Safety Profile and Predictors of Aesthetic Outcomes After Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction With Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix

Impact of Tissue Expander Surface Texture on Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction Outcomes: A Combined Analysis

BACKGROUND

With ongoing investigations of the impact of device texturing on breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), studies have begun comparing complication profiles of tissue expanders. However, there is a paucity of timing and severity data of complications. The aim of this study was to provide a comparative survival analysis of postoperative complications between smooth (STEs) and textured tissue expanders (TTEs) in breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A single-institution experience with tissue expander breast reconstruction was reviewed for complications up to 1 year after second-stage reconstruction from 2014 to 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, operation-related variables, and complications were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazard models, and a consensus-based ordinal logistic regression model were used to compare complication profiles.

RESULTS

Of 919 total patients, 600 (65.3%) received TTEs and 319 (34.7%) received STEs. There was increased risk of infection ( P < 0.0001), seroma ( P = 0.046), expander malposition ( P < 0.0001), and wound dehiscence ( P = 0.019) in STEs compared with TTEs. However, there was also a decreased risk of capsular contracture ( P = 0.005) in STEs compared with TTEs. Failure of breast reconstruction ( P < 0.001) and wound dehiscence ( P = 0.018) occurred significantly earlier in STEs compared with TTEs. Predictors for significantly higher severity complications included the following: smooth tissue expander use ( P = 0.007), shorter time to complication ( P < 0.0001), higher body mass index ( P = 0.005), smoking history ( P = 0.025), and nipple-sparing mastectomy ( P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in the timing and severity of complications contribute to the safety profiles of tissue expanders. STEs are associated with increased odds of higher severity and earlier complications. Therefore, tissue expander selection may depend on underlying risk factors and severity predictors.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Technical Tips to Reduce Implant Rippling in Staged Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is becoming increasingly popular, permitting optimal implant positioning on the chest wall, prevention of animation deformity, and reduced patient discomfort. There are, however, concerns related to increased rates of breast implant rippling in pre-pectoral (versus submuscular) IBR, which can prompt a patient to seek revisionary surgery. The aim of this study is to identify factors that can be implemented to reduce implant rippling in the setting of pre-pectoral IBR.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted using the PubMed database to determine the rate of rippling in pre-pectoral IBR. Clinical studies in English were included. Further review was then performed to explore technical strategies associated with reduced rates of rippling in pre-pectoral two-stage breast reconstruction.

RESULTS

Implant rippling has been reported with a rate varying from 0 to 53.8% in 25 studies of pre-pectoral IBR (including both direct-to-implant and two-stage IBR). The majority of studies reviewed did not demonstrate a significant association between BMI and rippling, suggesting that other factors, likely technical and device-related, contribute to the manifestation of implant rippling. Hence, we explored whether specific technical modifications could be implemented that would reduce the risk of rippling in patients undergoing pre-pectoral IBR. Specifically, we highlight the need for close attention to expansion protocol and pocket dimension, expander fill medium and implant characteristics, and the rationale behind adjunctive procedures to reduce implant rippling.

CONCLUSION

Surgical modifications may reduce the incidence of rippling in pre-pectoral breast reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Predicting Final Implant Volume in Two-stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction remains the most commonly performed reconstructive modality following mastectomy. Although prior studies have explored the relationship between tissue expander (TE) features and permanent implant (PI) size in subpectoral reconstruction, no such study exists in prepectoral reconstruction. This study aims to identify pertinent TE characteristics and evaluate their correlations with PI size for prepectoral implant-based reconstruction.

METHODS

This study analyzed patients who underwent two-stage prepectoral tissue expansion for breast reconstruction followed by implant placement. Patient demographics and oncologic characteristics were recorded. TE and PI features were evaluated. Significant predictors for PI volume were identified using linear and multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 177 patients and 296 breast reconstructions that met inclusion criteria. All reconstructions were performed in the prepectoral plane with the majority using acellular dermal matrix (93.8%) and primarily silicone implants (94.3%). Mean TE size was 485.4 cm³ with mean initial fill of 245.8 cm³ and mean final fill of 454.4 cm³. Mean PI size was 502.9 cm³ with a differential fill volume (PI-TE) of 11.7 cm³. Multivariate analysis identified significant features for PI size prediction, including TE size (R² = 0.60; P < 0.0001) and TE final fill volume (R² = 0.57; P < 0.0001). The prediction expression for TE final fill and TE size was calculated as 26.6 + 0.38*(TE final fill) + 0.61*(TE size).

CONCLUSIONS

TE size and final expansion volume were significant variables for implant size prediction. With prepectoral implant placement gaining popularity, the predictive formula may help optimize preoperative planning and decision-making in prepectoral reconstructions.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has recently been introduced to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic outcomes in women having implant-based procedures. High-quality evidence to support the practice of PPBR, however, is lacking. Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b study that aimed to establish the safety, effectiveness, and stability of PPBR before definitive evaluation in an RCT. The short-term safety endpoints at 3 months after surgery are reported here.

METHODS

Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating UK centres between July 2019 and December 2020 were invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology, and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss at 3 months. Other outcomes of interest included readmission, reoperation, and infection.

RESULTS

Some 347 women underwent 424 immediate implant-based reconstructions at 40 centres. Most were single-stage direct-to-implant (357, 84.2 per cent) biological mesh-assisted (341, 80.4 per cent) procedures. Conversion to subpectoral reconstruction was necessary in four patients (0.9 per cent) owing to poor skin-flap quality. Of the 343 women who underwent PPBR, 144 (42.0 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication. Implant loss occurred in 28 women (8.2 per cent), 67 (19.5 per cent) experienced an infection, 60 (17.5 per cent) were readmitted for a complication, and 55 (16.0 per cent) required reoperation within 3 months of reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates following PPBR are high and implant loss is comparable to that associated with subpectoral mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. These findings support the need for a well-designed RCT comparing prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.