Single-Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Subpectoral Versus Prepectoral Implant Placement

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Capsular contracture after implant-based breast reconstruction is not an uncommon problem and affects reconstruction outcomes. It can be influenced by various factors, such as the plane of implant placement, implant surface and implant type. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate how the abovementioned risk factors can affect capsular contracture rates.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane Library were searched. Comparison groups included subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement, smooth versus textured implants and saline versus silicone implants. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for capsular contracture for each group. The level of evidence was evaluated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies compared subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement, with no statistically significant differences in capsular contracture rates [OR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.75-1.95; P = 0.44]. Five studies compared smooth versus textured implants, with no statistically significant differences in capsular contracture rates (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.50-1.93; P = 0.97). Two studies compared saline versus silicone implants for capsular contracture. Patients receiving saline implants had significantly lower capsular contracture rates than silicone implants (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.43; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant-based breast reconstruction using saline implants demonstrated reduced capsular contracture rates compared to silicone implants. However, no significant differences were observed in capsular contracture rates between subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement and smooth versus textured implants.

Comparison of Patient-Reported Quality of Life Following Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral and Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Using BREAST-Q: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background  Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction (DIR) is becoming more and more accepted. There is a lack of high-quality studies assessing differences in patient-reported quality of life (QoL) between different implant placement methods. The aim of this randomized controlled (clinical) trial was to compare QoL between women reconstructed by sub- or prepectoral implant placement. Methods  We included women over 18 years eligible for DIR. Patients were randomly assigned to reconstruction by subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement. Assessment of QoL and patient satisfaction was made using the BREAST-Q questionnaire for postmastectomy breast reconstruction and compared between the sub- and prepectoral reconstructed groups preoperatively and after 3 and 12 months of follow-up. Results  A total of 42 women were allocated to sub- or prepectoral reconstruction with 21 patients in each group. There were no differences in patient characteristics between groups. Regarding all the selected BREAST-Q scales: (1) satisfaction with the reconstructed breast, (2) satisfaction with the breast implant, (3) satisfaction with the overall outcome, (4) psychosocial well-being, (5) sexual well-being, and (6) physical well-being-we found no significant differences between the two groups. Assessing each group independently we found, that in both groups sexual well-being improved after surgery postoperatively compared to the preoperative scores. Conclusion  We found high satisfaction and QoL following both sub- and prepectoral breast reconstruction. We found no significant differences between groups suggesting both methods for DIR can be used. Despite our high-quality data, a larger sample size and longer postoperative follow-up are needed to further investigate the differences in QoL between sub- and prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Breast Augmentation: Surgical Techniques, Outcomes and Future Directions

Breast augmentation remains a highly sought-after cosmetic surgery, with various techniques available to enhance breast size using implants or fat transfer. This systematic review, spanning studies from 2003 to 2024 and adhering to PRISMA guidelines, evaluates the outcomes of different surgical approaches concerning scar quality, postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and complications. The periareolar technique emerges as a favorable option, offering minimal postoperative pain, high patient satisfaction, and precise surgical control with subtle scarring. Transumbilical breast augmentation (TUBA) is noted for its scar-free approach, resulting in low pain and high satisfaction, though it requires specialized training and cannot use prefilled implants. The review highlights the varying complication rates across techniques: modern silicone implants, while safer than earlier injectable materials, still face risks such as rupture and capsular contracture. Autologous fat grafting is generally safer but can lead to issues like erythema and abscesses. The use of effective acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is linked to higher rates of seroma and infection compared to non-ADM procedures, although sterile human ADM shows a lower risk profile. The study underscores the importance of personalized surgical planning to optimize outcomes, as each technique offers distinct benefits and challenges. The findings suggest that future research should aim to refine these techniques and address their associated complications to further enhance patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes in breast augmentation.

Comparative complications of prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Introduction

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the complications associated with prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) compared to subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) in patients diagnosed with breast cancer.

Materials and methods

A comprehensive search was performed in four databases, including Medline, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL, to collect literature published up until December 31, 2024. In addition, we conducted a thorough manual examination of the bibliographies of the identified papers, as well as pertinent reviews and meta-analyses. We conducted a search on three clinical trial registries, namely ClinicalTrials.gov, Controlled-trials.com, and Umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm. Meta-analyses were conducted on total complications, hematoma, infection, wound healing issues, necrosis, capsular contracture, rippling, animation deformity, and reoperation.

Results

A total of 40 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with SBR, PBR significantly reduced the incidence of animated malformations (OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.70, P=0.003, I ²=12%), but increased the incidence of ripples (OR=2.39, 95% CI: 1.53 to 3.72, P=0.0001, I ²=10%) and seroma (OR=1.55, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.35, P=0.04, increasing I ²=70%).

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that PBR and SBR have comparable safety profiles, with similar total complication rates. Specifically, PBR is more likely to cause rippling and seroma, whereas SBR is more prone to causing animation deformity.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024565837, identifier CRD42024565837.

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

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.

Paradigm Shifts in Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction: A Nationwide Analysis of Direct-to-Implant Trends

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is an attractive choice for appropriately selected patients, as a single-stage procedure can enhance global metrics of care. In an era of high-value health care, therefore, it is important to investigate use of such procedures. This study investigated direct-to-implant trends over the past decade on a nationwide basis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective investigation of direct-to-implant reconstruction between 2010 and 2018 in the United States, using the National Inpatient Sample database. All study analyses were undertaken using Stata version 15.0.

RESULTS

The weighted sample included 287,093 women who underwent implant-based reconstruction between 2010 and 2018, of whom 43,064 (15%) underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction. Across the study period, the proportion of direct-to-implant procedures increased significantly ( P = 0.03), relative to staged and delayed implant-based procedures. Although direct-to-implant patients were younger and more likely to be White and privately insured, the proportion of non-White, publicly insured patients undergoing direct-to-implant reconstruction increased significantly by 2018 ( P < 0.05). Furthermore, direct-to-implant use among Medicaid patients was 2.2 times the rate in Medicaid expansion states compared with nonexpansion states. Direct-to-implant patients had significantly higher All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group risk scores in 2018 than in 2010 ( P = 0.02), indicating expanding clinical indications for this procedure. Direct-to-implant reconstruction had significantly lower inpatient charges than staged procedures ( P = 0.03), when considering expander placement and expander-to-implant exchange.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, use of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction has significantly increased over the past decade, facilitated by expanding clinical indications and improved insurance coverage. However, certain disparities continue to exist. Further work should investigate drivers of disparities to allow continued expansion of direct-to-implant reconstruction as clinically appropriate.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

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.

Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Nipple-Sparing and Skin-Sparing Mastectomy in Breast-Augmented Patients: Prepectoral or Submuscular Direct-to-Implant Reconstruction?

BACKGROUND

Patients with breast augmentation facing a breast cancer diagnosis pose unique challenges for both breast and plastic surgeons in terms of treatment and reconstruction. Traditional submuscular direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction is often considered the standard approach, regardless of the previous implant pocket. However, recent trends in prepectoral reconstruction provide an innovative solution for patients with previous subglandular and submuscular implants.

OBJECTIVES

In this study we aimed to share our experiences with DTI breast reconstruction in patients with a history of breast augmentation, with a specific focus on the viability of prepectoral reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on 38 patients with previous breast augmentation who underwent either skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer followed by DTI reconstruction between January 2015 and July 2023. Our analysis considered various factors, including previous implant positioning, capsular and implant status, and mastectomy flap thickness (MFT), offering insights into the rationale behind choosing the new implant positioning.

RESULTS

Patients with a history of subglandular breast augmentation and an MFT greater than 1 cm were candidates for prepectoral reconstruction. When the MFT was less than 1 cm but flap vascularity was sufficient, a prepectoral reconstruction was performed; otherwise, retropectoral reconstruction was preferred. Patients with submuscular breast augmentation were evaluated similarly, with submuscular reconstruction chosen when the MFT was less than 1 cm and prepectoral reconstruction preferred when the MFT exceeded 1 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate prepectoral DTI reconstruction represents a feasible option for specific patients with a history of breast augmentation. Decisions regarding the reconstructive approach are influenced by variables such as mastectomy flap thickness, implant status, and capsular conditions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using Intraoperative Fluorescence Imaging: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Limited comparability between study groups can generate significant selection and observer bias when evaluating the efficacy of the SPY system and fluorescence imaging for implant-based breast reconstruction. In this study, the authors compared the surgical outcomes and complications during the first stage of reconstruction between reconstructions evaluated intraoperatively with fluorescence imaging using the SPY system and clinical assessment using a matched analysis.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing total mastectomy and immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with TEs from January of 2011 to December of 2020. The rate of complication, time for TE-to-implant exchange, and time to start radiotherapy were compared between groups (intraoperative fluorescence imaging versus clinical assessment) using a propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 198 reconstructions were evaluated. There were 99 reconstructions in each group. The median time for TE-to-implant exchange (140 days versus 185 days; P = 0.476) and time to initiate adjuvant radiotherapy (144 days versus 98 days; P = 0.199) were comparable between groups. The 30-day rate of wound-related complications (21% versus 9%; P = 0.017) and 30-day rate of wound-related unplanned interventions were significantly higher in reconstructions evaluated with clinical assessment when compared with the SPY system (16% versus 5%; P = 0.011). A higher 30-day rate of seroma (19% versus 14%; P = 0.041) and hematoma (8% versus 0%; P = 0.004) were found in reconstructions assessed intraoperatively with the SPY system.

CONCLUSIONS

After matching, reconstructions evaluated with fluorescence imaging exhibited a lower incidence of early wound-related complications when compared with clinical evaluation alone. Nonetheless, the Wise pattern for mastectomy was found to be the only independent predictor associated with early wound-related complications.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Prevention of Postoperative Complications by Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved over time. However, the effects of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) compared with those of subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) have not been clearly defined. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the occurrence of surgical complications between PBR and SBR to determine the procedure that is effective and relatively safe.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published until April of 2021 comparing PBR and SBR following mastectomy. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. General information on the studies and surgical outcomes were extracted. Among 857 studies, 34 and 29 were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed to clearly compare the results of patients who underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy.

RESULTS

Pooled results showed that prevention of capsular contracture (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79) and infection control (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92) were better with PBR than with SBR. Rates of hematoma, implant loss, seroma, skin-flap necrosis, and wound dehiscence were not significantly different between PBR and SBR. PBR considerably improved postoperative pain, BREAST-Q score, and upper arm function compared with SBR. Among postmastectomy radiation therapy patients, the incidence rates of capsular contracture were significantly lower in the PBR group than in the SBR group (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that PBR had fewer postoperative complications than SBR. The authors' meta-analysis suggests that PBR could be used as an alternative technique for breast reconstruction in appropriate patients.

Subpectoral Implant Placement Is Not Protective against Postmastectomy Radiotherapy-Related Complications Compared to Prepectoral Placement

BACKGROUND

Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is associated with altered cosmetic outcomes and higher complication rates in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). Conventional wisdom suggests that muscle coverage is somewhat protective against PMRT-related complications. In this study, the authors compared surgical outcomes in patients who underwent two-stage prepectoral versus subpectoral IBR in the setting of PMRT.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent mastectomy and PMRT with two-stage IBR from 2016 to 2019. The primary outcome was breast-related complications, including device infection; the secondary outcome was device explantation.

RESULTS

The authors identified 179 reconstructions (101 prepectoral and 78 subpectoral) in 172 patients with a mean follow-up time of 39.7 ± 14.4 months. There were no differences between the prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions in rates of breast-related complications (26.7% and 21.8%, respectively; P = 0.274), device infection (18.8% and 15.4%, respectively; P = 0.307), skin flap necrosis (5.0% and 1.3%, respectively; P = 0.232), or device explantation (20.8% and 14.1%, respectively; P = 0.117). In adjusted models, compared with prepectoral device placement, subpectoral device placement was not associated with a lower risk of breast-related complications [hazard ratio (HR), 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.41 to 1.36], device infection (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.49), or device explantation (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.19).

CONCLUSIONS

Device placement plane was not predictive of complication rates in IBR in the setting of PMRT. Two-stage prepectoral IBR provides safe long-term outcomes with acceptable postoperative complication rates comparable to those with subpectoral IBR, even in the setting of PMRT.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Smooth versus Textured Tissue Expanders: Comparison of Outcomes and Complications in 536 Implants

Background  Increasing concerns regarding the safety of textured surface implants have resulted in surgeons transitioning from textured tissue expanders (TEs) to smooth TEs. Given this change has only recently occurred, this study evaluated outcomes between smooth and textured TEs. Methods  Women who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction using TEs from 2013 to 2022 were included. TE-specific variables, perioperative information, pain scores, and complications were collected. Chi-squared, t -test, and linear regression analyses were performed. Results  A total of 320 patients received a total of 384 textured and 152 smooth TEs. Note that 216 patients received bilateral reconstruction. TEs were removed in 9 cases. No significant differences existed between groups regarding comorbidities. Smooth TEs had a higher proportion of prepectoral placement ( p  < 0.001). Smooth TEs had less fills (3 ± 1 vs. 4 ± 2, p  < 0.001), shorter expansion periods (60 ± 44 vs. 90 ± 77 days, p  < 0.001), smaller expander fill volumes (390 ± 168 vs. 478 ± 177 mL, p  < 0.001), and shorter time to exchange (80 ± 43 vs. 104 ± 39 days, p  < 0.001). Complication rates between textured and smooth TEs were comparable. Smooth TE had a greater proportion of TE replacements ( p  = 0.030). On regression analysis, pain scores were more closely associated with age ( p  = 0.018) and TE texture ( p  = 0.046). Additional procedures at time of TE exchange ( p  < 0.001) and textured TE ( p  = 0.017) led to longer operative times. Conclusion  As many surgeons have transitioned away from textured implants, our study shows that smooth TEs have similar outcomes to the textured alternatives.

Artificial Intelligence Modeling to Predict Periprosthetic Infection and Explantation following Implant-Based Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in prosthesis design and surgical techniques, periprosthetic infection and explantation rates following implant-based reconstruction (IBR) remain relatively high. Artificial intelligence is an extremely powerful predictive tool that involves machine learning (ML) algorithms. We sought to develop, validate, and evaluate the use of ML algorithms to predict complications of IBR.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of patients who underwent IBR from January of 2018 to December of 2019 was conducted. Nine supervised ML algorithms were developed to predict periprosthetic infection and explantation. Patient data were randomly divided into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets.

RESULTS

The authors identified 481 patients (694 reconstructions) with a mean ± SD age of 50.0 ± 11.5 years, mean ± SD body mass index of 26.7 ± 4.8 kg/m 2 , and median follow-up time of 16.1 months (range, 11.9 to 3.2 months). Periprosthetic infection developed in 113 of the reconstructions (16.3%), and explantation was required with 82 (11.8%) of them. ML demonstrated good discriminatory performance in predicting periprosthetic infection and explantation (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.73 and 0.78, respectively), and identified nine and 12 significant predictors of periprosthetic infection and explantation, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ML algorithms trained using readily available perioperative clinical data accurately predict periprosthetic infection and explantation following IBR. The authors' findings support incorporating ML models into perioperative assessment of patients undergoing IBR to provide data-driven, patient-specific risk assessment to aid individualized patient counseling, shared decision-making, and presurgical optimization.

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.

Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of 694 Two-Stage Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstructions

BACKGROUND

Opinion regarding the optimal plane for prosthetic device placement in breast reconstruction patients has evolved. The purpose of this study was to assess the differences in complication rates and patient satisfaction between patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR).

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent two-stage IBR at their institution from 2018 to 2019. Surgical and patient-reported outcomes were compared between patients who received a prepectoral versus a subpectoral tissue expander.

RESULTS

A total of 694 reconstructions in 481 patients were identified (83% prepectoral, 17% subpectoral). The mean body mass index was higher in the prepectoral group (27 versus 25 kg/m 2 , P = 0.001), whereas postoperative radiotherapy was more common in the subpectoral group (26% versus 14%, P = 0.001). The overall complication rate was very similar, with 29.3% in the prepectoral and 28.9% in the subpectoral group ( P = 0.887). Rates of individual complications were also similar between the two groups. A multiple-frailty model showed that device location was not associated with overall complications, infection, major complications, or device explantation. Mean scores for Satisfaction with the Breast, Psychosocial Well-Being, and Sexual Well-Being were similar between the two groups. Median time to permanent implant exchange was significantly longer in the subpectoral group (200 versus 150 days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Prepectoral breast reconstruction results in similar surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction compared with subpectoral IBR.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Wise Pattern versus Transverse Pattern Mastectomy in Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The Wise pattern adapted to mastectomy incisions has become a valuable asset for breast reconstruction in patients with large and ptotic breasts. The authors compared the time for exchange, time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy, and complication rates between Wise pattern and transverse incision pattern reconstructions.

METHODS

Records of patients who underwent immediate, two-stage, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) between January of 2011 and December of 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Two cohorts were compared according to the incision pattern: Wise pattern versus transverse incision pattern. Complications were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The authors initially analyzed 393 two-stage immediate IBBRs in 239 patients [91 IBBRs (23.2%) in the Wise pattern group and 302 (76.8%) in the transverse pattern group]. Expansion time (53 days versus 50 days, P = 0.9), time for tissue expander-to-implant exchange (154 versus 175 days, P = 0.547), and time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy (144 days versus 126 days, P = 0.616) were not different between groups. Before propensity score matching, the 30-day rate of wound-related complications (32% versus 10%, P < 0.001) and the 30-day rate of wound complications requiring excision/débridement and closure procedures (20% versus 7%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the Wise pattern group. After propensity score matching, the 30-day rate of wound complications was persistently higher (25% versus 10%, P = 0.03) in the Wise pattern group.

CONCLUSIONS

The Wise pattern mastectomy independently increases the incidence of wound-related complications versus only transverse patterns during two-stage IBBR, even after propensity score matching. Delayed tissue expander placement may improve the safety profile of this procedure.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Simultaneous Fat Grafting During Tissue Expander-to-Implant Exchange: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most common technique for breast reconstruction. The primary resource for correcting deformities, once patients have achieved an adequate volume with two-stage IBBR, is autologous fat grafting. We compared the surgical outcomes of simultaneous fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange (SFG + TtIE) versus no fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange (No-FGX).

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all consecutive patients undergoing two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with TE from January 2011 to December 2020. Propensity score matching was implemented to optimize comparability. The control group did not receive fat grafting at the time of TE-to-implant exchange.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 196 reconstructions were evaluated, 98 in each group. Reconstructions in the SFG + TtIE received larger implants during exchange in comparison with the No-FGX group (539 ± 135.1-cc versus 495.97 ± 148-cc, p=0.035). The mean volume of fat lipoinjected during TE-to-implant exchange in the SFG + TtIE group was 88.79 ± 41-ml. A higher proportion of reconstructions in the SFG + TtIE group underwent additional fat grafting after exchange versus the No-FGX group (19% versus 9%, p = 0.041). After propensity score matching, only the rate of fat necrosis after exchange was significantly higher in the SFG + TtIE group (10% versus 2%, p = 0.017). The rate of breast cancer recurrence (3% versus 5%, p = 1.00) was comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

SFG + TtIE is a safe procedure to improve the envelope of reconstructed breasts during two-stage IBBR. SFG + TtIE does not increase the rate of periprosthetic infection or wound-related complication versus no fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange, but increases the rate of fat necrosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

Therapeutic study. 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.

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.

Impact of Obesity on Outcomes of Prepectoral vs Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The impact of obesity on outcomes of prepectoral vs subpectoral implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is not well-established.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to assess the surgical and patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral vs subpectoral IBR. The authors hypothesized that obese patients would have similar outcomes regardless of device plane.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of obese patients who underwent 2-stage IBR from January 2017 to December 2019. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of any breast-related complication; the secondary endpoint was device explantation.

RESULTS

The authors identified a total of 284 reconstructions (184 prepectoral, 100 subpectoral) in 209 patients. Subpectoral reconstruction demonstrated higher rates of overall complications (50% vs 37%, P = .047) and device explantation (25% vs 12.5%, P = .008) than prepectoral reconstruction. In multivariable regression, subpectoral reconstruction was associated with higher risk of infection (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65; P = .022) and device explantation (HR, 1.97; P = .034). Subgroup analyses demonstrated significantly higher rates of complications and explantation in the subpectoral group in those with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35 and BMI ≥40. The authors found no significant differences in mean scores for satisfaction with the breast (41.57 ± 13.19 vs 45.50 ± 11.91, P = .469), psychosocial well-being (39.43 ± 11.23 vs 39.30 ± 12.49, P = .915), and sexual well-being (17.17 ± 7.83 vs 17.0 ± 9.03, P = .931) between subpectoral and prepectoral reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly decreased overall complications, infections, and device explantation in obese patients compared with subpectoral reconstruction. Prepectoral reconstruction provides superior outcomes to subpectoral reconstruction with comparable patient-reported outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

How Postoperative Infection Affects Reoperations after Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A National Claims Analysis of Abandonment of Reconstruction

Infection after implant-based breast reconstruction adversely affects surgical outcomes and increases healthcare utilization. This study aimed to quantify how postimplant breast reconstruction infections impact unplanned reoperations, hospital length of stay, and discontinuation of initially desired breast reconstruction.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Optum's de-identifed Clinformatics Data Mart Database to analyze women undergoing implant breast reconstruction from 2003 to 2019. Unplanned reoperations were identified via Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Outcomes were analyzed via multivariate linear regression with Poisson distribution to determine statistical significance at P < 0.00625 (Bonferroni correction).

Results

In our national claims-based dataset, post-IBR infection rate was 8.53%. Subsequently, 31.2% patients had an implant removed, 6.9% had an implant replaced, 3.6% underwent autologous salvage, and 20.7% discontinued further reconstruction. Patients with a postoperative infection were significantly associated with increased incidence rate of total reoperations (IRR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.92-3.31; P < 0.001) and total hospital length of stay (IRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.48-1.63; P < 0.001). Postoperative infections were associated with significantly increased odds of abandoning reconstruction (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 0.081-0.11; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Unplanned reoperations impact patients and healthcare systems. This national, claims-level study shows that post-IBR infection was associated with a 3.11× and 1.55× increase in the incidence rate of unplanned reoperations and length of stay. Post-IBR infection was associated with 2.92× increased odds of abandoning further reconstruction after implant removal.

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.

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.

Postoperative Complications Following Prepectoral Versus Partial Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of evidence comparing the safety of prepectoral and partial subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADM). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the postoperative complications of the two approaches.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The rates of the complications were, respectively, pooled, and relative risk (RR) was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the incidence between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

Ten articles reporting on 2667 breast reconstructions were eligible. The hematoma rate was lower in the prepectoral group (RR  =  0.590, 95% CI 0.351-0.992). No significant difference was observed in terms of seroma (RR = 1.079, 95% CI 0.489-2.381), skin flap necrosis (RR = 0.936, 95% CI 0.587-1.493), infection (RR = 0.985, 95% CI 0.706-1.375), tissue expander/implant explantation (RR  =  0.741, 95% CI 0.506-1.085), wound dehiscence (RR = 1.272, 95% CI 0.605-2.673), capsular contracture (RR = 0.939, 95% CI 0.678-1.300) and rippling (RR = 2.485, 95% CI 0.986-6.261). The RR of animation deformity for the prepectoral group compared with the subpectoral group was 0.040 (95% CI, 0.002-0.853).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggested that with appropriate patient selection, prepectoral breast reconstruction could avoid animation deformity without incurring higher risk of early wound complications, capsular contracture or rippling than partial subpectoral breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should complete a comprehensive assessment of the patients before choosing appropriate surgical approaches in clinical practice.

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 .

ADM-assisted prepectoral breast reconstruction is not associated with high complication rate as before: a Meta-analysis

Implant-related breast reconstruction can be divided into subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR) and prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) according to the different anatomical planes. The previous stereotype was that PPBR had a high complication rate and was not suitable for clinical use. However, with the emergence of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), the clinical effect of PPBR has been improved. To compare the outcomes difference between SPBR and PPBR, We conducted this meta-analysis. Articles on SPBR versus PPBR were searched in PubMed, Web of Sciences, Embase, and Cochrane databases, strictly following the PRISMA guidelines. According to the set criteria, we included the literature that met the requirements. Extracted data were the incidence of adverse events and the duration of drainage. Results show that SPBR has a higher incidence rate in capsular contracture, animation deformity, infection, hematoma and delayed healing wound than PPBR. There are no significant differences in skin flap necrosis, seroma, implant loss, reoperation and duration of drainage between the two groups. Hence, PPBR is no longer a high complication surgical method and can be used in the clinical practice. However, there are few large sample studies at present, so it is necessary to carry out further studies on PPBR.

Direct-to-Implant Subcutaneous Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Complications and Patient's Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

The use of direct-to-implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction has increased over the last years. The goal of this systematic review is to deliver an updated review of the safety of this technique and its impact on quality of life. We also compare subcutaneous vs submuscular complications, through meta-analysis.

METHODS

Literature review through PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were performed by PRISMA criteria. Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria for subcutaneous review and 15 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. All included studies were evaluated for complications and answers to the BREAST-Q. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel, IBM SPSS, and Cochrane RevMan.

RESULTS

In 2863 patients and 3988 breasts that undergone direct to implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction, 8,21% had rippling, 5,64% seroma, 1,74% hematoma, 3,40% infection, 3,01% wound dehiscence, 3,93% skin necrosis, 3,34% nipple-areolar-complex (NAC) necrosis, 3,07% capsular contracture, 0,00% animation deformity, and 3,83% an implant removal. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in the odds ratio of animation deformity, a but statistically significant higher odds ratio of rippling. Subcutaneous and submuscular reconstructions had similar BREAST-Q scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct-to-implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction does not harm the patient's quality of life, comparatively with submuscular, saving the pectoral muscle from dissection and preventing animation deformity, but increasing the risk of rippling.

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 .

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) remains the standard and most popular option for women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy worldwide. Recently, prepectoral IBBR has resurged in popularity, despite limited data comparing prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2021, was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, data were extracted by independent reviewers. Studies that compared prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR for breast cancer were included.

RESULTS

Overall, 15 studies with 3,101 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that patients receiving prepectoral IBBR experienced fewer capsular contractures (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.92; P = 0.02), animation deformity (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.25; P = 0.002), and prosthesis failure (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference between prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR in overall complications (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.09; P = 0.19), seroma (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.59-2.51; P = 0.60), hematoma (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18; P = 0.22), infection (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.63-1.20; P = 0.39), skin flap necrosis (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.45-1.08; P = 0.11), and recurrence (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.52-3.39; P = 0.55). Similarly, no significant difference was found in Breast-Q scores between the prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that prepectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction is a safe modality and has similar outcomes with significantly lower rates of capsular contracture, prosthesis failure, and animation deformity compared with subpectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction.

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.

Cost analysis of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

With improvement in mastectomy skin flap viability and increasing recognition of animation deformity following sub-pectoral implant placement, there has been a transition toward pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. While studies have explored the cost effectiveness of implant-based breast reconstruction, few investigations have evaluated cost with respect to pre-pectoral versus sub-pectoral breast reconstruction. A retrospective review of 548 patients who underwent mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction was performed from 2017 to 2020. The demographic and surgical characteristics of the pre-pectoral and sub-pectoral cohorts were well matched, except for reconstructive staging, as patients who underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction were more likely to undergo single-stage instead of two-stage reconstruction. Comparison of institutional cost ratios by reconstructive technique revealed that the sub-pectoral approach was more costly (1.70 ± 0.44 vs 1.58 ± 0.31, p < 0.01). However, further stratification by laterality and reconstructive staging failed to demonstrate difference in cost by reconstructive technique. These results were confirmed by multivariable linear regression, which did not reveal reconstructive technique to be an independent variable for cost. This study suggests that pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is a cost-effective alternative to sub-pectoral breast reconstruction and may confer cost benefit, as it is more strongly associated with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Evaluation of Breast Animation Deformity following Pre- and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background  The incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) is reported to be substantial after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with subpectoral implant placement. It has, however, never been examined if BAD can occur following prepectoral implant placement. Our primary aim was to compare the incidence and degree of BAD after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement. Secondary aim of this study was to assess and compare the level of pain between sub- and prepectoral reconstructed women. Methods  In this randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to reconstruction by either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines. The degree of BAD was assessed by the "Nipple, Surrounding skin, Entire breast (NSE)" grading scale 12 months after surgery. The level of postoperative pain was assessed on a numerical pain rating scale. Results  We found a significant difference in the degree of BAD favoring patients in the prepectoral group (23.8 vs. 100%, p  < 0.0001; mean NSE grading scale score: 0.4 vs. 3.6, p  < 0.0001). The subpectoral reconstructed group reported higher levels of pain on the three subsequent days after surgery. No significant difference in pain levels could be found at 3 months postoperatively. Conclusion  The incidence and degree of BAD was significantly lower in women reconstructed by prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Unexpectedly, we found mild degrees of BAD in the prepectoral group. When assessing BAD, distortion can be challenging to discern from rippling.

Oncoplastic breast consortium recommendations for mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy

Aim

Demand for nipple- and skin- sparing mastectomy (NSM/SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (BR) has increased at the same time as indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) have broadened. The aim of the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium initiative was to address relevant questions arising with this clinically challenging scenario.

Methods

A large global panel of oncologic, oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists developed recommendations for clinical practice in an iterative process based on the principles of Delphi methodology.

Results

The panel agreed that surgical technique for NSM/SSM should not be formally modified when PMRT is planned with preference for autologous over implant-based BR due to lower risk of long-term complications and support for immediate and delayed-immediate reconstructive approaches. Nevertheless, it was strongly believed that PMRT is not an absolute contraindication for implant-based or other types of BR, but no specific recommendations regarding implant positioning, use of mesh or timing were made due to absence of high-quality evidence. The panel endorsed use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. It was acknowledged that the shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning and attention to details of PMRT techniques is important in determining aesthetic outcomes after immediate BR.

Conclusions

The panel endorsed the need for prospective, ideally randomised phase III studies and for surgical and radiation oncology teams to work together for determination of optimal sequencing and techniques for PMRT for each patient in the context of BR

•

Autologous breast reconstruction is increasingly preferred over implants in the setting of radiation therapy.

•

Use of patient-reported outcomes is endorsed.

•

Shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning.

•

There is a need for randomised phase III trials.

Short-Term Surgical Complications of Skin-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Women Concurrently Treated with Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer

Background  Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is allegedly associated with a higher risk of complications of combined nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy and subpectoral direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction ([N]SSM/SDTI-IBR). For this reason, this combination is usually advised against or, even, refused in women who need to undergo PMRT. Because this advice has never been justified, we assessed the short-term complications that may potentially be associated with PMRT after [N]SSM/SDTI-IBR. Methods  We compared the complications requiring reintervention and implant loss occurring after 273 [N]SSM/SDTI-IBR that were exposed to PMRT within the first 16 postoperative weeks (interventional group) to those occurring in 739 similarly operated breasts that were not (control group). Additionally, we compared the fraction of complications requiring reintervention occurring after the onset of radiotherapy in the interventional group to that occurring after a comparable postoperative period in the control group. Results  The fraction of breasts requiring unscheduled surgical reinterventions for complications and the loss of implants did not differ significantly between both groups but significantly more reinterventions were needed among the controls ( p  = 0.00). The fraction of events after the onset of radiotherapy in the interventional group was higher than the fraction of events after 6.2 weeks in the control group, but not significantly so. Conclusion  We found no prove for the alleged increase of short-term complications of adjuvant radiotherapy. Therefore, we advise that these should not be considered valid arguments to advice against [N]SSM/SDTI-IBR.

Quality of life, pain of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with a discussion on cost: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PIBR) has regained popularity, despite decades-long preference for subpectoral implant placement. This paper aims to compare patient-reported outcomes (PRO) between prepectoral and subpectoral approaches to implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The primary PRO was with the BREAST-Q, and postoperative pain scores, while the secondary outcomes were complication rates.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed library was performed. All studies on patients undergoing IBBR after mastectomy that compared prepectoral to subpectoral placement and PROM or postoperative pain were included.

RESULTS

A total of 3789 unique studies of which 7 publications with 216 and 332 patients who received prepectoral and subpectoral implants, respectively, were included for meta-analysis. Patients with prepectoral implant placement had significantly higher satisfaction with the outcome (p = 0.03) and psychosocial well-being (p = 0.03) module scores. The pain was lower in patients with prepectoral implants on postoperative day 1 (p<0.01) and day 7 (p<0.01). The subgroup analysis of prepectoral breast implants showed that complete acellular dermal matrix coverage had lower rates of wound dehiscence (p<0.0001), but there were no significant differences in complications between one-stage and two-stage procedures.

CONCLUSION

Overall, patients with prepectoral implants reported higher BREAST-Q scores and lower postoperative pain and lower complications rates than patients with subpectoral implants. In appropriately selected patients, prepectoral implant placement with ADM coverage, be it the primary placement of an implant or placement of a tissue expander before definitive implant placement, should be the modality of choice in patients who choose IBBR. Further research should focus on patient selection, strategies to reduce cost and cost-benefit analysis of PIBR.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh reopened the possibility for the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction (PBR). The complications of single-stage breast reconstruction after PRB are controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction. Our aim was to evaluate the different postoperative complications between patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) on single-stage breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature evaluating the effect of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2020. All included studies were evaluated the complications after single-stage breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1724 patients. In general, compared with SBR group, the PBR significantly reduced the risk of total complications (including seroma, hematoma, necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, capsular contraction, implant loss/remove, and rippling) after single-stage breast reconstruction (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.67, p < 0.001). Compared with the SBR group, the PBR had remarkably decreased capsular contracture (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58, p < 0.001) and postoperative infection (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.95, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

The PBR is a safe single-stage breast reconstruction with fewer postoperative complications. It is an alternative surgical method for SBR.

Immediate Breast Reconstruction Using the Goldilocks Procedure: A Balance between More Surgery and Patient Satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Since its first description in 2012, the Goldilocks procedure has become an option for immediate breast reconstruction, particularly for obese patients who are poor candidates for traditional implant or autologous reconstruction. In this work, the authors performed a longitudinal study of patients who underwent mastectomy with Goldilocks reconstruction to assess the incidence of additional surgical procedures, and to assess surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomy with the Goldilocks procedure only at Mayo Clinic Rochester between January of 2012 and September of 2019 was performed. Demographics, complications, additional breast procedures performed to attain the final results, and patient-reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q were recorded. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify statistical associations and risk factors.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients (108 breasts) were included. Mean age was 57.8 years. Mean body mass index was 37.6 kg/m2. Median follow-up time after the mastectomy with the Goldilocks procedure was 15 months. The major complication rate within the first 30 days was 9.3 percent. Forty-four breasts (40.7 percent) underwent additional surgery. Dyslipidemia was significantly associated with an increased risk of additional surgery (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.00; p = 0.045). Scores in the four BREAST-Q domains were not statistically different between patients who had additional procedures and those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results, the authors recommend a thorough preoperative discussion with patients who are candidates for the Goldilocks procedure to explore all options for reconstruction and their expectations, because it is crucial to reduce the necessity for additional operations in this high-risk population.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

The Failed Breast Implant in Postmastectomy Reconstruction: A Systematic Literature Review of Complications of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most diagnosed malignant neoplasia of female patients worldwide in 2019. Survival has increased making it necessary to offer breast reconstructive procedures to improve quality of life and self-esteem. Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common approach, making it necessary to quantify the associated complications.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was performed. A total of 9608 citations were identified, and 44 studies met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Studies included reported the incidence of complications either per patient or per breast leading consequently to 2 complication rates depending on the type of reporting. A total of 14.3% of patient-related and 28.8% of breast-related complications while undergoing implant-based reconstruction were reported.Among total complications reported, 72.6% of patient-related and 48.5% of breast-related complications were classified as major complications.A total of 37.6% of patients respectively 15.1% of breasts required prosthesis explantation due to severe complications. Depending on reporting, 9.7% of patients and 4% of breasts required autologous flap reconstruction due to reconstructive failure.

CONCLUSIONS

High complication and failure rates are associated with implant-based breast reconstruction. Lacking randomized controlled trials, the choice between implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction has to be made individually for each patient.

From Salvage to Prevention: A Single-Surgeon Experience with Acellular Dermal Matrix and Infection in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Increasing amounts of acellular dermal matrix are being used with the adoption of prepectoral breast reconstruction. Postoperative infection remains a challenge in breast reconstruction, and the contribution of acellular dermal matrix type, processing, and sterility assurance level to risk of complications in prepectoral reconstruction is not well studied.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction from February of 2017 to July of 2020. Because of an increase in the rate of infection, the drain protocol was changed and acellular dermal matrix type was switched from AlloDerm (sterility assurance level, 10-3) to DermACELL (sterility assurance level, 10-6) in January of 2019. Demographic and surgical variables were collected, in addition to details regarding development and management of infection.

RESULTS

Despite higher rates of direct-to-implant reconstruction and bilateral procedures and increased implant volumes, the rate of infection was significantly lower in patients who received DermACELL instead of AlloDerm [two of 38 (5.3 percent) versus 11 of 41 (26.8 percent); p = 0.014]. Drain duration was slightly longer in the DermACELL group, consistent with the change in drain protocol. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics remained similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With increased reliance on large amounts of acellular dermal matrix for prepectoral breast reconstruction, it directly follows that the properties of acellular dermal matrix with respect to incorporation, sterility, and implant support are that much more important to consider. There have been few studies comparing different types of acellular dermal matrix in prepectoral breast reconstruction, and further research is required to determine the contribution of acellular dermal matrix type and processing techniques to development of postoperative infection.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

The First Use of Human-Derived ADM in Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction after Skin-Reducing Mastectomy

INTRODUCTION

Large and ptotic breasts always represented a great reconstructive challenge for plastic surgeons. In order to deal with these patients, we started performing Wise-pattern skin-reducing mastectomies (SRM) followed by direct-to-implant breast reconstructions (DTI-BR) in the prepectoral space where the implants were covered with the autologous adipo-dermal flap and a human acellular dermal matrix called MODA.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed all patients that underwent Wise-pattern SRM followed by MODA-assisted, prepectoral, DTI-BR between January 2017 and November 2019 at our Institution. Inclusion criteria were large ptotic breast and pinch test >2cm, while exclusion criteria were smoking >10 cigarettes/day, history of prior radiotherapy, patients supposedly requiring breast implants bigger than 550cc or post-mastectomy radiotherapy. Patients' data were collected through their electronic medical records. Both short- and long-term outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients underwent Wise-pattern SRM followed by MODA-assisted, prepectoral, DTI-BR for a total of twenty-one breast reconstruction and fourteen matching procedures. Mean follow-up was 13.4 months (SD= ±3.67). No major complication was reported. Three (14.3%) reconstructed breasts had minor complications: 2 (9.5%) minimal (<1cm²) wound dehiscence and 1 (4.8%) de-epithelization of the skin at the T junction that were treated conservatively. Drainages gave mean output of 410.59 ml (SD= ±214.83) and were kept in place on average for 8.59 days (SD= ±3.45).

CONCLUSION

Few are the reports in the literature regarding DTI-BR following SRM and even fewer are those where BR was performed in the prepectoral space. Our work demonstrated the safety of prepectoral DTI-BR following SRM in selected patients in accordance with the "conservative reconstruction" principles. Furthermore, we confirmed the reliability of MODA in accordance with previously published works.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 .

Comparative Analysis of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Recent advances in mastectomy and reconstruction have allowed for an evolution in implant-based breast reconstruction to a muscle-sparing, prepectoral approach. Advantages of this technique may include reductions in postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, less narcotic usage, and improved aesthetic outcomes. Postoperative complication rates are described as comparable to subpectoral techniques; however, little comparative data exist to adequately assess prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement.

Methods

To address this knowledge gap, we performed a single institution retrospective review of 186 (83 prepectoral, 103 subpectoral) consecutive immediate breast reconstructions. All cases were tracked for a minimum of 2 years between 2016 and 2021.

Results

Prepectoral patients demonstrated an overall higher seroma rate (P = 0.001), with all other postoperative complications being comparable. Prepectoral patients tolerated higher intraoperative tissue expander fill volumes (P < 0.001), shorter hospital stays (P = 0.007), fewer clinic visits for tissue expansion (P < 0.001), and experienced less animation deformity (P = 0.005). Both groups demonstrated similar pain scores (P = 0.65) and needs for narcotics (P = 0.8) as well as comparable scores of capsular contracture (P = 0.791).

Conclusions

Our comparative analysis of consecutive immediate implant-based breast reconstructions finds prepectoral reconstruction to be safe and effective. Compared with subpectoral reconstruction, the prepectoral approach may offer quicker tissue expansion, less postoperative office visits, less need for muscle relaxants, and a shorter hospital stay with a comparable complication profile.

Quality of Life and Early Functional Evaluation in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy: A Comparative Study Between Prepectoral Versus Dual-Plane Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

In conservative mastectomies, in which the native skin envelope is preserved, positioning an implant in the submuscular plane commonly leads to functional consequences like upper limb movement impairment and animation phenomena. In recent years, however, a new conservative prepectoral breast reconstruction technique has been proposed, with demonstrated surgical safety and aesthetic effectiveness. The aim of our study was to explore and compare the functional and aesthetic outcomes of the prepectoral/acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-wrapped implant procedure versus subpectoral/ADM-assisted reconstruction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective nonrandomized comparative study of 94 patients (121 breasts) undergoing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after skin-/nipple-sparing and skin reduction was conducted from February 2013 to October 2017. Fifty-five patients (group A) received subpectoral ADM-assisted reconstruction with dual-plane implant positioning, and 39 patients (group B) received prepectoral partially or totally ADM-wrapped implant reconstruction. Patients were allocated to either group A or B depending on the mastectomy flap thickness and vitality, as assessed clinically during the operation. Details of rehabilitation program, postoperative pain at 72 hours, postoperative analgesic therapies, demographic data, and complications were recorded. Upper limb function was assessed before and 1 month after surgery by a physiatrist according to a precise protocol. Patients were asked to fill in the BREAST-Q reconstruction questionnaire after surgery to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

Differences in upper limb function between groups, namely flexion (P = .03), abduction (P = .003), internal rotation (P = .02), and external rotation (P = .05), were statistically significant. Although most patients required postoperative rehabilitation, the individual rehabilitation intervention frequency was greater in the subpectoral group (91% in group A vs 74% in group B). There was also a significant difference in postoperative pain (within 72 hours), with less pain perceived in the prepectoral group (P = .01). Furthermore, prepectoral patients reported slightly better postoperative quality of life than subpectoral patients, particularly in the domains of sexual well-being (P = .005) and satisfaction with breast (P = .002).

CONCLUSION

In our case series, prepectoral implant positioning with partial or total ADM coverage led to less impairment of upper limb function in terms of flexion, abduction, and internal and external rotation, and also reduce the need for rehabilitation. Furthermore, as a result of the less invasive procedure, prepectoral patients had less immediate postoperative pain and were more satisfied with breast appearance.