An overview of animation deformity in prosthetic breast reconstruction

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.

To acellular dermal matrix or not to acellular dermal matrix?-outcomes of pre-pectoral prosthetic reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy with and without acellular dermal matrix

Background

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has been the go-to biomaterial in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction, particularly in pre-pectoral reconstruction. ADM is thought to decrease capsular contracture, control the pocket, and increase soft tissue, but may yield more complications. This study evaluated whether ADM is even needed.

Methods

All patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction with pre-pectoral tissue expander (TE) or direct-to-implant (DTI) after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) by the senior author between April 2013 and January 2021, were included in this study. Cohorts were stratified into breasts with ADM or no-ADM. Complications within 30 days post-operatively were analyzed.

Results

A total of 115 pre-pectoral reconstructions were performed in 66 patients. ADM was applied to 75 breasts. TEs were used in 80 breasts and DTI in 35 breasts. Controlling for implant type, breasts with ADM exhibited more nipple necrosis (28.0% vs. 10.0%, P=0.02). Controlling for ADM status, DTI compared to TE was associated with less necrosis of the nipple (11.4% vs. 26.3%, P=0.04), implant loss (5.7% vs. 38.8%, P=0.004), and surgery for any complication (14.3% vs. 27.5%, P=0.04).

Conclusions

Outcomes of prosthetic reconstructions with ADM and no-ADM were similar. DTI reconstruction was associated with less complications, which was likely due to intraoperative bias and placement of TEs more often in breasts with perceived poorer vascularity.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes of mesh in minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) immediate subpectoral prosthesis breast reconstruction: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although there is increasing interest in minimally invasive prosthesis breast reconstruction (PBR), whether meshes application in minimally invasive PBR can improve complications and cosmetic effects remains controversial. The author retrospectively analyzed postoperative complications and evaluated patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in minimally invasive PBR with and without mesh.

METHODS

This study enrolled patients who underwent minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) followed by PBR. We used the TiLOOP bra for the mesh-assisted procedure. Patient demographics and postoperative complications data were compared between the procedures. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with the Breast-Q.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients underwent 160 minimally invasive NSM-PBR (with mesh, n = 64; without, n = 94). Postoperative complications were comparable in the mesh-assisted (5 [7.7%]) and non-mesh-assisted (5 [5.3%]) groups (p = 0.533). The most common complication in non-mesh-assisted group was infection, with four (4.2%) cases. In mesh-assisted group, implant exposure occurred in two (3.1%) patients. Removal of prosthesis was uncommon, with two (3.1%) and three (3.2%) cases in the mesh-assisted and non-mesh groups, respectively (p = 0.977). The BREAST-Q questionnaire was completed by 52 (81.3%) patients in the mesh-assisted group and 68 (72.3%) in the non-mesh-assisted group. Comparing the non-mesh group, patients in mesh-assisted group had improved scores on the BREAST-Q Satisfaction with breast (66.0) (p < 0.05), Physical Well-being (80.0), and Sexual Well-being (56.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh-assisted minimally invasive NSM-PBR has good aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the mesh-assisted and non-mesh-assisted groups.

Evaluating the Quality of Online Patient Information for Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Using Polyurethane-Coated Breast Implants

Background

An increasing number of patients are using online information regarding medical issues; however, the Internet is not subject to content ratings or filters. Unreliable information found on the web can heavily influence patients to the extent that it can lead to wrong decisions in the choice of treatment. In our daily experience we meet more informed patients and given the increasing use of polyurethane-coated implants in breast reconstruction in Europe, we wondered about the level of information available online. Our study aims to assess the quality of information available online on breast reconstruction with polyurethane-coated implants.

Materials and Methods

Assuming that the most used search engines are Google and Yahoo, we used a search strategy to identify online information regarding prepectoral breast reconstruction with polyurethane-coated implants. The selected websites were divided into 5 groups (practitioners, hospitals, healthcare portals, professional societies, and encyclopedias), and the quality of information was assessed by using an expanded version of the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool, which is a checklist applicable to all existing types of information.

Results

Fifty-six websites were selected and were categorized into 5 groups: 17 practitioners, 9 hospitals, 13 healthcare portals, 7 professional societies, 10 encyclopedias. The average score was 17 points (range: 12 - 25). We found 13 reliable websites with a score higher than 20 using the expanded version of the EQIP tool, whereas 43 were deemed unreliable, as they scored lower.

Conclusion

Proper communication between surgeon and patient is crucial in the therapeutic choice, as the available online information presently is scarce and can lead to wrong decisions if not properly verified.

Management of complications following implant-based breast reconstruction: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Complications associated with implant-based reconstruction have a spectrum of severity with sequelae ranging from mild aesthetic deformities to additional surgery, reconstructive failure and systemic illness. The purpose of this narrative review of the literature is to provide updated evidence-based information on the management of complications in implant-based reconstruction.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, OVID MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify common complications associated with implant-based breast reconstruction, incidences of occurrence as well as preventative and management strategies.

Key Content and Findings

Pertinent short and long-term complications of implant-based breast reconstruction include hematoma, implant infection, seroma, skin envelope necrosis, capsular contracture, rupture, malposition, animation and contour deformities, implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and breast implant illness. Important preventative measures for short term complications include meticulous sterile technique and antibiotic irrigation, adequate drainage and critical evaluation of mastectomy flaps. Management of short-term complications requires early recognition and aggressive treatment to prevent reconstructive failure as well as long-term complications such as capsular contracture. Important technological advances include dual-port expanders for seroma drainage, indocyanine green angiography for mastectomy flap perfusion evaluation, cohesive form-stable implants for treatment of rippling, and various biologic and synthetic mesh products for pocket control and correction.

Conclusions

Important principles in management of short-term complications in implant-based reconstruction include aggressive and early intervention to maximize the chance of reconstructive salvage. Contemporary technological advances have played an important role in both prevention and treatment of complications. Over-arching principles in management of implant-based reconstruction complications focus on preventative techniques and preoperative patient counseling on potential risks, their likelihood, and necessary treatments to allow for informed and shared decision-making.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparing post-surgical outcomes of pre-pectoral versus dual-plane direct-to-implant breast reconstruction without increasing the use of acellular dermal matrix

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction when performed using the dual-plane technique can be associated with increased postoperative pain, longer recovery, functional impairment, and animation deformity. These issues can be avoided by using the pre-pectoral technique that traditionally uses larger pieces of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and results in increased costs. It is unclear how these two methods compare when the technique is modified to avoid the use of additional ADM.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction using a dual-plane or pre-pectoral technique between January 2014 and December 2019. Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction was performed using a partial anterior coverage technique, and therefore no additional ADM was used per case as compared to the dual-plane technique. Rates of post-surgical complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 77 patients, 48 (86 breasts) underwent dual-plane reconstruction, whereas 29 (48 breasts) underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction. Mean follow-up time for the dual-plane and pre-pectoral groups was 23.3 and 8.7 months, respectively (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in the rates of any of the short-term post-surgical outcomes between the two groups: seroma (14% vs 6.3%, p = 0.175); hematoma (2.3% vs 4.2%, p = 0.617); skin/nipple necrosis (7% vs 10.4%, p = 0.522); wound skin infection (2.3% vs 2.1%, p = 1.0); wound dehiscence (4.7% vs 2.1, p = 0.654); and implant loss (1.2% vs 8.3%, p = 0.055).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-pectoral reconstruction using a partial anterior coverage technique appears to be a safe alternative to dual-plane reconstruction when considering short-term post-surgical complications.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Use of Botox for Breast Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Breast reconstruction is most commonly performed using implant-based reconstruction. Patients with subpectoral implant placement with or without latissimus dorsi (LD) muscle coverage can experience muscle pain and animation deformity. Due to minimal literature describing the use of botulinum toxin (BTX-A) treatment for these side effects from implant-based reconstruction, we report our outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of breast reconstructive patients for a single surgeon was performed. Patients who underwent BTX-A injection for muscular pain, spasm, or animation deformity were identified and outcomes reviewed. They were also stratified based on radiation treatment and type of muscle flap used.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were identified who had a submuscular pectoralis pocket and/or a pedicled latissimus dorsi flap. Nineteen breasts were treated. The average amount of time from the patient's last surgery to BTX-A injection was 11.2 months. 25-100 units were used per injection with an average of 60 units. Non-irradiated patients had signifycantly lower post-injection capsular contracture Baker grades and significantly lower amounts of BTX-A were injected. Patients who had both pectoralis major muscle and LD implant-reconstruction were significantly less likely to have improvement in pain/tightness. Most patients reported improvement or resolution of their pain and/or animation deformities.

CONCLUSION

Implant-based reconstruction using the pectoralis major and/or LD muscles can be plagued with muscular pain, spasm, and animation deformities. The use of BTX-A is a diagnostic and therapeutic modality for these post-breast reconstruction patients with most patients having resolution of symptoms without the need for additional surgery.

Current use of botulinum neurotoxin in esthetic practice-Clinical guide and review

BACKGROUND

Botulinum neurotoxin is one of the most versatile and widely used medical products in the world.

AIMS

The review's focus is the plastic and dermatologic uses of botulinum neurotoxin currently supported by published data.

METHODS

Relevant clinical articles regarding botulinum neurotoxin use in plastic surgery, dermatology, and general esthetic literature were searched and reviewed.

RESULTS

The search yielded 258 studies. Two hundred articles were excluded following title and abstract review. Twenty-one studies were excluded following full-text screening. A total of 37 studies remained and were discussed in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Botulinum neurotoxin is widely used for numerous off-label indications from head to toe. Some uses are well documented, and their safety has been demonstrated in controlled trials, yet most remain poorly researched.

Quality of Life After Bilateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Simultaneous Reconstruction Using Pre-Pectoral Silicone Implants

PURPOSE

Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) can reduce the risk of developing breast cancer by up to 95% in women with increased exposure. Although survival is increased, mastectomies can adversely affect a patient physically, psychologically, and psychosexually. High health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is often achieved after simultaneous breast reconstruction (BR) following BRRM; however, data on the pre- and postoperative results of HRQoL are lacking. Therefore, we investigated the quality of life, esthetic outcome, and patient well-being after BRRM and simultaneous implant-based BR.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Of the 35 patients who underwent skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy between May 2012 and December 2017 at a university hospital, only 22 completed the evaluation. Baseline data and data on previous operations and operation techniques were retrieved from the patient's charts. BREAST-Q and short form-36 health survey (SF-36) questionnaires were used to evaluate patient satisfaction and HRQoL.

RESULTS

SF-36 analysis showed a significantly higher score for pain (p=0.043) in our population than in the general female population. Comparing the pre- and postoperative BREAST-Q results, a significant decrease in the physical well-being of the chest (p=0.0179) and a slight improvement in breast satisfaction were observed (p=0.3266). All patients were well-satisfied with the postoperative outcome, reconstruction, and perioperative surgeon care.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral mastectomy with simultaneous BR using pre-pectoral implants is associated with an HRQoL similar to that of the healthy population. Although bilateral mastectomy may have an immense effect on the psychological, physical, and social aspects, immediate BR preserves the outer appearance and improves self-esteem.

A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

Background and objectives: Until now subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) has been the predominant form; however, it can present with pectoralis muscle contraction and animation deformity. To avoid these complications, surgeons have begun placing breast implants in the same anatomic space as the breast tissue that was removed. We report a comparative analysis of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) versus subpectoral breast reconstruction to analyze their differences. Materials and Methods: Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) performed from February 2015 to February 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We then compared the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of the two groups (prepectoral vs. subpectoral) based on the overall incidence of complications, pain scale, and the duration of drainage. Results: A total of 167 patients underwent unilateral DTI, with SBR 114 (68.3%) and PBR 53 (31.7%). Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of seroma, infection (requiring intravenous antibiotics), hematoma, and skin necrosis. Implant loss rates in the SBR 6.1% (n = 7) and PBR 9.4% (n = 5) were also not statistically significant (p = 0.99). The hemovac duration period was significantly longer in the SBR (14.93 ± 5.57 days) group than in the PBR group (11.09 ± 4.82 days) (p < 0.01). However, post-operative pain scores are similar between two groups, although it is not clear whether this was due to the effect of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia. Conclusions: A SBR is a commonly used procedure with various advantages, but there are many problems due to damage to the normal pectoralis major muscle. According to the results of our study, the PBR group had a shorter hemovac duration period compared to the SBR group, although there was no significant difference in complication rate. A PBR is a simple and safe technique allowing early discharge without increasing the incidence of long-term complications.

Muscle Splitting Augmentation Mammoplasty: A 13-Year Outcome Analysis of 1511 Primary Augmentation Mammoplasties

BACKGROUND

Augmentation mammoplasty is a commonly performed procedure by plastic surgeons with a high satisfaction outcome. Muscle splitting augmentation mammoplasty was first described in 2007 and has been since used for primary and secondary augmentation mammoplasty as well as for primary and secondary augmentation mastopexy procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data for muscle splitting primary augmentation mammoplasties performed between October 2005 and October 2018 was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 1511 patients had their primary augmentation mammoplasty consecutively performed in muscle splitting pocket. Mean age of the patient was 29.4 ± 8.56 years (range 18-67). Of the 1502 patients with documented implant sizes, 1272 patients had same-size implants, mean 340 cc ± 58.3 (range 170-700), and 230 patients had two different-size implants for correction of asymmetry. Of these 230 patients, mean implant size on right and left was 341 cc ± 61.5 (range 200-655) and 345 cc ± 67.4 (range 200-605), respectively. Of the 1495 known texturing, only 3.1% patients had smooth implants. Periprosthetic infection was seen in 10 patients, 38 patients had wound-healing issues and 5 patients had late seroma. Capsular contracture (CC) was recorded at three monthly, six monthly, one yearly and two yearly or longer period. Secondary procedures were performed for various reasons in 93 (6.15%) of the patients. Leading causes for revision were implant exchange in 33 (2.2%), to go for bigger size in 25 (1.65%), CC in 18 (1.2%) and implant rupture in 9 (0.6%). There was no ALCL recorded in the series.

CONCLUSION

Muscle splitting pocket for primary augmentation mammoplasty is a reliable, reproducible procedure with acceptable revision rate.

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 Authorswww.springer.com/00266.

A simple clinical assessment of breast animation deformity following direct-to-implant breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

A high incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) has been reported following immediate breast reconstruction with subpectorally placed implants. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the incidence of BAD in women who underwent either subpectoral or prepectoral immediate breast reconstruction. Therefore, we developed a grading tool and tested its reproducibility in a clinical setting.

METHODS

Video recordings of 37 women who had undergone unilateral or bilateral immediate breast reconstruction were evaluated by two consultant plastic surgeons. The degree of BAD was assessed by our grading tool, named the Nipple, Surrounding Skin, Entire Breast (NSE) grading scale, which evaluates the degree of tissue distortion in three areas of the breast. Blinded assessments were performed twice by each observer.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were reconstructed with subpectoral implant placement and 19 with prepectoral implant placement. Using the NSE grading scale, we found a significant difference in the degree of BAD between the groups, in favor of patients who underwent prepectoral immediate breast reconstruction (0.2 vs. 4, P=0.000). Inter- and intraobserver agreement was moderate (74%) to strong (88%).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence and severity of BAD was significantly lower in women reconstructed with a prepectorally placed implant than in those who underwent subpectoral immediate breast reconstruction. All patients reconstructed using the subpectoral technique had some degree of BAD. The inter- and intraobserver agreements were high when using the NSE grading scale, suggesting it is an easy-to-use, reproducible scale for assessing BAD in women who undergo immediate breast reconstruction.