Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: a joint consensus guide from UK, European and USA breast and plastic reconstructive surgeons

Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Without Acellular Dermal Matrices: Preliminary Results

Background: In an effort to shed light on the recent resurgence of prepectoral breast reconstruction and mounting concerns regarding acellular dermal matrices (ADMs), the senior author's experience with non-ADM-assisted immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction and its associated complications are presented. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of the senior author's prepectoral breast reconstruction practice without ADM from November 2019 to May 2021 was carried out. Data regarding patient demographics, oncologic management, and surgical outcomes were recorded. Results: A total of 66 patients (88 breasts) were included, with an average follow-up of 7.8 months (SD: 5.4). Of these, 24 (36.4%) underwent immediate expander and 42 (63.6%) direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstructions. Major complications included nipple-areolar complex necrosis (2%), hematoma (3%), device exposure (2%), and periprosthetic infections (5.7%). The overall rate of implant failure was 5.7%. Minor complications included simple cellulitis (10%) and minor wound dehiscence (4.5%). Increasing implant size (p < .005) in the DTI cohort and increasing body mass index (BMI) were associated with an increased likelihood of adverse events. Postmastectomy radiation had no effect on surgical complications. Conclusions: The authors hope that in the absence of large, prospective trials, our data demonstrate the safety of immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction without ADM. Our data demonstrate that our algorithm is particularly safe in patients with a low BMI and with an implant size <500cc in DTI reconstruction. Further large prospective studies are required to further support our data in demonstrating that foregoing ADM in immediate prepectoral reconstruction is a safe option.

Current status of prepectoral breast reconstruction in Argentina

Breast cancer is among the most common cancers diagnosed in women, affecting one in eight women per year. Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction has emerged as the predominant approach for postmastectomy reconstruction, with a growing preference for the direct-to-implant (DTI) method over the traditional tissue expander technique. While conventionally, implants were typically positioned beneath the pectoralis major muscle, recent advancements have paved the way for implant placement above the muscle, in the prepectoral plane. Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) techniques can be combined with prepectoral breast reconstruction. The presence of sufficient fatty tissue coverage is considered one of the foremost independent factors influencing the success of immediate breast reconstruction and flap viability. DTI is a safe approach for prepectoral implant-based reconstruction with a number of advantages. However, careful patient selection and judicious assessment of flap perfusion help identify an appropriate subset of patients for prepectoral DTI reconstruction. Proposed breast tissue coverage classification (BTCC) and rigorous perfusion assessment techniques will aid to minimize postoperative complications and reconstruction failure. Based on the obtained range of coverage values (distance between the Cooper's ligaments and the skin) of preoperative digital mammogram evaluation, a three-type BTCC is as follows: Type 1: <1 cm (poor coverage), Type 2: between 1 and 2 cm (medium coverage), Type 3: >2 cm (good coverage). Prepectoral DTI reconstruction provides good results with complication rates similar to those of subpectoral techniques, eliminating breast animation. A meticulous surgical technique is essential to preserve the vascular network that guarantees the survival of the skin flap and nipple-areola complex (NAC). In the good coverage group (Type 3), an immediate DTI reconstruction could be safely performed. Aesthetic complications as rippling can occur if prepectoral implants are placed in Type 1 patients. Preoperative planning for prepectoral placement should not depend on breast volume, but on breast tissue coverage. Flap evaluation based on preoperative imaging measurements may be helpful when planning a conservative mastectomy. Patient selection, preoperative and intraoperative mastectomy flap evaluation, and modifications in implant technology play a critical role in this new and rapidly growing method for implant-based breast reconstruction.

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.

Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Mastectomy and Implant-Based Prepectoral Reconstruction Using TIGR® Synthetic Mesh

Background Single-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction after mastectomy has gained popularity over the last decade, thanks to the wide use of biological matrices and synthetic meshes. Despite their high cost, there is no evidence of superior outcome from the biological matrices compared to the synthetic meshes. In this study, we aimed to evaluate our experience with TIGR, a synthetic, long-term absorbable mesh, in mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction (MIBR) with a focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). Methods This was a single-trust prospective quality improvement study conducted between 2017 and 2019. The main objectives were complication rates including infection, implant loss, and other surgical complications in patients undergoing TIGR mesh-assisted MIBR in the prepectoral plane for either cancer or risk reduction. PROMs were measured using the validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) breast questionnaire module. Clinical evaluations were conducted at one week, three weeks, and 12 months postoperatively. All patients provided written consent, and the audit was registered with the Quality Improvement Department of the organization. Results One hundred and twelve meshes were used in 93 patients with a mean age of 49 (24-75) years and a body mass index (BMI) of 23.4 (19.1-29.6). During the follow-up period, complications occurred in 26 patients (28%), including infection in four (4.3%), complete skin flap necrosis in one (1%), partial flap necrosis in three (3.2%), and implant loss in four (4.3%) patients. PROM data from 41 individuals indicated a moderate overall quality of life (82.7%), with high functional domain scores with relatively lower emotional functioning scores. Symptom domains generally scored poorly except for body image and sexual functioning. Conclusion Mastectomy and immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction using TIGR mesh is safe with low major complication rates. It is associated with high functional and quality of life scores but low scores in symptom domains which could be multifactorial. However, limitations due to study type and follow-up duration suggest caution in generalizing findings.

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.

National Trends in Acellular Dermal Matrix Utilization in Immediate Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction is the most common method of immediate breast reconstruction in the United States, with acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) playing a significant role in implant support and coverage. This study evaluated recent national trends in ADM use in immediate breast reconstruction and assessed patient characteristics and 30-day complication rates.

METHODS

The authors queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for all patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction from 2015 to 2020. Primary outcomes were major surgical and medical complications, as well as ADM use per year. Subset analysis was performed to compare patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction with ADM in 2015 versus 2020.

RESULTS

In 39,800 immediate breast reconstructions, ADMs were used in 55.5% of cases ( n = 22,087). ADM usage increased annually from 2015 through 2020. Direct-to-implant reconstruction was significantly associated with ADM use ( P < 0.001). Compared with the no-ADM cohort, there was a significantly increased rate of return to the operating room for any reason ( P < 0.001). When comparing the 2015 and 2020 ADM cohorts, the 2020 ADM cohort had a significantly higher rate of superficial infections. Obesity, smoking history, and insulin-dependent diabetes were independent risk factors for superficial wounds in patients receiving ADM.

CONCLUSIONS

ADM use in immediate breast reconstruction increased significantly from 2015 to 2020, likely reflecting national trends in increasing direct-to-implant and prepectoral breast reconstruction. Obesity, smoking history, and insulin-dependent diabetes were independent risk factors for superficial wound infections in the ADM cohort. Patients with ADM had a slight increased incidence of return to the operating room.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, II.

Immediate post-mastectomy prepectoral breast reconstruction with animal derived acellular dermal matrices: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Animal-derived acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are increasingly being used in prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction. However, the indications and complication profile associated with this type of reconstruction remain unclear. This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the available literature on the use of animal-derived ADM in prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Three different literature databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Embase were screened using the following keywords: "immediate" AND "pre-pectoral" OR "prepectoral" AND "ADM breast reconstruction." Animal-derived ADM used (porcine - Braxon® and non-Braxon® - and bovine - Surgimend®) anthropometric information, clinical data, and complications profile were considered.

RESULTS

A total of 340 articles were initially identified, of which only 45 articles (5089 patients and 6598 reconstructed breasts) satisfied our inclusion criteria. The most widely used ADM was Braxon® in the context of conservative mastectomies. In most studies, a subcutaneous layer > 1 cm and lack of previous radiotherapy were considered prerequisites for this type of reconstruction. An increased risk of complications was found in smokers, patients who underwent radiation treatment, patients with high breast volumes, and patients with cancers requiring axillary dissection. Data related to the role of diabetes, high body mass index, and breast implant size on surgical outcomes were instead inconcludent. Age was not directly proportional to the complications.

CONCLUSION

The complications associated with different animal-derived ADMs are generally comparable. The profile of patients required for eligibility for this type of reconstruction appears to have been identified and is in line with current recommendations.

A Two-Year Retrospective Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes of Immediate Submuscular Breast Reconstructions With Native® Acellular Dermal Matrix

BACKGROUND

Implant-based submuscular breast reconstruction (SBR) can be performed with the aid of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) for implant coverage on their inferolateral pole, aiming at providing a biological interface for hiding the implant and therefore reducing the risk of complications. The purpose of this study is to assess the long-term post-operative outcomes obtained using the SBR-specific Native® ADM (DECO med s.r.l., Marcon, Venice, Italy).

METHODS

All cases of Native®-assisted immediate SBR performed at our institution between October 2016 and March 2020 were retrospectively analysed. Demographic and surgical data were collected, and post-operative outcomes, including minor and major complications, were evaluated. Particular attention was paid to complications emerging before and after patient discharge. Dependence analyses were performed to uncover statistically significant relationships between risk factors and reconstructive outcomes.

RESULTS

Data on 100 patients were collected, for a total of 128 breasts. The mean age of the cohort was 49.5 years, the mean BMI was 23.4 kg/m2, and the mean follow-up was 24 months. Out of this, 14.1% of patients received pre-operative radiotherapy, while 16.4% underwent post-mastectomy radiotherapy. Breasts appeared to develop short-term minor complications more likely during hospitalisation (11.7% vs. 7.8%), while short-term major complications occurred more often after discharge (7.8% vs. 15.6%). The most frequent long-term complications were capsular contracture and contour defects (both 9.4%). Risk factors that showed a statistically significant relationship with complications were pre- and post-mastectomy radiotherapy and post-operative chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The retrospective analysis showed results in line with clinical outcomes reported in the literature for the same reconstructive technique. The use of Native® ADM in SBR is safe and effective in the long term.

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.

Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in the Setting of Two-Stage Retropectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Should It be Delivered Before or After Implant Exchange? A Retrospective Analysis on 183 Patients

INTRODUCTION

Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) has a primary role in the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer; however, the most appropriate timing of irradiation in immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction (ITEBR) still remains unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on all women undergoing mastectomy and retropectoral ITEBR at Campus Bio-Medico University Hospital in Rome, Italy, between 2010 and 2019. The patients were categorized into three cohorts: patients undergoing PMRT with the tissue expander (TE) in situ, patients with PMRT delivered to the permanent implant (PI), patients who were not administered RT. Complications and failure rates were analysed and compared. Potential predictors of adverse outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

Over 10 years, 183 patients underwent retropectoral ITEBR (55 PMRT-TE, 50 PMRT-PI, 78 no-PMRT). The three groups were well matched with respect to patient- and treatment-related factors (p > 0.05), with the exception of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and irradiation. The mean follow-up was, respectively, 4.58, 7 and 5.75 years. Radiotherapy either to the TE or to the PI was independently associated with failure and conversion to autologous procedures (p < 0.0001). Failure rate was significantly higher when TE was irradiated (p = 0.03). PMRT was associated with severe capsular contracture development (p < 0.00001), the odds being higher when irradiation was delivered after implant exchange (p = 0.04). Increased BMI was significantly associated with failure.

CONCLUSIONS

When PMRT is delivered to the TE, the risk of failure is higher (OR 2.77); when the PI is irradiated, reconstruction will more likely be affected by severe capsular contracture (OR 2.7). However, considering that the overall risk of severe capsular contracture correlated to PMRT is higher than failure, we believe that irradiation should be delivered to the TE. Performing a proper capsuloplasty at the time of implant exchange, indeed, allows to correct the deformities related to radiation-induced capsular contracture. Patients with unfavourable outcomes after TE placement and RT, instead, can be directly switched to autologous reconstruction.

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 Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

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.

Evaluation of the Safety of a GalaFLEX-AlloDerm Construct in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is gaining in popularity. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are an integral part of prepectoral reconstruction. However, large quantities of ADM are required for total implant coverage and the cost of ADMs could be a deterrent to reconstruction. To minimize the cost, the authors have resorted to the use of a bioabsorbable mesh, GalaFLEX, as a partial replacement to ADMs. This study evaluates the comparative safety of using a GalaFLEX-AlloDerm construct versus AlloDerm alone in prepectoral reconstruction.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent immediate, expander-implant, prepectoral breast reconstruction were included in this retrospective study. Patients were stratified into two groups: those who received GalaFLEX-AlloDerm combination versus AlloDerm alone. In GalaFLEX-AlloDerm reconstructions, the lower third of the expander was covered by the AlloDerm while the rest of the expander was covered by GalaFLEX. Complications following reconstruction were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

AlloDerm alone was utilized in 128 patients (249 breasts) and GalaFLEX-AlloDerm in 135 patients (250 breasts). Rate of any complication was 7.6% in the AlloDerm alone group and 6.4% in the GalaFLEX-AlloDerm group. Rate of infection, major skin necrosis, seroma, capsular contracture, prosthesis exposure/extrusion, and prosthesis loss were ≤3.0% in the GalaFLEX-AlloDerm group and did not differ significantly from those in the AlloDerm only group.

CONCLUSIONS

GalaFLEX bioabsorbable matrix is a less costly alternative to ADMs in two-staged, prepectoral reconstruction with comparable safety outcomes. Further long-term data and clinical experience are needed to better understand the safety of this matrix for use in breast reconstruction.

Clinical applications of acellular dermal matrices: A review

INTRODUCTION

The extracellular matrix (ECM) plays an integral role in wound healing. It provides both structure and growth factors that allow for the organised cell proliferation. Large or complex tissue defects may compromise host ECM, creating an environment that is unfavourable for the recovery of anatomical function and appearance. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been developed from a variety of sources, including human (HADM), porcine (PADM) and bovine (BADM), with multiple different processing protocols. The objective of this report is to provide an overview of current literature assessing the clinical utility of ADMs across a broad spectrum of applications.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched using keywords 'acellular dermal matrix', 'acellular dermal matrices' and brand names for commercially available ADMs. Our search was limited to English language articles published from 1999 to 2020 and focused on clinical data.

RESULTS

A total of 2443 records underwent screening. After removing non-clinical studies and correspondence, 222 were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 170 were included in our synthesis of the literature. While the earliest ADMs were used in severe burn injuries, usage has expanded to a number of surgical subspecialties and procedures, including orthopaedic surgery (e.g. tendon and ligament reconstructions), otolaryngology, oral surgery (e.g. treating gingival recession), abdominal wall surgery (e.g. hernia repair), plastic surgery (e.g. breast reconstruction and penile augmentation), and chronic wounds (e.g. diabetic ulcers).

CONCLUSION

Our understanding of ADM's clinical utility continues to evolve. More research is needed to determine which ADM has the best outcomes for each clinical scenario.

LAY SUMMARY

Large or complex wounds present unique reconstructive and healing challenges. In normal healing, the extracellular matrix (ECM) provides both structural and growth factors that allow tissue to regenerate in an organised fashion to close the wound. In difficult or large soft-tissue defects, however, the ECM is often compromised. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) products have been developed to mimic the benefits of host ECM, allowing for improved outcomes in a variety of clinical scenarios. This review summarises the current clinical evidence regarding commercially available ADMs in a wide variety of clinical contexts.

A Comparison of BREAST-Q Scores between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Subpectoral breast implant placement has in recent history predominated in breast reconstruction, but there has been more recent adoption of prepectoral implant reconstruction. There has been limited study to date of patient-reported outcomes comparing the two techniques.

METHODS

Patients who underwent direct-to-implant breast reconstruction between 2013 and 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients were asked to complete BREAST-Q domains comparing quality of life and satisfaction. Descriptive, t test, chi-square test, and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to compare BREAST-Q scores. Significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

There were 64 patients (114 breasts) who underwent prepectoral reconstruction and 37 patients (68 breasts) who underwent subpectoral reconstruction. Among the 101 women (182 breasts), there were no significant differences between BREAST-Q scores and implant position for the Satisfaction with Breasts domain (adjusted p = 0.819), Psychosocial Well-being domain (adjusted p = 0.206), or Physical Well-being Chest domain (adjusted p = 0.110). The subpectoral implant cohort was associated with higher scores, 53 versus 47, for the Sexual Well-being module (adjusted p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction had comparable BREAST-Q satisfaction scores for most modules regardless of implant plane. The subpectoral implant cohort scored higher for sexual well-being.

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with TiLOOP® Bra Pocket - a single-centre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant-based reconstruction using synthetic meshes is feasible with good outcomes. We present our data using TiLOOP® Bra Pocket, a novel ready-to-use mesh pocket which acts as an internal bra and prevents the implant from dislocating or twisting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-centre retrospective cohort study was performed to assess short-term complication rates and cosmetic outcomes in patients with prepectoral implant-based reconstruction using the TiLOOP® Bra Pocket. The primary endpoint was complication rates during the first 6 months. The secondary endpoint was the cosmetic outcome after 6 to 12 months, which was judged by two breast surgeons using the Harvard score.

RESULTS

A total of 63 breasts (43 patients) were reconstructed using the TiLOOP® Bra Pocket between 2018 and 2020, 57 were immediate reconstructions. The overall complication rate was 30,2% (n = 19/63). Major complications occurred in seven breasts (n = 7/63; 11,1%) and minor complications occurred in 12 breasts (12/63; 19,0%). The unplanned revision rate was 12,7%. The cosmetic outcome was good (Harvard score: mean 3, range 1-4; SD 0,75). Seventeen cosmetic complications were observed (17/63; 27,0%) and six cosmetic revision surgeries were performed (6/63; 9,5%).

CONCLUSION

The use of the TiLOOP® Bra Pocket is convenient and standardized because the pocket is preformed and does not require to be sewn first. Cosmetic outcome is good; however, the surgical morbidity needs to be addressed in future reconstructions. Careful patient selection and preparation techniques are vital in order to achieve acceptable complication rates and satisfying cosmetic results.

Review of Outcomes in Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction with and without Surgical Mesh Assistance

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, surgeons have increasingly advocated for a return to prepectoral breast reconstruction with claims that surgical mesh (including acellular dermal matrix) can reduce complication rates. However, numerous surgical and implant advancements have occurred in the decades since the initial prepectoral studies, and it is unclear whether mesh is solely responsible for the touted benefits.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic review of all English language articles reporting original data for prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Articles presenting duplicate data were excluded. Complications were recorded and calculated on a per-breast basis and separated as mesh-assisted, no-mesh prior to 2006, and no-mesh after 2006 (date of first silicone gel-filled breast implant approval). Capsular contracture comparisons were adjusted for duration of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 58 articles were included encompassing 3120 patients from 1966 to 2019. The majority of the included studies were retrospective case series. Reported complication outcomes were variable, with no significant difference between groups in hematoma, infection, or explantation rates. Capsular contracture rates were higher in historical no-mesh cohorts, whereas seroma rates were higher in contemporary no-mesh cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited data exist to understand the benefits of surgical mesh devices in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Level I studies with an appropriate control group are needed to better understand the specific role of mesh for these procedures. Existing data are inconclusive but suggest that prepectoral breast reconstruction can be safely performed without surgical mesh.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh

BACKGROUND

Biological and synthetic meshes may improve the outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) by facilitating single-stage procedures and improving cosmesis. Supporting evidence is, however, limited. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of biological and synthetic mesh on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of IBBR 18 months after surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive women undergoing immediate IBBR between February 2014 and June 2016 were recruited to the study. Demographic, operative, oncological and 3-month complication data were collected, and patients received validated BREAST-Q questionnaires at 18 months. The impact of different IBBR techniques on PROs were explored using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for clinically relevant confounders, and including a random effect to account for clustering by centre.

RESULTS

A total of 1470 participants consented to receive the questionnaire and 891 completed it. Of these, 67 women underwent two-stage submuscular reconstructions. Some 764 patients had a submuscular reconstruction with biological mesh (495 women), synthetic mesh (95) or dermal sling (174). Fourteen patients had a prepectoral reconstruction. Compared with two-stage submuscular reconstructions, no significant differences in PROs were seen in biological or synthetic mesh-assisted or dermal sling procedures. However, patients undergoing prepectoral IBBR reported better satisfaction with breasts (adjusted mean difference +6.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.65 to11.61; P = 0.009). PROs were similar to those in the National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit 2008-2009 cohort, which included two-stage submuscular procedures only.

CONCLUSION

This study found no difference in PROs of subpectoral IBBR with or without biological or synthetic mesh, but provides early data to suggest improved satisfaction with breasts following prepectoral reconstruction. Robust evaluation is required before this approach can be adopted as standard practice.

Implant-based Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: The Importance of Oncoplastic Plane, its Blood Supply and Assessment Methods

With the recent rise in prepectoral breast reconstruction, partly due to the improvement in implants and the aesthetic results but, more so, due to the perseveration of the pectoralis major, it is of great importance to have an appreciation of the clinical anatomy with regards to the breast and its blood supply for the practice of prepectoral breast reconstruction. The preservation of the mastectomy flap vasculature together with meticulous surgical technique minimizes complications, notoriously of skin flap necrosis. We aimed to describe the anatomy of the oncoplastic plane (for the prepectoral technique), its vasculature, and relevant assessment methods.

Outcome of complete acellular dermal matrix wrap with polyurethane implant in immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction

Background

Polyurethane implants have been used on and off in breast reconstruction since 1991 while prepectoral breast reconstruction has gained popularity in recent times. In this study, we present our outcomes from the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) complete wrap with polyurethane implants in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of prospectively maintained database from 41 patients receiving complete ADM wrap with prepectoral polyurethane implants over a 3-year period. Selection criteria were adapted from a previous study (4135 Trust Clinical Audit Database) evaluating prepectoral reconstruction with Braxon matrices. Patient demographics, operative data, surgical complications, and outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 52 implant reconstructions were performed in 41 patients with a mean follow-up of 14.3 months (range, 6–36 months). The overall reported complication rates including early (less than 6 weeks) and late complications. Early complications included two patients (4.9%) with wound dehiscence. One of which had an implant loss that was salvageable. Another patient (2%) developed red-breast syndrome and two women (4.9%) developed with seroma treated conservatively. Late complications included one patient (2%) with grade II capsular contraction, 12 patients with grade I-II rippling and two patients (4.9%) with grade III rippling.

Conclusions

We present our experience of prepectoral polyurethane implant using complete ADM wrap. This is one of the few papers to report on the outcome of the prepectoral use of polyurethane in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. Our early observational series show satisfactory outcome and long-term results are warranted by a large multicenter study.

How to Optimize Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has become a popular method of postmastectomy breast reconstruction due to its numerous benefits in properly selected patients. Prepectoral reconstruction, as compared with retropectoral position, offers the advantage of leaving the pectoralis muscle undisturbed and in its original anatomic position, resulting in significantly decreased acute and chronic pain, improved upper extremity strength and range of motion, and avoidance of animation deformity. The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) allows for precise control of the breast pocket, resulting in aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. ADMs have the added benefit of reducing capsular contracture, especially in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy. Although prepectoral breast reconstruction is effective, the breast implant is placed closer to the skin flap with less vascularized soft tissue coverage. Therefore, optimizing outcomes in prepectoral breast reconstruction requires careful patient selection, intraoperative mastectomy flap evaluation, and perioperative surgical algorithms specific to prepectoral reconstruction.

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.