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

Post-mastectomy radiation therapy after breast reconstruction: from historic dogmas to practical expert agreements based on a large literature review of surgical and radiation therapy considerations

Breast reconstruction (BR) after mastectomy is important to consider for a woman's body image enhancement and psychological well-being. Although post-mastectomy radiation (PMRT) significantly improves the outcome of patients with high-risk breast cancer (BC), PMRT after BR may affect cosmetic outcomes and may compromise the original goal of improving quality of life (QoL). With the lack of practical guidelines, it seems essential to work on a consensus and provide some "expert agreements" to offer patients the best option for PMRT after BR. We report a global "expert agreement" that results from a critical review of the literature on BR and PMRT during the 6th international multidisciplinary breast conference in March 2023.

A Single-center Comparison of Surgical Outcomes following Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Background

Prepectoral implant placement continues to gain widespread acceptance as a safe and effective option for breast reconstruction. Current literature demonstrates comparable rates of complications and revisions between prepectoral and subpectoral placement; however, these studies are underpowered and lack long-term follow-up.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent immediate two-staged tissue expander or direct-to-implant breast reconstruction at a single center from January 2017 to March 2021. Cases were divided into prepectoral and subpectoral cohorts. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications, aesthetic deformities, and secondary revisions. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models were performed to compare the demographic characteristics and outcomes between the two cohorts.

Results

We identified 996 breasts (570 patients), which were divided into prepectoral (391 breasts) and subpectoral (605 breasts) cohorts. There was a higher rate of complications (P < 0.001) and aesthetic deformities (P = 0.02) with prepectoral breast reconstruction. Secondary revisions were comparable between the two cohorts. Multivariable regression analysis confirmed that prepectoral reconstruction was associated with an increased risk of complications (odds ratio 2.39, P < 0.001) and aesthetic deformities (odds ratio 1.62, P = 0.003).

Conclusions

This study evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing prepectoral or subpectoral breast reconstruction from a single center with long-term follow-up. Prepectoral placement was shown to have an inferior complication and aesthetic profile compared with subpectoral placement, with no difference in secondary revisions. These findings require validation with a well-designed randomized controlled trial to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.

Association of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With Postoperative Outcomes in Immediate Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by total mastectomy and immediate reconstruction has become an important strategy in the treatment of breast cancer. Although the safety of subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with NACT has been extensively evaluated, the safety in prepectoral reconstruction has not been clearly elucidated. We aimed to evaluate the association of NACT with immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent total mastectomy and immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction between May and December 2021 was conducted. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: those receiving NACT and those not receiving it. Postoperative complication rates were compared between the 2 groups. The independent association between NACT and the complication profiles was evaluated. Propensity score matching was also conducted.

RESULTS

We analyzed 343 cases, including 85 who received NACT treatment and 258 who did not. Compared with the non-NACT group, the NACT group was younger, had a higher body mass index, and a higher rate of adjuvant radiotherapy. There were no differences in the rates of overall complications or type of complication between the 2 groups. In the multivariable logistic analyses, NACT did not show a significant association with the development of adverse outcomes. Similar results were observed in propensity score matching analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that receiving NACT may not have a significant detrimental effect on the postoperative outcomes of immediate prepectoral prosthetic reconstructions. Conducting prepectoral implant-based reconstruction in the setting of NACT might be safe and provide acceptable outcomes.

Triplane technique for breast reconstruction after breast cancer surgery: A case series report

RATIONALE

Implant-based breast reconstruction is an important method for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Currently, the most commonly used technique is the biplane technique. However, the high rate of postoperative complications, the inability of pockets to accommodate larger implants, and the expensive costs of biological mesh make the development of new surgical methods urgent. The triplane technique for breast reconstruction is an ideal candidate method.

PATIENT CONCERNS

The main local symptoms were breast lump, abnormal breast skin, nipple discharge, and abnormal nipple or areola in 24 patients.

DIAGNOSES

The study included 24 female patients who underwent breast reconstruction using the triplane technique after radical breast cancer surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

The surgical procedure involved measuring the dimensions of the breast, designing the incision, and creating a pocket for the implant using the triplane technique, which includes the pectoralis major muscle, the pectoralis major fascia continuing to the rectus abdominis fascia, and the latissimus dorsa muscle fascia continuing to the rectus abdominis fascia. Postoperative follow-up included regular assessments of pain and evaluation of breast appearance.

OUTCOMES

No cases of postoperative infection were observed in all patients. During the 1-year follow-up period after surgery, 5 patients (20.8%) who needed radiotherapy after mastectomy for cancer showed slight darkening of skin flap pigment after using the triplane technique implant. No cases of exposure or infection of the expanders were reported, and 1 patient underwent expander replacement with a permanent prosthesis. All patients expressed satisfaction with the reconstructed breast shape. The 10 patients (41.7%) experiencing postoperative swelling and pain. However, the pain gradually subsided during the postoperative recovery period. No cases of local recurrence or distant metastasis of breast cancer were observed during the 1-year-follow-up period.

LESSONS

The triplane technique for breast reconstruction after breast cancer surgery provides good implant coverage, reduces the risk of complications, and is cost-effective.

Implant Based Breast Reconstruction Using a Titanium-Coated Polypropylene Mesh (TiLOOP® Bra): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) can be performed using a variety of biological and synthetic meshes. However, there has yet to be a consensus on the optimal mesh. This study investigates the safety and patient satisfaction of using TiLOOP® Bra in IBBR and compares its postoperative complication risk with that of porcine acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and SERAGYN® BR.

METHODS

The literature review was performed via PRISMA criteria, 23 studies met the inclusion criteria for the TiLOOP® Bra review, and 5 studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Patient characteristics and per-breast complications were collected. Data were analyzed using Cochrane RevMan and IBM SPSS.

RESULTS

In 3175 breasts of 2685 patients that underwent IBBR using TiLOOP® Bra, rippling was observed as the most common complication, followed by seroma and capsular contracture. No significant difference in the overall complication rate between pre- and sub-pectoral IBBR using TiLOOP® Bra. However, the meta-analysis showed that the TiLOOP® Bra group had significantly lower odds of implant loss, seroma, wound dehiscence, and the need for reoperation or hospitalization than the ADM group. Additionally, the TiLOOP® Bra group had a significantly lower seroma rate compared to the SERAGYN® BR group, while the other outcome indicators were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

TiLOOP® Bra has become increasingly popular in IBBR in recent years. This review and meta-analysis support the favorable safety profile of TiLOOP® Bra reported in the current literature. The meta-analysis revealed that TiLOOP® Bra has better safety than ADM and a comparable risk of complications compared to SERAGYN® BR. However, as most studies had low levels of evidence, further investigations are necessary.

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 .

Selective Capsulotomies and Partial Capsulectomy in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Revision Surgery

Background

Breast cancer with about 2.3 million diagnoses and 685,000 deaths globally is the most frequent malignancy in the female population. Continuous research has led to oncological and reconstructive advances in the management of breast cancer, thus improving outcomes and decreasing patient morbidity. Nowadays, the submuscular expander and prosthesis (E/P) implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) accounts for 73% of all reconstructions. Despite its widely accepted efficacy, the technique is not free from complications and up to 28% of cases require revision surgery for mechanical complications such as capsular contracture, implant displacement/rotation, and implant rupture. With this study, the authors report their experience in the management of E/P IBR revision surgery through the technique of Selective Capsulotomies (SCs) and Partial Capsulectomy (PC).

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on patients who had previously undergone E/P IBR and presented for revision reconstruction between January 2013 and May 2023 at the Department of Plastic Surgery of the University of Siena, Italy. Reasons for revision included capsular contracture, implant displacement/rotation, and implant rupture. Revision reconstructions involved SC and PC with implant replacement. Fat grafting was also considered. The complication rate was evaluated by analysis of patients' medical records. Patients' satisfaction with the treatment was assessed through a specific questionnaire.

Results

32 patients underwent revision surgeries. No early complication occurred. Recurrence rate was assessed at 19% with average follow-up of 59 months (range: 13-114 months). The average time between revision surgery and recurrence was 3 years (range: 1-6 years). 23 patients answered the questionnaire and were overall satisfied with the treatments (8.29/10).

Conclusions

SC possibly associated to PC is a valuable option for E/P IBR revision surgery with minimal complications, reduced surgical trauma, short operating time, and relatively low recurrence risk. In addition, treated patients are overall satisfied with the results over time.

Incidence and Risk Assessment of Capsular Contracture in Breast Cancer Patients following Post-Mastectomy Radiotherapy and Implant-Based Reconstruction

Our study aims to identify the risk factors and dosimetry characteristics associated with capsular contracture.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 118 women with breast cancer who underwent PMRT following an IBR between 2010 and 2022. Patients were treated with PMRT of 50.0-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions. Capsular contracture was categorized according to the Baker Classification for Reconstructed Breasts.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 22 months, the incidence of clinically relevant capsular contracture (Baker III-IV) was 22.9%. Overall, capsular contracture (Baker I-IV) occurred in 56 patients (47.5%) after a median of 9 months after PMRT. The rate of reconstruction failure/implant loss was 25.4%. In the univariate analysis, postoperative complications (prolonged pain, prolonged wound healing, seroma and swelling) and regional nodal involvement were associated with higher rates of capsular contracture (p = 0.017, OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.2-5.3 and p = 0.031, respectively). None of the analyzed dosimetric factors or the implant position were associated with a higher risk for capsular contracture.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative complications and regional nodal involvement were associated with an increased risk of capsular contracture following breast reconstruction and PMRT, while none of the analyzed dosimetric factors were linked to a higher incidence. Additional studies are needed to identify further potential risk factors.

Prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: U.S. medical center experience and narrative review

Background and Objective

With the incorporation of autologous fat grafting, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) products, and nipple-sparing mastectomy, prepectoral device placement has become more popular in selected patients when compared to partial submuscular (dual plane) or complete submuscular device placement. In this article, we aimed to present a review of the current state-of-the-art for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) using expanders. Additionally, we present a case series of our experience with IBBR evaluating perioperative outcomes, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO).

Methods

For our series, we retrospectively evaluated adult female patients undergoing 2-stage immediate IBBR after total mastectomy between 2011 and 2021. We performed a systematic search across PubMed MEDLINE for articles evaluating outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage IBBR with expanders published from database inception through February 28th, 2023.

Key Content and Findings

Both prepectoral and subpectoral are safe alternatives for two-stage IBBR. Due to current advancements in the field of breast reconstruction, prepectoral IBBR has gained popularity and has a comparable rate of complications compared to a subpectoral approach in selected patients according to high-quality articles. In patients with several comorbidities, current tobacco use, history of preoperative radiation, and limited perfusion of the mastectomy flaps, subpectoral device placement should be given special consideration as a layer of vascularized tissue can decrease the risk of major complications or unplanned procedures. As prepectoral device placement does not require dissection of the pectoral muscles, faster recovery, better implant position, decreased pain, and a shorter time to complete expansion is expected. The plane of reconstruction does not seem to significantly affect the time for expander-to-implant exchange or PRO for quality-of-life (QOL) according to most studies.

Conclusions

Prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR demonstrated a comparable rate of complications in selected patients. Nonetheless, perioperative outcomes seem to be improved using a prepectoral approach in terms of reduced pain, reduced time to conclude outpatient expansions, and less animation deformity.

Locoregional Therapy: From Mastectomy to Reconstruction, Targeted Surgery, and Ultra-Hypofractionated Radiotherapy

Background

The past 3 decades have seen an unprecedented shift toward treatment de-escalation in surgical therapy of breast cancer.

Summary

Radical mastectomy has been replaced by breast-conserving and oncoplastic approaches in most patients, and full axillary lymph node dissection by less radical staging procedures, such as sentinel lymph node biopsy and targeted axillary dissection. Further, attempts have been made to spare healthy tissue while increasing the probability of removing the tumor with clear margins, thus improving cosmetic results and minimizing the risk of local recurrence. In this context, modern probe-guided localization techniques have been introduced to guide surgical excision. This progress was accompanied by the development of targeted systemic therapies. At the same time, radiotherapy for breast cancer has undergone significant changes. The use of hypofractionation has decreased the typical length of a treatment course from 5-6 weeks to 1-3 weeks. Partial breast irradiation is now a valid option for de-escalation in patients with low-risk features. Axillary radiotherapy achieves similar recurrence rates and decreases the risk of lymphedema in patients with limited sentinel node involvement.

Key Messages

Taken together, these advances are important steps toward individualization of locoregional management strategies. This highlights the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for de-escalation of locoregional therapies.

Recurrent Breast Animation after Conversion from Dual Plane to Prepectoral Breast Implant Placement

Conversion to a prepectoral implant pocket is considered the definitive treatment for breast animation after implant-based breast reconstruction. Although subtle movement of implants placed in the prepectoral plane may be noted on clinical examination by experienced surgeons, current data demonstrate complete resolution of animation deformity with prepectoral implant placement. We present the case of a middle-aged women who underwent breast implant pocket conversion from dual-plane to prepectoral plane for treatment of animation deformity. Although her postoperative recovery was unremarkable with initial resolution of animation, recurrent implant animation was evident on 3-month follow-up. Recurrent breast animation after conversion from dual-plane to prepectoral implant pocket is highly unusual and unreported in the current literature. Although revision surgery may identify potential causes, larger-scale research on contributing factors will be valuable in developing strategies to prevent recurrent animation after conversion to a prepectoral implant pocket.

Comparison of Complication Rates Between Subpectoral vs Prepectoral Techniques in Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The location of tissue expanders in implant-based breast reconstruction remains controversial due to variation in surgical techniques and devices.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of early and late complication rates between prepectoral and subpectoral placement of tissue expanders.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all adult female patients who had undergone 2-stage implant-based breast reconstruction between 2013 and 2019 in our institution. Early complication was defined as complications that occurred within 30 days after surgery. Time-to-event analyses were performed and Cox proportional hazard models were used to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

In total, 854 patients were included; 76% of patients underwent a subpectoral tissue expander placement. After the first-stage procedure, the early complication rate was 34% and the late complication rate was 36.4%. After the second-stage procedure, the early complication rate was 16.3% and the late complication rate was 16.1%. Location of the tissue expander did not predict either overall early or late complication rates, regardless of the stages of reconstruction, after adjusting for confounders. Tissue expanders placed in prepectoral plane were associated with a higher hazard ratio (HR) for developing early and late infection after the first stage of reconstruction (HR, 2.1 and 2.4, respectively) as well as late infection after the second stage of reconstruction (HR, 5.3; all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Location of tissue expanders did not predict risk of complication. However, the prepectoral group was associated with an increased risk of developing infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

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.

The Impact of Adjuvant Radiotherapy on Immediate Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) rates have increased in recent years owing to improved cosmetic and psychological benefits. However, there is a lack of studies regarding complications rates following adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) among patients undergoing immediate prepectoral IBBR.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective monocentric analysis of a cohort of consecutively treated patients who underwent NSM following immediate prepectoral IBBR at our institution between March 2017 and November 2021. Patient demographics, quality of life, complication rates, and oncological safety were evaluated in the RT and non-RT groups. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Version 24 (IMB Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients were examined: 70 were assigned to have prepectoral IBBR without RT and 28 to the group who had prepectoral IBBR with RT. There was a statistically significant difference in overall capsular contracture rate between the RT and non-RT group (18% vs. 4.3%, p=0.04). The total implant loss in the cohort was 4% (10.7% vs. 1.4%, p=0.05). We obtained a high percentages of all BREAST-Q categories in both groups; however, satisfaction with the breast and sexual well-being was higher in the non-RT group. The three-year overall survivals were 97.4% in the RT group and 98.5% in the non-RT group.

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed that patients in the RT group had a higher rate of capsular contracture and implant loss than those in the non-RT group. However, complication rates were within acceptable range and with accurate preoperative information patients have more benefits from immediate reconstruction showing excellent overall quality of life irrespectively of radiation.

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 .

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2023

Background

Each year the interdisciplinary Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO), German Gynecological Oncology Group Breast Committee on Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer provides updated state-of-the-art recommendations for early and metastatic breast cancer.

Summary

The updated evidence-based treatment recommendation for early and metastatic breast cancer has been released in March 2023.

Key Messages

This paper concisely captures the updated recommendations for early breast cancer chapter by chapter.

Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery

This article provides an overview of the principles and techniques of oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery for patients with early-stage breast cancer. Oncoplastic breast surgery (OPBS) with partial breast reconstruction is a natural evolution in the application of breast conserving surgery and permits wide surgical resection of tumours that might otherwise mandate mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction. These reconstructive techniques must be optimally selected and integrated with ablative breast surgery together with non-surgical treatments such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy that may be variably sequenced with each other. A multidisciplinary approach with shared decision-making is essential to ensure optimal clinical and patient-reported outcomes that address oncological, aesthetic, functional and psychosocial domains. Future practice of OPBS must incorporate routine audit and comprehensive evaluation of outcomes.

Ptotic versus Nonptotic Breasts in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

In recent years, nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity due to improved cosmetic and psychological benefits. However, patients with ptotic breasts remain the main challenge for surgeons, owing to the potential risk of postoperative complications.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy and prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction between March 2017 and November 2021. Patient demographics, incidence of complications, and quality of life assessed using the BREAST-Q questionnaire were compared between the two different incisions [inverted-T for ptotic versus inframammary fold (IMF) for nonptotic breasts].

Results

A total of 98 patients were examined: 62 in the IMF cohort and 36 in the inverted-T cohort. The results demonstrated equivalence in the safety metrics between the two groups, including hematoma (p=0.367), seroma (p=0.552), infection (P = 1.00), skin necrosis (P = 1.00), local recurrence (P = 1.00), implant loss (P = 0.139), capsular contracture (P = 1.00), and nipple-areolar complex necrosis (P = 0.139). The BREAST-Q scores were equally high in both groups.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that inverted-T incision for ptotic breasts is a safe modality with similar complication rates and high aesthetic results compared with IMF incision for nonptotic breasts. A higher rate of nipple-areolar complex necrosis in the inverted-T group, although not significant, should be considered during careful preoperative planning and patient selection.

Breast reconstruction: Review of current autologous and implant-based techniques and long-term oncologic outcome

Implant-based reconstruction is the most common method of breast reconstruction. Autologous breast reconstruction is an indispensable option for breast reconstruction demanding keen microsurgical skills and robust anatomical understanding. The reconstructive choice is made by the patient after a discussion with the plastic surgeon covering all the available options. Advantages and disadvantages of each technique along with long-term oncologic outcome are reviewed.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q

BACKGROUND

Over the years, plastic surgery has acquired a central role in the integrated treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using the prepectoral approach has emerged as an alternative to reconstruction using the subpectoral technique to overcome the complications arising from this type of surgery resulting as a consequence of muscle elevation. The satisfaction and quality of life of patients undergoing DTI breast reconstruction were evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire, comparing the prepectoral and the subpectoral technique.

METHODS

A single-center cross-sectional study on patients who underwent mastectomy and DTI breast reconstruction at our institution between 2013 and 2021 was conducted. Eighty-one patients were included and mainly divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: 52 patients undergoing a subpectoral breast reconstruction approach and 29 patients receiving a prepectoral breast reconstruction. In order to assess the quality of life, the postoperative BREAST-Q module was administered electronically to the enrolled patients.

RESULTS

Higher scores in BREAST-Q domains were recorded from patients who underwent mastectomy and breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique: psychosocial well-being (P<0.0085), sexual well-being (P<0.0120), physical well-being: lymphoedema (P<0.0001) and satisfaction with information received (P<0.0045). There were further statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to postoperative complications (p<0.0465) and the need for reoperation (p<0.0275).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique were more satisfied in terms of psychosocial, sexual and also physical well-being. These patients also had statistically lower complications and reoperations compared to patients who received breast reconstruction with the subpectoral technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors 38 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 39 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 40 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 41 Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Safety and Quality of Life in Women with Immediate Reconstruction with Polyurethane Implants after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Outcomes from The Preq-20 Trial

INTRODUCTION

Various studies have evaluated the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on the complications of breast cancer surgery, most of which were retrospective and did not assess the variables related to postoperative risk factors. The aim of this study is to analyse the safety and satisfaction of women included in the PreQ-20 trial who underwent NAC and who underwent mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with prepectoral polyurethane implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The patients included in the study belong to the prospective study PreQ-20. The study group consisted of patients who underwent immediate reconstruction after primary systemic therapy. The control groups consisted of patients with immediate reconstruction and adjuvant chemotherapy (control group 1) and patients with an infiltrating carcinoma or in situ ductal carcinoma who did not require chemotherapy (control group 2).

RESULTS

The study included 157 women, 58 (36.9%) of whom underwent primary systemic therapy. The indication for genetic study was significantly greater for the study group (87.9%) than for control groups 1 (49.1%) or 2 (30.4%). Seventy-two (45.9%) of the patients underwent bilateral mastectomy (BM), a procedure that was performed significantly more frequently in the study group (69%) than in control groups 1 (30.2%) or 2 (34.8%). The incidence rate for BM after complete pathologic response was 78%. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of complications between the groups. Implant loss was significantly more frequent in control group 1 (13.2%) than in the study group (3.4%) and control group 2 (2.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Mastectomy with prepectoral polyurethane implant reconstruction in patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy presented a similar incidence of complications compared with patients who underwent primary surgery. There is a high rate of BM in women with NAC.