity such as breast animation deformity, range-of-motion problems, and pain, and is made possible by improvements in mastectomy skin flap viability. To define clinical factors to guide patient selection for direct-to-implant prepectoral implant reconstruction, this study compares safety endpoints and risk factors between prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction cohorts. The authors hypothesized that prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, performed by a team of five surgical oncologists and two plastic surgeons. Univariate analysis compared patient characteristics between cohorts. A penalized logistic regression model was constructed to identify relationships between postoperative complications and covariate risk factors.

RESULTS

A cohort of 114 prepectoral direct-to-implant patients was compared with 142 subpectoral direct-to-implant patients. The results of the penalized regression model demonstrated equivalence in safety metrics between prepectoral direct-to-implant and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, including seroma (p = 0.0883), cancer recurrence (p = 0.876), explantation (p = 0.992), capsular contracture (p = 0.158), mastectomy skin flap necrosis (p = 0.769), infection (p = 0.523), hematoma (p = 0.228), and revision (p = 0.122).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction. Given the low morbidity and elimination of animation deformity, prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction should be considered when the mastectomy skin flap is robust.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Single stage, direct to implant pre-pectoral breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Given the current trends in skin preservation during mastectomy, improved biofilm reduction algorithms, and advancements in tissue bioengineering and perfusion assessment, acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-reinforced single stage, direct to implant insertion in the pre-pectoral space has become a viable alternative to two-stage expander-based, sub-pectoral reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of their pre-pectoral cases evaluating outcomes for all single stage, direct to implant procedures. Outcomes reviewed included hematoma, seroma, infection, device loss or change, animation deformity and revisional procedures such as fat grafting. The anterior tenting surgical technique is also reviewed.

RESULTS

The authors have carried out 305 direct to implant pre-pectoral breast reconstructions using an anterior tenting technique with low complication rates and superior clinical and functional outcomes. The benefits of this technique include less patient discomfort, no need for postoperative expansion, virtually no subjective negative impact on upper extremity function and elimination of animation deformity. Longer-term follow-up demonstrates maintenance of the integrity and quality of the reconstructions over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors consider single stage, pre-pectoral direct to implant breast reconstruction to be a state-of-the-art breast reconstruction technique and have found it to be safe and reproducible. This technique is their primary choice for immediate implant-based reconstruction following mastectomy.

The Suture Tab Technique: Securing Implant Position in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Human acellular dermal matrix (ADM) can augment prepectoral prosthetic-based direct-to-implant breast reconstruction by providing an additional soft-tissue layer between breast implant and skin, as well as to reinforce the inframammary fold and breast pocket. Utilizing ADM in this way has helped reduce rates of implant rippling, capsular contracture, and implant extrusion. Difficulty in securing ADM-wrapped implants has caused many surgeons to improvise techniques for secure implantation. Here, we describe a simple technique for creating suture tabs within the ADM for efficient fixation of the ADM-implant construct to the chest wall.

The "Butterfly" Wrap: A Simplified Technique for Consistent Prosthesis Coverage in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Here, we describe our simple, systematic, reproducible, and effective method for prosthesis coverage in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Methods:

Our Butterfly Wrap is a simple technique, which provides prosthesis coverage with a single sheet of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in a reproducible and elegant manner. The wrap design creates an anatomic tear-shaped pocket to guide expansion and encourage lower pole fullness, without ADM folding or bunching for optimal incorporation and minimal overlap. Further, it minimizes waste, allowing for smaller sheets of ADM to be used per breast, and can easily be performed in minimal time on the back table while the mastectomies are being performed, as a means of minimizing cost.

Results:

Our technique can be applied to effectively cover all shapes and sizes of expanders and implants, both teardrop and round. As a result, the surgeon need only focus on the critical nuances of prosthesis-based prepectoral breast reconstruction, without the anxiety of how to wrap the prosthesis and what size of ADM to use.

Conclusions:

The Butterfly Wrap is a simple, systematic, reproducible, and effective method for prosthesis coverage in prepectoral reconstruction.