Prepectoral breast reconstruction and radiotherapy-a closer look

Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction with tissue expander entirely covered by acellular dermal matrix: feasibility, safety and histological features resulting from the first 64 procedures

Background

Reconstructive options that can be used following conservative mastectomy, skin-, nipple-sparing and skin-reducing mastectomies, allow a remarkable variety of safe methods to restore the natural shape and aesthetics of the breast mound. In case of two-stage breast reconstruction, tissue expanders (TEs) are usually placed in a subpectoral position. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of two-step reconstruction with TE in pre-pectoral position covered by acellular dermal matrix (ADM).

Methods

Between March 2021 and May 2023, at the Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, 55 patients with BRCA 1/2 mutations or early breast cancer underwent conservative mastectomy with immediate pre-pectoral reconstruction using TE covered with ADM, followed by a second surgery with replacement of the expander with definitive prosthesis. Demographic, oncological, and histological data along with surgical complications were recorded.

Results

A total of 64 conservative mastectomies were performed. In 2 patients (3.1%) complications were found that required reintervention and, in both cases, the TE had to be removed. Two patients developed hematoma and one patient developed seroma. Two patients showed wound dehiscence, both healed after conservative treatment and without implant exposure. No case of necrosis of the skin or nipple-areola complex has been observed, neither of capsular contracture. Capsule formed around TE was populated with cells and blood vessels and showed a thin area of synovial metaplasia.

Conclusions

In selected cases it may be more cautious to perform a two-stage breast reconstruction after radical breast surgery by means of TEs. The placement of TEs in pre-pectoral position combines the excellent aesthetic and functional results of the pre-pectoral philosophy with a quite safer and more prudent two-step approach. Our experience reports optimistic results: the ADM covering the TE is seen successfully integrating during tissue expansion and becoming a vascularised new self-tissue. Complications rates are low and such ADM-assisted two-stage pre-pectoral reconstructive technique is a safe, practical, and reproducible method.

Local Flaps to Cover Skin Necrosis after Skin-sparing Mastectomy and Prepectoral Reconstruction from PreQ-20 Trial

Background

In recent years, mastectomy has increasingly been indicated for women at high risk and those with breast cancer. Prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane implant is an option for these patients. Nevertheless, this procedure can become complicated with exposure of the implant. The aim of this article is to describe the feasibility of local flaps to treat skin necrosis and dehiscence after prepectoral reconstruction and its impact on implant loss.

Methods

This study includes the women who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the PreQ-20 protocol (12), which assessed patients with exposed implant who required a local flap for its coverage. Three types of flaps were used: thoracoepigastric, lateral thoracic, and batwing.

Results

The study included 226 skin-sparing mastectomies and immediate reconstruction using prepectoral implants (52.7% bilateral mastectomies). Some 20.9% of the patients showed complications, with wound dehiscence the most frequent. Thirteen local flaps to cover the implant were performed. All flaps presented appropriate perfusion; however, the implant cover failed in six patients (46.2%).

Conclusions

The use of local flaps can be a low-morbidity option for preventing implant loss when skin dehiscence or necrosis occurs and delays in oncology treatments.

Anatomic Location of Tissue Expander Placement Is Not Associated With Delay in Adjuvant Therapy in Women With Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Tissue expanders in breast reconstruction are traditionally placed retropectoral. Increasingly, patients are undergoing prepectoral placement. The impact of this placement on the initiation of adjuvant treatment is unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted to identify women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy followed by radiation and/or chemotherapy. Women were divided into 3 groups: prepectoral tissue expander placement, retropectoral tissue expander placement, and no immediate reconstruction. A treatment delay was defined as greater than 8 weeks between tissue expander placement and adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Of 634 women, 205 (32%) underwent tissue expander placement, and 429 (68%) did not have immediate reconstruction. Of those with tissue expanders placed, 84 (41%) had prepectoral placement, and 121 (59%) had retropectoral placement. The median time to adjuvant therapy was 49 days for the entire cohort: no reconstruction, 47 days; prepectoral, 57 days; and retropectoral, 55 days. Treatment delays were observed in 34% of women: no reconstruction, 28%; prepectoral, 51%; and retropectoral, 46% ( P < 0.001). Tissue expander placement was associated with a delay to adjuvant therapy when compared with no reconstruction ( P < 0.001). The location of the tissue expander did not impact the odds of having a delay. On multivariable analysis, having reconstruction, having postoperative infection, not undergoing chemotherapy treatment, and being a current smoker were associated with a delay to adjuvant therapy. A delay to treatment was not associated with worse survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of a tissue expander delayed adjuvant therapy. The location of tissue expander placement, retropectoral versus prepectoral, did not impact the time to adjuvant treatment.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

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

Impact of Prepectoral vs. Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement on Post-mastectomy Radiation Therapy Delivery: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Implant-based reconstruction is the most common method of postmastectomy reconstruction. Many patients require postmastectomy radiation (PMRT). Tissue expanders (TEs), typically inserted as a first stage, have historically been placed subpectorally. More recently, prepectoral reconstruction has gained popularity, but its impact on PMRT is unknown. Prior studies focus on complication rates and aesthetic outcomes. This study examines whether there is a difference in radiation dosimetry among patients undergoing prepectoral versus subpectoral TE reconstruction.

Methods

Electronic medical records and radiation plans of 50 patients (25 prepectoral, 25 subpectoral) who underwent mastectomy with immediate TE reconstruction at our institution or affiliate site were reviewed. Pectoralis major muscle and chest wall structures were contoured and mean percentage volumes of these structures receiving less than 95%, 100%, and more than 105% target radiation dose were calculated, as were heart and ipsilateral lung doses. Welch two sample t test, Fisher exact test, and Pearson chi-squared tests were performed.

Results

The groups had comparable patient and tumor characteristics and underwent similar ablative and reconstructive procedures and radiation dosimetry. Subpectoral patients had larger mean areas receiving less than 95% target dose ("cold spots"); prepectoral patients had larger mean areas receiving greater than 105% ("hot spots") and 100% target doses. There were no differences in chest wall, heart, and lung doses.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate an increased mean percentage area of pectoralis cold spots with subpectoral reconstruction and increased area of hot spots and 100% dose delivery to the pectoralis in prepectoral patients. Larger studies should analyze long-term effects of prepectoral reconstruction on radiation dosing and recurrence rates.

Implant-based breast surgery and capsular formation: when, how and why?-a narrative review

Background and Objective

Implant-based breast surgery is a common procedure for both reconstructive and aesthetic purposes. Breast implants, like any foreign object, trigger the formation of a capsule around them. While generally harmless, the capsule can undergo fibrotic changes leading to capsular contracture, which can negatively impact surgical outcomes and patient well-being. Additionally, rare but serious complications, such as breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and capsule-associated squamous cell carcinoma, have been reported. This paper aims to review the physiology of capsular formation, identify factors contributing to capsule-related pathologies, and discuss their clinical implications.

Methods

A review of relevant literature was conducted by searching databases for articles published between inception and September 2022. The search included but not limited to terms such as "capsular formation" and "capsular contracture". Selected articles were critically analyzed to address the objectives of this review.

Key Content and Findings

Capsular formation involves interactions between the implant surface, surrounding tissues, and the immune system. Factors influencing pathological changes in the capsule include genetic predisposition, bacterial contamination, implant characteristics, and surgical techniques. Capsular contracture, characterized by tissue hardening, pain, and implant distortion, remains the most common complication. Rare but life-threatening conditions, such as BIA-ALCL and capsule-associated squamous cell carcinoma, necessitate vigilant monitoring and early detection.

Conclusions

Understanding the physiology of capsular formation and its associated pathologies is crucial for healthcare providers involved in implant-based breast surgery. Efforts should focus on minimizing the risk of capsular contracture through improved implant materials, surgical techniques, and infection prevention. The emergence of BIA-ALCL and capsule-associated squamous cell carcinoma underscores the importance of long-term surveillance and prompt diagnosis. Further research is needed to uncover underlying mechanisms and develop preventive measures and treatments for these complications. Enhancing our knowledge and clinical management of capsular formation will lead to safer and more successful outcomes in implant-based breast surgery.

ADM-Assisted Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction in Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy Setting: Long-Term Results

BACKGROUND

Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) on immediate breast reconstruction historically involved a marked increase in complication rate (up to 50%). Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has shown promising early postoperative results. This study aims to evaluate PPBR long-term results in PMRT setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective monocentric analysis of 485 PPBR (439 patients) undergoing Acellular-Dermal-Matrix assisted direct-to-implant reconstruction (46 bilateral procedures) between January 2015 and December 2020 (mean FU:35.6 months). Group 1 comprised 401 PPBR not submitted to PMRT, and 84 reconstructions receiving PMRT in Group 2. Patients' characteristics, postoperative complication and revisional surgery rate were examined. PMRT characteristics and subcutaneous tissue thickness, measured in Group 2 by CT scan, were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Long-term complication rate was 11.2% in Group 1 vs. 21.4% in Group 2 (P-value = .019). Capsular contracture represented the only complication associated to a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P-value < .001). In Group 2, only 4.8% implant loss and 8.3% severe capsular contracture rate was found. In patients who underwent PMRT, 38.9% of complications settled with no consequences, and only 4.8% of patients needed revisional surgery in the long-term FU. According to multivariate analysis, drug intake and PMRT were significantly associated with postoperative complications. In Group 2, a thinner subcutaneous tissue was linked to a higher complication risk.

CONCLUSION

In our series, patients treated with PPBR who underwent PMRT, presented a low complication rate and minimal need for revisional surgery in the long-term follow-up, suggesting that this technique is feasible and safe also in PMRT context.

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.

Immediate Breast Reconstruction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Factors Associated With Surgical Selection and Complications

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction has become an integral component of breast cancer treatment, especially for patients who are unable to undergo breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We analyzed factors influencing the type of immediate reconstruction surgery after NAC, as well as the complication rates for each surgery type.

METHODS

The study included patients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy following NAC from 2010 to 2021. Clinicopathological characteristics, unplanned reoperation rates, and the duration of postoperative hospitalization were analyzed in patients undergoing autologous tissue reconstruction (ATR, n = 127), implant-based reconstruction (IBR, n = 60), and combined autologous tissue and implant reconstruction (n = 60).

RESULTS

A total of 1651 patients who received NAC before mastectomy were enrolled. Among them, 247 (15.0%) patients underwent immediate reconstruction (IR), whereas 1404 underwent mastectomy only. Patients in the IR group were younger ( P < 0.001), had lower body mass index ( P < 0.001), and exhibited earlier clinical ( P = 0.003) and nodal ( P < 0.001) stage than those in the non-IR group. Patients in the ATR group were older ( P < 0.001) and had higher body mass index ( P = 0.007), larger tumor size ( P = 0.024), and more frequent childbearing history ( P = 0.011) than those in the other groups. Complications resulting in unplanned reoperations were more frequent in the IBR group ( P = 0.039). The duration of postoperative hospitalization was longest after ATR ( P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Age and clinical tumor/nodal stage at presentation are associated with IR for patients undergoing mastectomy after NAC. For patients undergoing IR after NAC, ATR may be safer and more suitable than IBR.

Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Risk-Reducing Mastectomy in BRCA Mutation Carriers: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Women with BRCA gene mutations have a higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Furthermore, cancer is usually diagnosed at a younger age compared to the wild-type counterpart. Strategies for risk management include intensive surveillance or risk-reducing mastectomy. The latter provides a significant reduction of the risk of developing breast cancer, simultaneously ensuring a natural breast appearance due to the preservation of the skin envelope and the nipple-areola complex. Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common technique after risk-reducing surgery and can be achieved with either a submuscular or a prepectoral approach, in one or multiple stages. This study analyzes the outcomes of the different reconstructive techniques through a retrospective review on 46 breasts of a consecutive, single-center case series. Data analysis was carried out with EpiInfo version 7.2. Results of this study show no significant differences in postoperative complications between two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction and direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, with DTI having superior aesthetic outcomes, especially in the prepectoral subgroup. In our experience, the DTI prepectoral approach has proven to be a safe and less time-consuming alternative to the submuscular two-stage technique, providing a pleasant reconstructed breast and overcoming the drawbacks of subpectoral implant placement.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has gained popularity due to numerous benefits in properly selected patients. Compared with subpectoral implant reconstruction, prepectoral reconstruction offers preservation of the pectoralis major muscle in its native position, resulting in decreased pain, no animation deformity, and improved arm range of motion/strength. Although prepectoral reconstruction is safe and effective, the implant sits closer to the mastectomy skin flap. Acellular dermal matrices play a critical role, allowing for precise control of the breast envelope and providing long-term implant support. Careful patient selection and intraoperative mastectomy flap evaluation are critical to obtaining optimal results with prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Immediate breast reconstruction by prepectoral polyurethane implant: Preliminary results of the prospective study PreQ-20

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, mastectomy and reconstruction techniques have evolved towards less aggressive procedures, improving the satisfaction and quality of life of women. For this reason, mastectomy has become a valid option for both women with breast cancer and high-risk women. The objective of this study is to analyze the safety of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane implant in women with breast cancer and risk reduction.

METHOD

Observational prospective study to evaluate the feasibility and safety of immediate reconstruction using prepectoral polyurethane implant. All women (with breast cancer or high risk for breast cancer) who underwent skin-sparing or skin-and-nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction with a prepectoral polyurethane implant were included. Women with breast sarcomas, disease progression during primary systemic therapy (PST), delayed, autologous or retropectoral reconstruction, and those who did not wish to participate in the study were excluded. Surgical procedures were performed by both senior and junior surgeons. All patients received the corresponding complementary treatments. All adverse events that occurred during follow-up and the risk factors for developing them were analyzed.

RESULTS

159 reconstructions were performed in 102 women, 80.4% due to breast carcinoma. Fourteen patients developed complications, the most frequent being seroma and wound dehiscence. Eight women required a reoperation (5.0%), seven of them due to implant exposure. Four reconstructions (2.5%) resulted in loss of the implant. Three patients progressed from their oncological process: a local relapse in the mastectomy flap, an axillary progression and a systemic progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral reconstruction with a polyurethane implant is a procedure with a low incidence of postoperative complications (8.8%) and implant loss (2.5%). Its use is safe with perioperative cancer treatments (neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy).

Braxon®-assisted prepectoral breast reconstruction: A decade later

We are sitting on the cusp of the bioengineered breast era, in which implant-based breast reconstruction is seeing a growing trend and biotechnology research progressively empowers clinical practice. As never before, the choice of biomaterials has acquired great importance for achieving reconstructive outcomes, and the increase in the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in the field of senology tells us a story of profound upheaval and progress. With the advent of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR), plenty of devices have been proposed to wrap the silicone prosthesis, either completely or partially. However, this has caused a great deal of confusion and dissent with regard to the adoption of feasible reconstructive strategies as well as the original scientific rationale underlying the prepectoral approach. Braxon^® is the very first device that made prepectoral implant positioning possible, wrapping around the prosthesis and exerting the proven ADM regenerative potential at the implant–tissue interface, taking advantage of the body's physiological healing mechanisms. To date, the Braxon^® method is among the most studied and practiced worldwide, and more than 50 publications confirm the superior performance of the device in the most varied clinical scenarios. However, a comprehensive record of the working of this pioneering device is still missing. Therefore, our aim with this review is to lay a structured knowledge of surgery with BRAXON^® and to provide a decision-making tool in the field of PPBR through a complete understanding on the very first device for prepectoral, one decade after its introduction.

The PreQ-20 TRIAL: A prospective cohort study of the oncologic safety, quality of life and cosmetic outcomes of patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction

Background

Mastectomy currently constitutes a necessary surgical procedure in the oncologic setting and in the context of high risk. Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) has been proposed as a surgical alternative to retropectoral techniques by providing less postoperative morbidity and a better cosmetic result. However, there is a lack of prospective studies that have evaluated its safety and patient-reported satisfaction.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study to assess the safety, quality of life and cosmetic sequelae of PBR in women with breast cancer and high risk. The study’s main objective is to assess the safety of PBR in terms of postsurgical complications and the feasibility of reconstruction (loss of implants). The secondary objectives are to evaluate oncologic safety (local relapses, residual glandular tissue) and to identify factors related to quality of life and cosmetic sequelae. The evaluation of residual tissue will be conducted by MRI 12 to 18 months after the surgery, and the quality-of-life assessment will be performed using the Breast-Q questionnaire. An initial patient evaluation will be conducted 12–18 months after the surgery, and a second evaluation will be performed at 5 years. The estimated sample size is 81 patients.

Discussion

The PreQ-20 study will analyze the impact of PBR on 3 separate measures: safety, quality of life and cosmetic sequelae. Unlike other studies that analyzed these three measures jointly for women with breast cancer and high risk, this study will individualize the results for these 2 patient groups. This differentiation is necessary from the methodological point of view, given that the 2 patient groups have separate clinical and emotional implications. The assessment of these groups will focus on the following aspects: postoperative complications, local relapses, evaluation of residual glandular tissue and incidence rate of primary tumors in the same, the cosmetic sequelae and the satisfaction and the quality-of-life assessment by the patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04642508.

A Retrospective Study Assessing the Outcomes of Immediate Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant and Mesh-Based Breast Reconstruction

(1) Introduction: In response to patient concerns about breast cancer recurrence, increased use of breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing, and advancements in breast reconstruction techniques, mastectomy rates have been observed to rise over the last decade. The aim of the study is to compare the outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral implants and long-term, dual-stage resorbable mesh-based breast reconstructions in mutation carriers (prophylactic surgery) and breast cancer patients. (2) Patients and methods: This retrospective, two-center study included 170 consecutive patients after 232 procedures: Prepectoral surgery was performed in 156 cases and subpectoral was performed in 76. (3) Results: Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with more frequent minor late complications (p < 0.001), but not major ones (p = 0.101), while postoperative chemotherapy was related to more frequent serious (p = 0.005) postoperative complications. Postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of minor complications (31.03%) than no-radiotherapy (12.21%; p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression found complications to be significantly associated with an expander (OR = 4.43), skin-reducing mastectomy (OR = 9.97), therapeutic mastectomy vs. risk-reducing mastectomy (OR = 4.08), and postoperative chemotherapy (OR = 12.89). Patients in whom prepectoral surgeries were performed demonstrated significantly shorter median hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and lower minor complication rates (5.77% vs. 26.32% p < 0.001), but similar major late complication rates (p = 0.915). (4) Conclusions: Implant-based breast reconstruction with the use of long-term, dual-stage resorbable, synthetic mesh is a safe and effective method of breast restoration, associated with low morbidity and good cosmesis. Nevertheless, prospective, multicenter, and long-term outcome data studies are needed to further evaluate the benefits of such treatments.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction is safe in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

Many breast reconstruction patients undergo post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), which is well known to increase the risk of complications. There is limited data on outcomes and safety of prepectoral breast reconstruction in this setting. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage breast reconstruction in patients undergoing PMRT.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of two-stage breast reconstructions performed at our institution during a 22-month period. Patients who received PMRT were identified, and two cohorts were created: those who underwent prepectoral versus subpectoral reconstruction. We collected data including patient characteristics, operative variables, and clinical outcomes. Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted.

RESULTS

We captured 313 patients (492 breasts) that had undergone two-stage reconstruction. A total of 69 breasts received PMRT; 28 were reconstructed prepectorally, and 41 breasts subpectorally. The two cohorts were well matched. We detected no differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups after a median follow-up time of 24 months. There, however, were differences in perioperative variables. Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with a shorter operative time, shorter length of hospital stay, higher cost, and shorter time to final reconstruction. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that prepectoral reconstruction is not an independent predictor of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Although radiation is a known risk factor for many complications following breast reconstruction, prepectoral device placement is safe in this high-risk population. Although the rate of capsular contracture is reported to be higher in the general prepectoral population, this was not found in our radiated prepectoral population.

Prepectoral Conversion of Subpectoral Implants for Animation Deformity after Breast Reconstruction: Technique and Experience

Implant-based breast reconstruction in postmastectomy patients is commonly performed in a submuscular plane. Following reconstruction, animation deformity can be a displeasing aesthetic result for patients. In addition, patients may experience more postoperative pain with a submuscular reconstruction. Prepectoral conversion of submuscular implant position is an option for addressing these concerns. We describe a detailed technique and review our results.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all prepectoral conversions performed by the senior author (DSW) from 2017 to 2019 after IRB approval. All patients presented with animation deformity and another symptom such as asymmetry, pain, and/or capsular contracture. Patients underwent prepectoral conversion with smooth silicone gel implants. Demographic data, outcomes, and patient satisfaction were reviewed.

RESULTS

Prepectoral conversion was performed in 33 consecutive patients (57 breasts) with animation deformity. Twelve patients had capsular contracture, seven complained of pain, and five had ruptured implants. Postoperative complications included three infections requiring implant removal in two breasts, one implant exposure and one hematoma requiring implant replacement, five seromas requiring aspiration, and one capsular contracture. Seven patients had contour abnormalities addressed with secondary autologous fat grafting. Ultimately, all patients had elimination of animation deformity and were satisfied with the results of the conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsatisfactory results of subpectoral implant reconstruction such as animation deformity and chronic pain have led the reconstructive surgeon to consider various techniques to address these issues. The conversion to a prepectoral plane will effectively eliminate animation deformity, resolve pain, and yield satisfactory results in these patients.

Radiation-Induced Tissue Damage: Clinical Consequences and Current Treatment Options

Radiation therapy is a valuable tool in the treatment of numerous malignancies but, in certain cases, can also causes significant acute and chronic damage to noncancerous neighboring tissues. This review focuses on the pathophysiology of radiation-induced damage and the clinical implications it has for plastic surgeons across breast reconstruction, osteoradionecrosis, radiation-induced skin cancers, and wound healing. The current understanding of treatment modalities presented here include hyperbaric oxygen therapy, autologous fat grafting and stem cells, and pharmaceutical agents.

Breast reconstruction and radiation therapy: An Italian expert Delphi consensus statements and critical review

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiation therapy (RT) or mastectomy have shown comparable oncological outcomes in early-stage breast cancer and are considered standard of care treatments. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) targeted to both the chest wall and regional lymph nodes is recommended in high-risk patients. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) represents a significant recent improvement in breast surgery. Nevertheless, it represents a challenge for radiation oncologists as it triggers different decision-making strategies related to treatment volume definition and target delineation. Hence, the choice of the best combination and timing when offering RT to breast cancer patients who underwent or are planned to undergo reconstruction procedures should be carefully evaluated and based on individual considerations. We present an Italian expert Delphi Consensus statements and critical review, led by a core group of all the professional profiles involved in the management of breast cancer patients undergoing reconstructive procedures and RT. The report was structured as to consider the main recommendations on breast reconstruction and RT and analyse the current open issues deserving investigation and consensus. We used a three key-phases and a Delphi process. The final expert panel of 40 colleagues selected key topics as identified by the core group of the project. A final consensus on 26 key statements on RT and breast reconstruction after three rounds of the Delphi voting process and harmonisation was reached. An accompanying critical review of available literature was summarized. A clear communication and cooperation between surgeon and radiation oncologist is of paramount relevance both in the setting of breast reconstruction following mastectomy when PMRT is planned and when extensive glandular rearrangements as OBCS is performed. A shared-decision making, relying on outcome-based and patient-centred considerations, is essential, while waiting for higher level-of-evidence data.

A Sustainable Approach to Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Using Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix

Background:

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction provides an alternative to submuscular reconstruction, but the increased acellular dermal matrix (ADM) required has the potential to lead to increased costs and decreased supply of this limited-resource material. We present a method for prepectoral reconstruction utilizing skin-graft meshing techniques to increase the surface area of usable ADM.

Methods:

Forty-four patients underwent this technique from February 2019 to February 2020. Patient characteristics, operative details, and outcomes, including complications and patient satisfaction utilizing the BREAST-Q, were analyzed. Cost analysis relative to projected cost of nonmeshed techniques was performed.

Results:

There were 20 unilateral and 24 bilateral procedures, for a total of 68 breast reconstructions. Mean age was 45.9 years (32–71). Mean implant volume was 485 cm³ (265–800), and one sheet of ADM was used for each breast with an average surface area of 161 cm². Median follow-up was 350 days (212–576). Minor complications included an infection treated with oral antibiotics. Major complications included one axillary hematoma and one delayed implant loss. One patient underwent revision for asymmetry. Mean BREAST-Q score was 47.4/60. Cost ranged from $4113 to 5025 per breast, compared with the projected $9125–18250 per breast for other techniques in the literature.

Conclusions:

In contrast to previously described uses of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction, meshing maximizes resource utilization by expanding the coverage of a single sheet. Early findings demonstrate minimal complications and high patient satisfaction, suggesting the approach has potential to provide the benefits of prepectoral reconstruction while responsibly preserving product availability and tempering healthcare costs.

Complication Rate of Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Using Human Acellular Dermal Matrices

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is currently the most frequently performed reconstructive technique post mastectomy. Even though submuscular IBR continues to be the most commonly used technique, mastectomy technique optimization, the possibility to check skin viability with indocyanine green angiography, the enhanced propensity of patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomies, and the introduction of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have paved the way to the rediscovery of the subcutaneous reconstruction technique. The aim of this article is to update the complication rate of immediate and delayed prepectoral IBR using human ADMs (hADMs).

METHODS

A literature search, using PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and Google Scholar database according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, was conducted to evaluate complication rates of prepectoral implant-based reconstructions using hADMs. The following MeSH terms were used: "prepectoral breast reconstruction acellular dermal matrix," "prepectoral breast reconstruction ADM," "human ADM breast reconstruction," and "human acellular dermal matrix breast reconstruction" (period: 2005-2020; the last search took place on April 2, 2020).

RESULTS

This meta-analysis includes 1425 patients (2270 breasts) who had undergone immediate or delayed prepectoral IBR using different types of hADMs. The overall complication rate amounted to 19%. The most frequent complication was represented by infection (7.9%), followed by seroma (4.8%), mastectomy flap necrosis (3.4%), and implant loss (2.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall complication rate was 19%. The most frequent complications were infection, seroma, and mastectomy flap necrosis, while capsular contracture was rare.

Early Expander-to-Implant Exchange after Postmastectomy Reconstruction Reduces Rates of Subsequent Major Infectious Complications

Major infectious complications after implant-based postmastectomy reconstruction commonly occur late (>30 days postoperative). We set out to determine if early expander-to-implant exchange (3-6 weeks after tissue expander placement) reduced rates of subsequent major infectious complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined patients after mastectomy and tissue expander reconstruction followed by early expander-to-implant exchange versus exchange at least 6 months after initial tissue expander placement (the control group). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine whether the timing of implant exchange independently predicted major infectious complications occurring more than 30 days after initial tissue expander placement after adjusting for differences in patient variables between groups.

RESULTS

In total, 252 consecutive patients (430 breasts) between August 2014 and October 2019 were included. While the rates of major early infectious complications after mastectomy and tissue expander placement were similar between the groups, the control group had more subsequent major infectious complications during the reconstructive process [9.8% (n = 22) versus 1.9% (n = 4), P < 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Early implant exchange results in a reduced subsequent rate of major infectious complications. This protocol reduces the window of time for late infectious complications to develop by proceeding with exchange within 6 weeks of tissue expander placement instead of the standard 6 months, which is common practice. We hypothesize that early exchange allows for washout of the mastectomy cavity, eliminating indolent bacterial contamination that could have subsequently manifested as a late infection. This protocol also obviates the need to operate on patients that undergo post-mastectomy radiotherapy, which also reduces reconstructive failure rates.

Current Trends in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Survey of American Society of Plastic Surgeons Members

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has recently gained increasing popularity, but there are limited data regarding national trends in the use of this technique. Our aim was to determine practice patterns related to prepectoral breast reconstruction among plastic surgeons, as well as to identify perceived advantages and disadvantages of this technique.

Methods

A 16-question electronic survey tool was distributed to 2535 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Survey items focused on surgeon practices related to prepectoral reconstruction, in addition to their motivations for and concerns with performing the procedure.

Results

A total of 274 responses were received (10.8% response rate). Nearly half of respondents (48.4%) reported using prepectoral techniques in all or most of their procedures. Decreased animation deformity was identified as the most significant advantage by 76.3% of respondents. Increased rippling and potential wound healing complications were identified as the most significant disadvantages to the procedure by 49.1% and 40.4% of respondents, respectively. The majority of surgeons reported using acellular dermal matrices in their procedures, with most surgeons demonstrating preferences for cohesive and shaped devices.

Conclusions

Prepectoral breast reconstruction is being widely adopted by plastic surgeons, with the majority of surgeons in our sample using prepectoral techniques in their practices. Responses demonstrate that this technique offers several perceived advantages, most notably the avoidance of animation deformity. However, our data also highlight that there are still many unanswered questions in the community about the complication profile and technical aspects of prepectoral techniques that warrant further investigation.

The largest multicentre data collection on prepectoral breast reconstruction: The iBAG study

Background and Objectives

In the last years, prepectoral breast reconstruction has increased its popularity, becoming a standard reconstructive technique by preserving pectoralis major anatomy and functionality. Nevertheless, the lack of solid and extensive data negatively impacts on surgeons’ correct information about postoperative complication rates and proper patient selection. This study aims to collect the largest evidence on this procedure.

Methods

A multicentre retrospective audit, promoted by the Barcelona Hospital, collected the experience of 30 centers on prepectoral breast reconstruction with Braxon ADM. The study had the scientific support of INPECS and IIB societies which provided the online database Clinapsis.

Results

A total of 1450 procedures were retrospectively collected in a 6‐year period. Mean age 52.4 years, BMI 23.9, follow‐up 22.7 months. Reconstruction was carried out after a tumor in 77.1% of the cases, 20.1% had prophylactic surgery, 2.8% had revisions. Diabetes, smoke, and immunosuppression had an influence on complications occurrence, as well as implant weight. Capsular contracture was associated with postoperative radiotherapy, but the overall rate was low (2.1%). Complications led to implant loss in 6.5% of the cases.

Conclusions

The international Braxon Audit Group multicentre data collection represents a milestone in the field of breast reconstruction, extensively improving the knowledge on this procedure.

Submuscular and Pre-Pectoral ADM Assisted Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Literature Review

Background and objectives: Breast cancer treatment has deeply changed in the last fifty years. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) were introduced for breast reconstruction, with encouraging results, but with conflicting reports too. The present paper aims to summarize the current data on breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the literature regarding the use of ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction. Results: The main techniques were analyzed and described. Conclusions: Several authors have recently reported positive results. Nevertheless, an increased complications' rate has been reported by other authors. Higher cost compared to not-ADM-assisted breast reconstruction is another concern.

One-step prepectoral breast reconstruction with porcine dermal matrix-covered implant: a protective technique improving the outcome in post-mastectomy radiation therapy setting

Background

Post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) applied on implant-assisted immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) involves a marked increase in complication rate. The recent opportunity of performing an ADM-assisted prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) raised the hypotesis of a protective interaction between ADM and periprosthetic tissues under PMRT.

Methods

We performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of a cohort of consecutively treated patients undergone one-step PPBR between January 2015 and September 2018. The aim is to examine complication rate and aesthetic satisfaction of patients, in order to evaluate if this reconstructive technique could be recommendable in PMRT setting. Group 1 comprised 158 patients not submitted to PMRT and Group 2 twenty-eight patients undergone PMRT.

Results

All post-operative complications were not statistically different between the two groups, except for capsular contracture (P=0.011). We obtained very high percentages in all BREAST-Q categories in Group 2 patients: satisfaction with breasts 86.8±13.9, satisfaction with implants 6.5±3.0, high satisfaction for no adverse effects of radiation 15.7±6.8. According to multivariate analysis no risk factor was significantly associated with complications.

Conclusions

We may conclude that one-step PPBR with porcine ADM followed by PMRT is well tolerated, with no significant risk of adverse outcomes, at least in the short-term follow-up. These promising outcomes warrant further studies to examine the existence of a protective effect due to ADM integration with subcutaneous tissue.