Direct-to-Implant as a Frontline Option for Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Study With 2-Stage Reconstruction

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.

Direct-to-Implant vs Tissue Expander Placement in Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction after mastectomy has gained increasing popularity. While concerns over ischemic complications related to tension on the mastectomy flap persist, newer techniques and technologies have enhanced safety of this technique.

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of DTI and 2-stage tissue expander (TE) reconstruction.

METHODS

A prospective cohort design was utilized to compare the incidence of reconstructive failure among patients undergoing DTI and TE reconstruction by unadjusted bivariate and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses. Secondary clinical outcomes of interest included specific complications requiring intervention (infection, seroma, hematoma, mastectomy flap necrosis, incisional dehiscence, device exposure) and time to final drain removal. Patient-reported outcomes on BREAST-Q were also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients (257 breasts) underwent DTI reconstruction and 222 patients (405 breasts) received TEs. DTI patients were significantly younger with lower BMIs; less diabetes, hypertension, and smoking; and smaller breast sizes; they also underwent more nipple-sparing mastectomies with prepectoral reconstructions. Rates of any complication (18% DTI vs 24% TE, P = .047), reconstructive failure (5.1% vs 12%, P = .004), and seroma (3.9% vs 11%, P < .001) were significantly lower in the DTI cohort on unadjusted analyses; however, there were no significant differences on adjusted regressions. Patient-reported satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being were more substantively improved with DTI reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral DTI reconstruction is a viable option for postmastectomy reconstruction in carefully selected patients, with no significant increase in reconstructive failure or other complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

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.

Examination of Outcome Disparities in Reports of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are mixed results in surgical complications regarding the usage of prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive synthesis of surgical complications between the subpectoral and prepectoral reconstructive method.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for literature published up until December 2022. Studies that compared subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction and reported at least one postoperative complication were included. The following 8 major outcomes were included: revision and reoperation, capsular contracture, explantation, seroma, hematoma, infection, skin necrosis, and animation deformity. Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare outcomes of the 2 techniques. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare whether practice differences in different countries may have an impact on outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were identified in our literature search. Two thousand three hundred sixty patients were included, representing a total of 3135 breasts. Our analysis demonstrated that prepectoral reconstruction had significantly lower odds of developing postoperative hematoma [odds ratio (OR), 0.62; P = 0.05], seroma (OR, 0.67; P = 0.01), infection (OR, 0.64; P = 0.03), revision and reoperation (OR, 0.44; P < 0.00001), and animation deformity (OR, 0.01; P < 0.00001), compared with the subpectoral method. Subgroup analysis showed that differences between 3 countries (United States, Korea, Italy) are low (all subgroup heterogeneity test P > 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

While both subpectoral and prepectoral are safe methods for breast reconstruction, the prepectoral technique may lead to lower odds of developing multiple major postoperative complications.

Outcomes of smooth round implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: Long-term follow-up results

The issue of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in 2019 has resulted in the discontinuation of textured breast implants and resumption in the use of smooth round implants. However, in the field of breast reconstruction, long-term follow-up data for direct-to-implant reconstruction using smooth round implants is insufficient. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of breast reconstruction using smooth round implants. This study included 185 patients (208 breasts) who underwent smooth round implant-based immediate breast reconstruction between 2007 and 2018. Their demographic information and surgical and oncological data were collected. Early (within 90 days) and late (after 90 days) complications, reoperations, implant maintenance, and the survival rate were analyzed to evaluate the long-term outcomes and identify the related factors. The mean follow-up period was 112.08 months. The most common early complications were skin necrosis (9.13%) and infection (3.85%). The factors influencing the development of early complications were the mastectomy specimen weight (237.14 ± 114.84 cc and 298.04 ± 141.53 cc for no complication and any complication, respectively; p = 0.0123) and implant volume (222.79 ± 77.76 cc and 264.48 ± 89.03 cc for no complication and any complication, respectively; p = 0.0082). The most common late complication was capsular contracture (13.46%). Approximately 91.35% of the implants were maintained during the follow-up period. The factors affecting the development of early complications and implant maintenance were the mastectomy specimen weight and implant volume. This study provides information on long-term follow-up results useful in cases where only smooth round implants are available, which can then serve as a basis for future related studies.

Loss to follow-up after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction

Loss to follow-up is inevitable in retrospective cohort studies, and patients are lost to follow-up after direct-to-implant reconstruction despite annual follow-up recommendation. We analyzed more than 500 patients to analyze the rate of loss to follow-up to plastic surgery and to investigate the factors affecting it. A retrospective review of patients who underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction between July 2008 and August 2016 was performed. Loss to follow-up to plastic surgery was defined as a difference of ≥24 months between the total and plastic surgery follow-up. The rate of loss to follow-up and associated factors including patients' demographics, surgery-related variables, oncological data, and early and late complications were analyzed. Of 631 patients who underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction, 551 patients continued visiting the hospital for breast cancer-related treatment. Of the 527 patients who were eligible for the study, 157 patients (29.8%) were lost to plastic surgery follow-up. Surgery-related variables, early complications, cancer stage, and adjuvant therapies were not significantly different. Younger age was significantly associated with loss to follow-up in univariate analysis. However, logistic regression revealed that a long total follow-up period, distant metastasis, and absence of late elective complications were significant factors contributing to follow-up loss. Late elective complications such as malposition, capsular contracture, and mastectomy flap thinning were more common in the follow-up group (48%) than in the loss to follow-up group (22%). Follow-up loss after direct-to-implant reconstruction was not associated with specific demographic or surgery-related variables, and postoperative courses significantly affected the loss to follow-up.

The Language of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: Can We Do Better?

The management of breast cancer has experienced tremendous changes in the last half-century. In today's multimodal approach to breast cancer, patients have the prospect of achieving a sense of normalcy after mastectomy thanks to advancements in oncology and breast reconstruction. Although the oncologic management of breast cancer has evolved over multiple centuries, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) has only been around since the 1960s. The last half century has seen the conception of multiple techniques, novel devices, and new possibilities in hopes of achieving outcomes that are similar to or even better than the patient's premorbid state. However, with all these changes, a new problem has arisen-inconsistencies in the literature on how IBBR is described. In this article, we will discuss potential sources of confusion in the IBBR literature and lexicon, highlighting specific terms that may have multiple meanings or interpretations depending on perspective, context, and/or intent. As a first step toward clarifying what we perceive as a muddied landscape, we propose a naming convention for IBBR that centers around four important variables especially pertinent to IBBR-the type of mastectomy performed, the timing of reconstruction, the type of device that is placed, and the pocket location for device placement. We believe that adoption of a more standardized, consistent, and descriptive lexicon for IBBR will help provide clearer communication and easier comparisons in the literature so that we may continue to deliver the best outcomes for our patients.

≠Risk of breast implant removal after one- versus two-stage breast reconstructive surgery

BACKGROUND

To date, both one- and two-stage techniques are used in immediate 'implant-based breast reconstruction' (IBBR) after mastectomy. Because it is still unknown what technique offers the best clinical outcomes, a multicenter retrospective study was conducted to compare both breast reconstruction techniques.

METHODS

All patients, who underwent a mastectomy followed by immediate one- or two-stage IBBR during 2010 - 2016 were included. Our primary outcome measure was explantation of the 'tissue expander' (TE) and/ or implants within 60 days after breast reconstruction. Secondary outcomes were overall complication rate and secondary corrections.

FINDINGS

Among a total of 383 women, TE/ implant explantation rate was higher in one-stage (19.9%) than in two-stage (11.3%) treated patients (p = 0.082). Overall complication rate (35.7% and 19.9% respectively, p = 0.008) and secondary corrections (29.8% and 20.3% respectively, p = 0.156) were also higher in one-stage compared to two-stage IBBR respectively. However, explantation (OR = 1.55; 95%CI = 0.67-3.58, p = 0.301) and complication (OR = 1.85; 95%CI = 0.92-3.37, p = 0.084) rates were comparable in one- and two-stage IBBR in our stratified multivariate logistic regression analyses, when controlling for history of smoking, nipple-sparing mastectomy, neoadjuvant radiation therapy, and removed breast tissue weight. A remarkable outcome in this study is that women treated with prophylactic surgery were more likely to have an explantation of the TE/ implant after a one-stage IBBR (OR = 4.49; 95%CI = 1.10-18.3, p = 0.037) than two-stage IBBR. In contrast, no association between type of IBBR and risk of TE/implants removal was found among women with a therapeutic mastectomy (OR = 0.82; 95%CI = 0.24-2.79, p =  = 0.74).

CONCLUSION

One- and two-stage IBBR showed a comparable explantation and complication rate in our retrospective study. In one-stage IBBR more secondary corrections were detected. In addition, women who have to decide on a prophylactic mastectomy should be aware of a significantly higher risk of explantation of their implant after one-stage IBBR.

A Critical Appraisal of Late Complications of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers improved aesthetics without compromising oncologic safety. Subpectoral breast reconstruction has long been standard practice, although prepectoral reconstruction has recently resurged in popularity. Due to this recent paradigm shift, studies comparing long-term outcomes by reconstructive plane are lacking.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive NSMs with implant-based reconstruction in either the prepectoral or subpectoral plane from 2014 to 2018. Patient demographics, implant specifications, and operative details were collected to evaluate primary outcomes of prosthetic failure and unplanned reoperations by reconstructive plane. Secondary outcomes included animation deformity, capsular contracture, rippling, plane change, and minor revisions, including fat grafting. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 405 NSMs were performed on 228 women (subpectoral = 202, prepectoral = 203), with a mean follow-up of 2.1 years (standard deviation 1.1). During the study period (2014-2018), a shift from subpectoral to predominantly prepectoral mastectomies occurred in 2017. Prepectoral reconstructions were more often direct-to-implant (DTI) compared with subpectoral (73.9% vs. 33.2%, p < 0.001). Prepectoral reconstruction demonstrated significantly reduced prosthetic failure (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.65) and unplanned reoperations (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.77) compared with subpectoral reconstruction after controlling for implant characteristics and other possible confounders. Prepectoral patients experienced decreased animation deformity overall (19.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), with plane changes seen in 10.6% of subpectoral reconstructions for animation deformity correction. Prepectoral patients experienced an increase in rippling (15.3% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.003) without a significant increase in fat grafting (subpectoral = 11.6% vs. prepectoral = 12.3%, p = 0.829).

CONCLUSIONS

This single-institution experience compares late complications of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based reconstruction following NSM. Prepectoral reconstruction can be safely performed with improved understanding of mastectomy planes, readily affords DTI reconstruction, and reduces animation deformity at the expense of rippling.

The relationship of human acellular dermal matrix thickness on complication rate and patient-reported outcomes in implant-based immediate breast reconstruction

Background

As it can be said that prosthetic breast reconstruction has been increased by the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs), ADMs are widely used in implant reconstruction. A large variety types of ADMs are now produced, but there is a paucity of data comparing the ADM products directly. We evaluated the effects of ADM thickness on complication rates and patient satisfaction after dual-plane subpectoral ADM-assisted implant breast reconstruction.

Methods

A retrospective study of patients who underwent immediate implant breast reconstruction using ADM was performed. We compared clinical course and postoperative outcomes for two ADM groups with different thicknesses [thin ADMs, 0.6-1.5 mm (group 1) vs. thick ADMs, 1.5-3.0 mm (group 2)] based on the incidence of complications and the duration of drainage. Patient satisfaction was also evaluated using the Breast Questionnaire (BREAST-Q), 6 months after surgery.

Results

A total of 51 patients were included in the study (group 1, n=21; group 2, n=30). Patient demographics were similar between the two groups, and no difference in postoperative complication rate (P>0.05) and Jackson-Pratt (JP) drainage durations (P>0.05). On regression analysis, ADM thickness was not an independent factor for any complication subtype. There were also no significant differences in BREAST-Q results, across all metrics, between the study groups.

Conclusions

In dual plane subpectoral implant placement breast reconstruction with an inferior ADM-sling, the thickness of ADM was not a factor in determining postoperative complications and patient satisfaction. Therefore, it is possible to select the thickness according to the surgeon's preference.

Immediate breast reconstruction after salvage mastectomy: Case control outcome comparisons of DIEP flap and DTI reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Cancer recurrence after breast-conserving therapy is most often managed by salvage mastectomy. Successful breast reconstruction immediately after salvage mastectomy, however, remains challenging because the reconstruction is performed on previously irradiated breast tissue.

METHODS

Records of patients who underwent breast reconstruction from June 2010 to June 2019 were reviewed, including their demographic characteristics, methods of breast reconstruction, and early and late outcomes. Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps and direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstructions following salvage mastectomies were compared with reconstructions following completion or primary mastectomies. Patients who underwent reconstruction followed by postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) and patients followed up for less than 6 months were excluded.

RESULTS

DIEP flaps in 27 breasts that underwent salvage mastectomy were compared with DIEP flaps in 32 breasts that underwent completion and 564 that underwent primary mastectomy. Rates of early complications, including microsurgical revision and total flap loss, and of late complications (>6 months after surgery), including fat necrosis and flap volume loss, did not differ significantly. DTI reconstruction in 20 breasts that underwent salvage mastectomy was compared with DTI reconstruction in 12 breasts that underwent completion and 351 that underwent primary mastectomy. Wound healing problems, including wound dehiscence and delayed wound healing (15% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.0022), and capsular contracture (30% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.0000), were significantly more frequent in breasts that underwent salvage than primary mastectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

DIEP flap is a successful reconstruction option after salvage mastectomy. DTI reconstruction is associated with higher rates of wound healing problems and capsular contracture after salvage than after primary mastectomy.

Funnel usefulness in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using periareolar incision with prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with acellular dermal matrix

BACKGROUND

The funnel has been used in esthetic breast surgery that requires a small incision. Recent advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques have led to more cases of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) through periareolar incision. However, prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is almost impossible with the periareolar approach. Funnels can also be useful for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

METHODS

NSM with periareolar incision and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction were performed with prepectoral implant placement between January 2017 and July 2019. The ADM full-wrapped anatomic textured implant was inserted using a funnel without additional incisions during surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients were enrolled, including 2 who received bilateral breast reconstruction. All operations were successfully performed using funnels with minimal periareolar incisions. Anatomic textured implants (mean: 251.7 cc, range: 90-450 cc) wrapped in ADM can be effectively inserted in the prepectoral plane using a funnel. Two patients experienced delayed wound healing of the areola that was treated by conservative wound management. Patients also experienced less pain overall, and the cosmetic result was very good. Patient satisfaction scores were also very high.

CONCLUSIONS

While the periareolar incision is esthetically pleasing, additional resection is often necessary. However, the use of funnels ensured that no additional incision was needed even in large implants. This subsequently led to better results in terms of pain and scarring. Prepectoral breast reconstruction involving complete implant coverage with ADM using a funnel through the periareolar approach represents a good alternative to the traditional dual plane subpectoral method. This method provides good patient satisfaction without adverse outcomes.