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

Meta analysis of 2059 patients assessing early discharge after DIEP flap breast reconstruction: Comprehensive outcomes before post-operative day 5

Autologous reconstruction with DIEP flap has illustrated greater patient satisfaction with both aesthetic satisfaction and reconstructive treatment process when compared to implant-based reconstruction longitudinally. However, DIEP flap breast reconstruction is associated with longer in-patient hospitalizations to monitor flap status. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to report outcomes regarding the use of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, particularly looking at the impact on complication rates in patients who undergo DIEP flap procedures and are discharged within 5 days after surgery. A computerized search was conducted on September 29th, 2023 using the MeSH terms "Free Tissue Flaps" OR "Myocutaneous Flap" OR "Surgical Flaps" AND "Patient Discharge". Twenty-four papers reporting on 2059 patients were included in the study, and four study groups were created by length of stay as follows: LOS 1-1.99 days = Group 1, LOS 2-2.99 days = Group 2, LOS 3-3.99 = Group 3, and LOS 4-5 days = Group 4 (control). An independent samples t-test was performed to compare the mean rates of each complication between Groups 1 and 4, Groups 2 and 4, and Groups 3 and 4. This meta-analysis showed no significant differences between rates of hematoma, seroma, infection and reoperation between groups. There was a significantly lower rate of total flap loss in all 3 groups with LOS less than 4 days when compared to the group with LOS between 4 and 5 days. This meta-analysis shows that appropriate patients may be discharged safely as early as POD1 following DIEP flap.

National Trends and In-Hospital Outcomes for Immediate Implant-Based Versus Autologous-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction consists primarily of two methods: autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). Each of these methods has its advantages and disadvantages. The current study used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), the largest inpatient database in the United States, to explore the trends, complications, and disparities in the use of IBR and ABR.

METHODS

The current study used the NIS database from 2016 to 2020, including the International Classification of Diseases, 10th version (ICD-10) codes. A propensity score-matching (1:1) analysis was used to match the IBR and ABR groups.

RESULTS

The percentage of breast reconstruction increased from 58.8% in 2016 to 63.4% by 2020. The trend of ABR was upward, and the trend of IBR was downward. In addition, the ABR group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.29), respiratory complications (OR, 4.26), vascular complications requiring surgery (OR, 7.82), blood transfusions (OR, 3.44), vasopressor need (OR, 1.409), and acute kidney injury (OR, 1.68). However, the ABR group had significantly lower rates of wound infection (OR, 0.430), wound dehiscence (OR, 0.213), wound seroma (OR, 0.602), and sepsis (OR, 0.252). A significant disparity was found in using ABR for different subgroups based on age, hospital teaching status, racial background, socioeconomic status, and hospital bed size.

CONCLUSION

The current study showed an upward trend in the utilization of ABR and a downward trend for IBR. Although ABR had a higher rate of pulmonary, cardiovascular, vascular, and bleeding complications, it had a lower rate of wound-related complications.

Does prepectoral placement delay adjuvant therapies compared to retropectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction? A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral (PP) immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is becoming increasingly popular compared to retropectoral (RP) reconstruction. This study compares the timing of administration of different adjuvant therapy (ATs) after PP or RP IBBR.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A monocentric retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing mastectomy and IBBR from January 2018 to December 2023. Preoperative characteristics, mastectomy procedure type, PP or RP implant placement, postoperative outcomes, AT type, and time between surgery and AT administration were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

167 patients (206 breasts) were included. 123 underwent PP IBBR and 44 RP IBBR. The mean time between surgery and first AT administration was similar in the PP group (45.7 days, SD 39.3) compared to the RP group (37.4 days, SD 33.1) (p-value 0.2100). No significant differences were found in the timing of endocrine therapy (ET), chemotherapy (CT), or radiotherapy (RT) initiation between the PP and RP groups. Patients with seroma had a delayed initiation of CT (83.67 days, SD 123.7) versus those without seroma (42.1 days, SD 29.7) (p-value 0.0298).

CONCLUSIONS

The average time between surgery and administration of the first AT following PP IBBR was similar compared to RP IBBR. Postoperative seromas were associated with delayed CT in the overall population.

Bibliometric analysis of quality of life in implant-based breast reconstruction

Background

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR), following mastectomy, significantly impacts patients' quality of life (QoL), necessitating accurate measurement through psychometrically robust patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) tools. This bibliometric analysis aims to discern trends, identify gaps, and evaluate the use of such tools in the IBR literature.

Methods

The 100 most cited publications regarding QoL in implant-based reconstruction were identified on Web of Science, across all available journal years (from 1977 to 2024) on 10 March 2024. Study details, including the citation count, main content focus, outcome measures, and usage of psychological questionnaires, were extracted and tabulated from each publication. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence (LOE) of each study were assessed.

Results

The 100 most cited publications on QoL in implant-based reconstruction were identified, encompassing 64,192 patients and 28,114 reconstructed breasts. Citations per publication ranged from 62 to 457 (mean, 124.95 ± 73.05), with the highest-cited study being authored by Al-Ghazal (n = 457). The vast majority of publications were LOE II (n = 52), representative of prospective cohort studies, systematic reviews of non-randomised studies, and systematic review and meta-analysis. The number of publications for LOE V, IV, III, and I was 0, 7, 41, and 0, respectively. The main content focus was "quality of life" in 83 publications, with significant utilisation of the BREAST-Q questionnaire. A total of 80 publications used validated questionnaires with psychometric development.

Conclusions

This analysis demonstrates that the research methodologies within IBR mostly consist of moderate-quality publications; however, notably, there was a lack of LOE I studies, underscoring a gap in high-quality research within the field. Moreover, only 62/100 used validated PROM tools. Future IBR research studies should be focussed on most robust methodologies, incorporating validated PROM tools, to optimise shared-decision making and informed consent.

Revision Breast Reconstruction With Biologic or Synthetic Mesh: An Analysis of Postoperative Capsular Contracture Rates

Background

Both biologic and synthetic mesh have been found to reduce the risk of capsular contracture, yet there is limited data assessing the use of these scaffold materials in revision breast reconstruction.

Objectives

This investigation sought to assess the ability of either biologic or synthetic mesh to prevent capsular contracture in the revision breast reconstruction population.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted of implant-based revision reconstructions performed by the senior author between 2008 and 2023. Patient demographics and outcomes were assessed, including the incidence of Baker Grade III or IV capsular contractures. Results were compared between biologic and synthetic mesh groups using univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results

Ninety-five breasts underwent revision reconstruction with 90 (94.7%) for correction of malposition, 4 (4.2%) for size change, and 1 (1.1%) for revision after additional oncologic breast surgery. Of these breasts, 26 (27.4%) used biologic mesh and 69 (72.6%) used synthetic mesh. Capsular contracture occurred in 1 (3.8%) biologic mesh breast and 4 (5.8%) synthetic mesh breasts. There was no significant difference in the incidence of capsular contracture between the 2 groups (P = 1.000). None of the recorded demographics were risk factors for capsular contracture, including the use of biologic or synthetic mesh (P = .801).

Conclusions

Both biologic and synthetic mesh are successful at preventing capsular contracture in patients undergoing implant-based revision reconstruction. This adds to the growing evidence that both scaffold materials can be used in complex revision breast reconstruction to aid in preventing capsular contracture.

Level of Evidence 4

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.

Tissue engineering strategies for breast reconstruction: a literature review of current advances and future directions

Background and Objective

Mastectomy is a primary treatment for breast cancer patients, and both autologous and implant-based reconstructive techniques have shown excellent results. In recent years, advancements in bioengineering have led to a proliferation of innovative approaches to breast reconstruction. This article comprehensively explores the promising perspectives offered by bioengineering and tissue engineering in the field of breast reconstruction.

Methods

A literature review was conducted between April and June 2023 on PubMed and Google Scholar Databases. All English and French articles related to bioengineering applied to the field of breast reconstruction were included. We used the Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine Association (EBVM) Toolkit 14 checklist for narrative reviews as a quality assurance measure and the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) tool to self-assess our methodology.

Key Content and Findings

Over 130 references related to breast bioengineering were included. The analysis revealed four key applications: enhancing the quality of the skin envelope, improving the viability of fat grafting, creating breast shape and volume via bio-printing, and optimizing nipple reconstruction through engineering techniques. The primary identified approaches revolved around establishing structural support and enhancing cellular viability. Structural techniques predominantly involved the implementation of 3D printed, decellularized, or biocompatible material scaffolds. Meanwhile, promoting cellular content trophicity primarily focused on harnessing the regenerative potential of adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) and increasing the tissue's survivability and cell trophicity.

Conclusions

Tissue and bioengineering hold immense promise in the field of breast reconstruction, offering a diverse array of approaches. By combining existing techniques with novel advancements, they have the potential to significantly enhance the therapeutic options available to plastic and reconstructive surgeons.