Prepectoral breast reconstruction

The current use of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction: device design, features, and technical considerations

INTRODUCTION

The use of tissue expanders (TE) in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction is a widely accepted practice, especially in patients desiring implant-based breast reconstruction. It has become the standard of care to perform a two-staged breast reconstruction using tissue expanders for the past 50 years due to its reliability, safety, cost-effectiveness, and versatility. Due to its popularity, there are numerous types and features of breast tissue expanders and various surgical approaches available for plastic surgeons.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we will review the role of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction, the types and features of breast tissue expanders, and technical considerations.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction offers significant advantages of preserving the breast skin envelope and reestablishing the breast mound. With evolving approaches to breast reconstruction, tissue expander design, and application underwent several refinements and modifications. Due to these advances, studies on its long-term efficacy and safety profile typically fall behind and more studies with higher levels of evidence are needed to better evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of tissue expanders. With increased understanding, reconstructive surgeons can minimize complications and maximize reconstructive, aesthetic outcomes with high patient satisfaction.

The Effect of Early Cultures and Dual-port Expanders on Two-stage, Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: The 25/25 Study

Background

Two-stage tissue expander to implant surgery remains the predominant technique for breast reconstruction. Unfortunately, there is a high incidence of reconstruction failure which portends a financial and emotional burden. Most failures are related to postmastectomy skin flap necrosis and infection. Recently, a dual-port tissue expander was introduced to the market, and the authors hypothesize that early cultures from the peri-implant fluid will guide antibiotic treatment and decrease reconstruction failure.

Methods

This is a cohort study of 50 consecutive patients treated for breast cancer or genetic susceptibility via a two-stage, prepectoral technique. The first 25 patients (46 breasts) were treated with a variety of tissue expanders, and the subsequent 25 patients (47 breasts) received a dual-port expander. Routine cultures from the drain port were taken from the dual-port group at the second postoperative visit, and cultures were taken in the control group only when signs of infection were present. All other procedures and interventions were similar.

Results

Fifty patients, totaling 93 breasts, completed the study with a mean follow-up of 145 days. There were no statistically significant demographic or pathologic differences between groups. Fifteen tissue expanders were explanted in the control group and five in the dual-port cohort (32.6% versus 10.6%, P = 0.012). All bacteria in the control group failures were either methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Staphylococcus epidermidis, whereas failures in the dual-port group varied.

Conclusion

Treatment of routine, early cultures from a dual-port expander led to a statistically significant decrease in tissue expander explantation.

A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes in Prepectoral Smooth Versus Textured Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Textured tissue expanders (TEs) had previously gained popularity due to minimizing expander migration, rotation, and capsule migration. Recent studies, though, have revealed increased risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma associated with certain macrotextured implants, prompting surgeons at our institution to switch to smooth TEs; evaluation is thus required for specific viability and similarity of outcomes of smooth TEs. Our study aims to evaluate perioperative complications in prepectoral placement of smooth versus textured TEs.

METHODS

Our retrospective study evaluated perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent bilateral prepectoral TE placement, with either smooth or textured TE, at an academic institution between 2017 and 2021 performed by 2 reconstructive surgeons. The perioperative period was defined as the interval between expander placement until conversion to flap/implant or removal of TE due to complications. Our primary outcomes included hematoma, seroma, wounds, infection, unspecified redness, total number of complications, and returns to operating room secondary to complications. Secondary outcomes included time to drain removal, total number of expansions, hospital length of stay, length of time until the next breast reconstruction procedure, next breast reconstruction procedure, and number of expansions.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-two patients were evaluated in our study (141 textured, 81 smooth). After propensity matching (71 textured, 71 smooth), our univariate logistic regression showed no significant difference in perioperative complications between smooth and textured expanders (17.1% vs 21.1%; P = 0.396) or complications that required a return to the operating room (10.0% vs 9.2%; P = 0.809). No significant differences were noted for hematoma, seroma, infections, unspecified redness, or wounds between both groups. A significant difference was noted in days to drain out (18.57 ± 8.17 vs 20.13 ± 0.07, P = 0.001) and type of the next breast reconstruction procedure (P < 0.001). Our multivariate regression showed that breast surgeon, hypertension, smoking status, and mastectomy weight were significant for increased risk for complications.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates similar rates and effectiveness of smooth versus textured TE when used for prepectoral placement, making smooth TEs a safe and valuable alternative for breast reconstruction because of their decreased risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma compared with textured TEs.

Optimizing Prepectoral Implant Placement and Concomitant Fat Grafting After Tissue Expansion

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is often supplemented by autologous fat grafting to optimize aesthetic outcomes. This usually entails several rounds of modest fat transfer to minimize risk of necrosis; however, the limits of fat grafting at expander exchange are not known.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review from July 2016 to February 2022 was performed of all patients who underwent (1) mastectomy, (2) prepectoral tissue expander placement, (3) expander exchange for implant, and (4) at least one round of autologous fat transfer. Student t test and χ2 test were used.

RESULTS

A total of 82 breasts underwent a single round of fat grafting during implant placement (group 1); 75 breasts underwent fat grafting that occurred in multiple rounds and/or in delay to implant placement (group 2). Group 1 received more fat at the time of implant placement (100 mL; interquartile range, 55-140 mL; P < 0.001) and underwent fewer planned operative procedures compared with group 2 (1.0 vs 2.2, P < 0.001). Total fat volume in group 2 did not significantly exceed that of group 1 until after 3 rounds of fat transfer (128.5 mL; interquartile range, 90-130 mL; P < 0.01). There was no difference in the rate of fat necrosis between groups after the first round (15.9% vs 9.3%, P = 0.2) and final round (15.9% vs 12.0%, P = 0.5) of fat grafting. Complication rates were similar between groups (3.7% vs 8.0%, P = 0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

A 2-stage approach of prepectoral tissue expander placement with single round of larger volume fat transfer at expander exchange reduces overall number of operative procedures without increased risks.

Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Using an ADM with Smooth Round Implants – A Prospective Observational Cohort Study

Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) is well established and used in candidates for nipple/skin-sparing mastectomies; it is based on many different matrices and a great variability in breast implant selection. We describe our experience and clinical outcomes using Braxon® ADMs and smooth round breast implants. Females aged 18-80 years who underwent mastectomies with immediate prepectoral reconstruction between April 2019 and April 2021 were prospectively included. Complications were classified as mastectomy-related (hematoma, necrosis) or reconstruction-related (seroma, infection, red breast syndrome). Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to assess correlation between complication rate and selected variables, which were analyzed per breast with Kruskal-Wallis H test. Fifty-eight patients (102 breasts) received 45 bilateral and 12 unilateral procedures. Drains collected 485.9 cc [range: 100-1260] and were removed 15.7 days [range: 6-29] postoperatively. We report 41 complications (40.2%): 33 mastectomy-related, 8 reconstruction-related. Reoperation occurred in 14 patients: 7 wound debridement and revisions under local anesthesia; and 7 explantation. Implant loss rate was 6.8%. Mastectomy and reconstruction complications were not correlated with any variable. In conclusion, we found prepectoral reconstruction with Braxon® ADMs and smooth round implants to be associated with acceptable complication rates that are not influenced by any patient- or surgery-related factors. Drainage volume is comparable to other breast implant reconstructive techniques, but drains are left in place for longer.

Mastectomy with one-stage or two-stage reconstruction in breast cancer: analysis of early outcomes and patient's satisfaction

Aim of this study is to compare early post-operative outcomes and patient's satisfaction after skin-sparing and/or nipple-sparing mastectomy (SSM/SNSM) followed either by breast reconstruction with one-stage prepectoral implantation or two-stage technique for breast cancer (BC) or BRCA1/2 mutation.From January 2018 to December 2021, 96 patients (mean age of 51.12 ± 10.9) underwent SSM/SNSM and were divided into two groups: in group A (65 patients, 67.7%), mastectomy was followed by one-stage reconstruction; in group B (31 patients, 32.3%) by two-stage. Operative time was significantly longer in A vs. B (307.6 ± 95.7 vs. 254.4 ± 90.91; P < 0.05). Previous breast surgery was more common in B vs. A (29.0% vs. 7.7%; P < 0.05), while bilateral surgery was performed more frequently in A vs. B (40% vs. 6.5%; P = 0.001). All SSM/SNSM for BRCA1/2 mutation were followed by immediate prepectoral implantation. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of post-operative complications. At pathology, DCIS and invasive ST forms, such as multicentric/multifocal forms, were detected more frequently in B, while NST type in A (all P < 0.05). A multivariate analysis showed improved post-operative satisfaction at BREAST-Q survey in Group A (P = 0.001). Encouraging oncologic outcomes after SSM/SNSM for BC enabled the improvement of breast reconstructive techniques. One-stage reconstruction is characterized by better aesthetic outcomes and by greater patient's satisfaction. When SSM/SNSM is technically difficult to perform, as in multicentric/multifocal forms or previous breast surgery, mastectomy followed by two-stage reconstruction should be considered to achieve a radical surgery.

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.

Chances and challenges-analysis of trends in breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

While breast reconstruction has become more and more important within the past decade, research focus areas as well as trends are in constant change.

METHOD

The publications from 2012 to 2021 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database. CiteSpace visualization analysis software was used to analyze the institutions, countries, regions, categories, and keywords on breast reconstruction research.

RESULT

A total of 3092 articles were selected. The number of articles published in the last 10 years showed an upward trend year by year. The journal "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery" had the largest number of publications and citations, representing the core journal. The USA had the largest number of publications and the most extensive cooperation with other countries. The research highlights mainly focused on the improvement of surgical techniques, enhancing postoperative recovery, and oncological safety.

CONCLUSION

Over the past decade, research on breast reconstruction has developed steadily, and considerable achievements in the field of surgical techniques, postoperative recovery, and oncological safety were reached. Plastic surgeons should continue to strive for a higher level of evidence study designs, while also recognizing the importance of international and multiple-center cooperation.

Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix for Two-Staged Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: An Institutional Experience

The introduction of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to breast reconstruction has allowed surgeons to reexplore the prepectoral implant placement technique in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Our institution adopted a novel approach using meshed ADM to lessen the financial burden of increased ADM utilization with the prepectoral breast reconstruction. This is a retrospective, single-center review of two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction using meshed human-derived ADM for anterior prosthesis coverage. Patient demographics, oncologic data, perioperative characteristics, and complications were examined and reported as means with standard deviations. Cost-saving with the meshed technique was evaluated. Forty-eight patients (72 breasts) with a mean age of 48.5 ± 15.0 years (range 26–70 years) were included in the study. The mean follow-up time was 13.2 ± 4.4 months (range 4.1–25.8 months). Nineteen breasts (24.6%) experienced complications, with seromas being the most common complication (12.5%, n  = 9). Expander removal and reoperation occurred at a rate of 8.3 and 9.7%, respectively. The average time to drain removal was 18.8 ± 6.6 days (range 8–32 days). Meshed ADM provided an average cost savings of $6,601 for unilateral and $13,202 for bilateral reconstructions. Our study found that human-derived meshed ADM can be safely used in two-staged prepectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction and can result in significant cost savings.

Selective Denervation of Pectoralis Major Muscle Improves Cosmetic Outcome and Quality of Life in Retro-Pectoral Implant Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Selective pectoralis major muscle (PMM) denervation has been described in retro-pectoral reconstructions to obtain the advantages of the pre-pectoral approach. Present study compared subjective evaluations between retro-pectoral implant based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) with denervation to traditional techniques without denervation.

METHODS

In 2020, two 2 groups of patients submitted to retro-pectoral IBBR, minimum 12-month follow-up, were compared through BREAST-Q post-operative questionnaire. Group-1 included direct-to-implant or two2-stage tissue expanderTE cases with selective PMM denervation, while Group-2 similar procedures, in the same time span 2017-2019, without denervation. BREAST-Q was divided into five 5 independent scales and for each scale item responses were summed up and transformed into a score, ranging from 0 to 100, to analyze and compare the results.

RESULTS

50 patients were included both in Group1 and Group-2. Group-1 patients reported significantly higher scores in "satisfaction with the reconstructed breast" scale compared to Group-2, means-medians of 56-58 and 47-50, respectively. A trend in favor of Group-1 was recorded in the scales of "psycho-social well-being", 64-65 vs. 58-53, and "sexual well-being", 53-47 vs. 48-47, albeit not significant. Substantial equivalence was found in "satisfaction with the result overall" and "physical well-being".

CONCLUSION

PMM denervation can improve cosmetic results in retro-pec IBBRs, thus leading to better QoL. Possible pain and physical discomfort weren't caused by denervation with scores similar to non-denervated controls.

Day-case approach to immediate breast reconstruction: pushing the boundaries of ambulatory breast surgery in the post-COVID-19 era

INTRODUCTION

Day-case surgery is safe and efficacious for most breast surgical procedures. Limited data exist on its use in immediate breast reconstruction. We present our experience of day-case management of mastectomy with immediate pre-pectoral implant-based reconstruction (IBR).

METHODS

Data were collected on 47 patients who underwent day-case skin-sparing (SSM) or nipple-sparing (NSM) mastectomy with pre-pectoral IBR between October 2017 and September 2019. Clinicopathological data were collected, including postoperative complications, re-admission and re-operation. The data were compared to published national standards.

RESULTS

Median age was 52 years (range 37-74). Thirty-two patients (68%) had an SSM and 15 (32%) had an NSM. Two patients (4%) had risk-reducing mastectomies and 45 had treatment for invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Mean tumour size was 33.3mm (range 7-85mm). Forty-two (89%) patients went home on the day of surgery. No patients required re-operation in the first 48 hours. The median postoperative follow-up time was 11.4 months (range 1.8-22.7 months). During the first 90-day postoperative period, eight patients (17%) developed superficial skin necrosis, five patients (10.6%) developed postoperative infections and five patients (10.6%) suffered an implant loss. Eight patients (17%) were readmitted for re-operation. Compared to UK national standards set in the iBRA study, our cohort has demonstrated comparable postoperative infection, implant loss and re-operation and re-admission rates.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated close to 90% day-case success rate for mastectomy with IBR. These early data suggest that immediate IBR can be carried out in a manner that is cost-efficient without impacting surgical outcomes.

Examining the Effects of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Autologous Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is known to increase the risk of multiple adverse outcomes after breast reconstruction. In the context of delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction, PMRT is typically conducted after placement of subpectoral (SP) tissue expanders. With the re-emergence of prepectoral (PP) reconstruction, there are little data assessing the outcomes of PP reconstruction in breasts receiving PMRT. We compared postoperative outcomes of PMRT patients undergoing delayed-immediate, autologous breast reconstruction with placement of tissue expanders in either the PP or SP plane.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on all consecutive patients who underwent delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction and received PMRT at either the Stanford University or the Johns Hopkins University Hospitals between January 2009 and December 2018. Demographics, comorbidities, perioperative information, and oncologic data were collected for all patients. Complications were collected and analyzed after stage 1 surgery, between 30 days of stage 1 and up to stage 2 surgery, and after stage 2 surgery. Multivariable regressions were used to determine predictors of 1 or more complications.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients (73 breasts) were included. Prepectoral reconstruction comprised of 52.2% of the cohort, and the remaining 47.8% were SP reconstructions. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between groups, except for premastectomy radiation, which was more prevalent in the PP cohort (P = 0.010). Complications were similar between cohorts after stage 1 surgery (P = 0.420), between stages 1 and 2 (P = 0.100), and after stage 2 (P = 0.570). There were higher rates of skin necrosis in the SP cohort between stages 1 and 2 (PP: 2.6%, SP: 20%, P = 0.004). Multivariable analysis revealed body mass index to be the only predictor of complication (P = 0.041). The mean number of revisionary surgeries was higher in the SP cohort (PP: 0.8 vs SP: 1.9, P = 0.002). The mean follow-up was 385.5 days and similar between groups (P = 0.870).

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of overall complication were similar between PP and SP expander placement. However, in SP reconstructions, skin necrosis was significantly higher between stages 1 and 2. The patients in the SP cohort also underwent a greater number of revisionary surgeries, although overall rates of pursuing any revisionary surgery were similar between groups.

Next-generation surgical meshes for drug delivery and tissue engineering applications: materials, design and emerging manufacturing technologies

Abstract

Surgical meshes have been employed in the management of a variety of pathological conditions including hernia, pelvic floor dysfunctions, periodontal guided bone regeneration, wound healing and more recently for breast plastic surgery after mastectomy. These common pathologies affect a wide portion of the worldwide population; therefore, an effective and enhanced treatment is crucial to ameliorate patients’ living conditions both from medical and aesthetic points of view. At present, non-absorbable synthetic polymers are the most widely used class of biomaterials for the manufacturing of mesh implants for hernia, pelvic floor dysfunctions and guided bone regeneration, with polypropylene and poly tetrafluoroethylene being the most common. Biological prostheses, such as surgical grafts, have been employed mainly for breast plastic surgery and wound healing applications. Despite the advantages of mesh implants to the treatment of these conditions, there are still many drawbacks, mainly related to the arising of a huge number of post-operative complications, among which infections are the most common. Developing a mesh that could appropriately integrate with the native tissue, promote its healing and constructive remodelling, is the key aim of ongoing research in the area of surgical mesh implants. To this end, the adoption of new biomaterials including absorbable and natural polymers, the use of drugs and advanced manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printing and electrospinning, are under investigation to address the previously mentioned challenges and improve the outcomes of future clinical practice. The aim of this work is to review the key advantages and disadvantages related to the use of surgical meshes, the main issues characterizing each clinical procedure and the future directions in terms of both novel manufacturing technologies and latest regulatory considerations.

Graphic abstract

Awake breast cancer surgery: strategy in the beginning of COVID-19 emergency

Introduction

COVID-19 is a declared worldwide pandemic. In our country, due to shortage of hospitals and beds in intensive care unit, oncological and breast cancer (BC) resources are temporarily shifted to COVID-19 patients. In addition, risk of cross-infections should be considered in these frail patients. To accomplish more surgical procedures and to reduce the length of hospital stay (LOS), fast track awake BC surgery should be implemented. The aim of the study is to estimate the effects of surgical shift in our facility during the early COVID-19 outbreak.

Materials and methods

From 30th January 2020 to 30th of March 2020, 86 consecutive patients were retrospectively enrolled and divided into pre-COVID-19-BC and COVID-19-BC. Clinical parameters and anamnestic data were collected and analyzed. Surgical procedures, relative complications and type of anaesthesia were reported. The effect on surgical time (ST), operative room time (ORT) and length of stay (LOS) were described and examined.

Results

No statistical difference was found in complications rate, clinical data and surgical procedures (p > 0.05). Awake breast conservative surgery (BCS) was the most frequent procedure in COVID-19-BC (p = 0.006). A statistically significant decrease in ORT and LOS was reported in COVID-19-BC (p = 0.040 and p = 0.0015 respectively), while comparable time resulted for ST (p = 0.976). Mean ORT and LOS reduction were 20.79 min and 0.57 hospital bed days.

Conclusion

In the “COVID-19 era”, fast track awake breast surgery provides a reduction of ORT, LOS and potentially surgical treatment for a wider number of oncological patients.

Meta-analysis of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: guide to patient selection and current outcomes

PURPOSE

 This meta-analysis provides a large-scale comparison of prepectoral vs. subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction, with primary outcomes of patient safety and efficacy.

METHODS

Literature review was performed via PRISMA criteria, 33 studies met inclusion criteria for prepectoral review and 13 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Patient characteristics and per-breast complications were collected. Data were analyzed using Cochrane RevMan and IBM SPSS.

RESULTS

In 4692 breasts of 3014 patients that underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction, rippling was observed as the most common complication, followed by seroma and skin flap necrosis. Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant decrease in odds of skin flap necrosis and capsular contracture in prepectoral groups compared to subpectoral groups. Odds of infection, seroma, and hematoma were equal between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has surged in popularity in recent years. This review and large-scale analysis corroborates current literature reporting a favorable safety profile with emphasis on patient selection. Variability in skin flap thickness and vascularity mandates thoughtful selection of patients whose overall health and intra-operative skin flap assessment can tolerate a muscle-sparing reconstruction.