Immediate Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Traditional Subpectoral Technique versus Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix

Does the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in women undergoing pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction increase operative success versus non-use of ADM in the same setting? A systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in the UK. Following mastectomy, reconstruction is now integral to the surgical management of breast cancer, of which implant-based reconstruction (IBBR) is the most common type. IBBR initially evolved from pre-pectoral to post-pectoral due to complications, but with developments in oncoplastic techniques and new implant technology, interest in pre-pectoral IBBR has increased. Many surgeons use acellular dermal matrices (ADM); however, there is little evidence in literature as to whether this improves surgical outcomes in terms of complications, failure and patient satisfaction. This review aims to assess the available evidence as to whether there is a difference in surgical outcomes for breast reconstructions using ADM versus non-use of ADM.

METHODS

A database search will be performed using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Clinicaltrials.org. The search timeframe will be 10 years. Studies will be screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria and data extracted into a standardised spreadsheet. Risk of bias will be assessed. Screening, extraction and risk-of-bias assessments will be performed independently by two reviewers and discrepancies discussed and rectified. Data analysis and meta-analysis will be performed using Microsoft Excel and R software. Forest plots will be used for two-arm studies to calculate heterogeneity and p-value for overall effect.

DISCUSSION

With the renaissance of pre-pectoral IBBR, it is important that surgeons have adequate evidence available to assist operative decision-making. Assessing evidence in literature is important to help surgeons determine whether using ADM for IBBR is beneficial compared to non-use of ADM. This has potential impacts for patient complications, satisfaction and cost to healthcare trusts.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023389072.

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.

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.

Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Nipple-Sparing and Skin-Sparing Mastectomy in Breast-Augmented Patients: Prepectoral or Submuscular Direct-to-Implant Reconstruction?

BACKGROUND

Patients with breast augmentation facing a breast cancer diagnosis pose unique challenges for both breast and plastic surgeons in terms of treatment and reconstruction. Traditional submuscular direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction is often considered the standard approach, regardless of the previous implant pocket. However, recent trends in prepectoral reconstruction provide an innovative solution for patients with previous subglandular and submuscular implants.

OBJECTIVES

In this study we aimed to share our experiences with DTI breast reconstruction in patients with a history of breast augmentation, with a specific focus on the viability of prepectoral reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on 38 patients with previous breast augmentation who underwent either skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer followed by DTI reconstruction between January 2015 and July 2023. Our analysis considered various factors, including previous implant positioning, capsular and implant status, and mastectomy flap thickness (MFT), offering insights into the rationale behind choosing the new implant positioning.

RESULTS

Patients with a history of subglandular breast augmentation and an MFT greater than 1 cm were candidates for prepectoral reconstruction. When the MFT was less than 1 cm but flap vascularity was sufficient, a prepectoral reconstruction was performed; otherwise, retropectoral reconstruction was preferred. Patients with submuscular breast augmentation were evaluated similarly, with submuscular reconstruction chosen when the MFT was less than 1 cm and prepectoral reconstruction preferred when the MFT exceeded 1 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate prepectoral DTI reconstruction represents a feasible option for specific patients with a history of breast augmentation. Decisions regarding the reconstructive approach are influenced by variables such as mastectomy flap thickness, implant status, and capsular conditions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Outcomes after elevation of serratus anterior fascia flap versus serratus muscle flap in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction following mastectomy: a prospective study

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain between SF flap and serratus anterior muscle (SM) in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study that included 53 women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction from January 2020 to March 2021. Twenty-nine patients (54.7%) had SF elevation, and 24 patients (45.3%) underwent SM elevation. We evaluated patient-reported early postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Also, it was reported that all surgical complications in the first month and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were measured with the BRECON 23 questionnaire.

Results

The serratus fascia group used implants with larger volumes, 407.6 ± 98.9 cc (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the fascial and muscular groups regarding the postoperative pain score reported by the patients (2 versus 3; p = 0.30). Also, there was no difference between the groups regarding early surgical complications and PROs after breast reconstruction.

Conclusion

The use of SF seems to cause less morbidity, which makes the technique an alternative to be considered in breast reconstruction. Although there was no statistical difference in postoperative pain scores between the fascia and serratus muscle groups.

Prevention of Postoperative Complications by Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved over time. However, the effects of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) compared with those of subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) have not been clearly defined. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the occurrence of surgical complications between PBR and SBR to determine the procedure that is effective and relatively safe.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published until April of 2021 comparing PBR and SBR following mastectomy. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. General information on the studies and surgical outcomes were extracted. Among 857 studies, 34 and 29 were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed to clearly compare the results of patients who underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy.

RESULTS

Pooled results showed that prevention of capsular contracture (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79) and infection control (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92) were better with PBR than with SBR. Rates of hematoma, implant loss, seroma, skin-flap necrosis, and wound dehiscence were not significantly different between PBR and SBR. PBR considerably improved postoperative pain, BREAST-Q score, and upper arm function compared with SBR. Among postmastectomy radiation therapy patients, the incidence rates of capsular contracture were significantly lower in the PBR group than in the SBR group (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that PBR had fewer postoperative complications than SBR. The authors' meta-analysis suggests that PBR could be used as an alternative technique for breast reconstruction in appropriate patients.

Evaluation of the Influence of Geodimensional and Histological Parameters on the Need for Margin Widening in Breast Lesions Marked With Magnetic Seeds

Objective

Breast cancer is an important topic worldwide, posing morbidity and mortality to women. Considerable efforts have been put in the early recognition of malignancy through different screening methods, such as mammography and ultrasound. The precise localization of infraclinical malignant lesions is key in surgical management and magnetic seeds gather particular interest for this purpose. As with other systems, a need for reintervention may be needed to obtain adequate surgical margins. This work evaluated the relation between the need for surgical reintervention in order to obtain negative margins and geodimensional and histological parameters. The main objective was the identification of parameters significantly associated with reintervention for margin widening.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective analysis of 198 patients from a single centre was performed. The association between pre-defined geodimensional and histological parameters and the need for margin widening in infraclinical lesions marked with magnetic seed was evaluated.

Results

Results showed that reintervention to widen margins was significantly higher in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in the pre-operative biopsy when compared with invasive carcinoma (p = 0.03) in the bivariate analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed between the need for reintervention and lesion size (p = 0.197), breast quadrant location (p = 0.626) and distance of skin to lesion (p = 0.356).

Conclusion

This work suggests that a more invasive margin clearance in lesions with a pre-operative DCIS diagnosis might obviate the need for reintervention to obtain negative margins. On the other hand, it is not necessary to be surgically more invasive in larger lesions, deeply located or that are present in a certain quadrant, since there are no significant differences regarding the need for reintervention.

An Innovative Scoring System to Select the Optimal Surgery in Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

The selection of surgery post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is difficult and based on surgeons' expertise. The aim of this study was to create a post-NEoadjuvant Score System (pNESSy) to choose surgery, optimizing oncological and aesthetical outcomes.

METHODS

Patients (stage I-III) underwent surgery post-NACT (breast-conserving surgery (BCS), oncoplastic surgery (OPS), and conservative mastectomy (CMR) were included. Data selected were BRCA mutation, ptosis, breast volume, radiological response, MRI, and mammography pre- and post-NACT prediction of excised breast area. pNESSy was created using the association between these data and surgery. Area under the curve (AUC) was assessed. Patients were divided into groups according to correspondence (G1) or discrepancy (G2) between score and surgery; oncological and aesthetic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 255 patients were included (118 BCS, 49 OPS, 88 CMR). pNESSy between 6.896-8.724 was predictive for BCS, 8.725-9.375 for OPS, and 9.376-14.245 for CMR; AUC was, respectively, 0.835, 0.766, and 0.825. G1 presented a lower incidence of involved margins (5-14.7%; p = 0.010), a better locoregional disease-free survival (98.8-88.9%; p < 0.001) and a better overall survival (96.1-86.5%; p = 0.017), and a better satisfaction with breasts (39.8-27.5%; p = 0.017) and physical wellbeing (93.5-73.6%; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A score system based on clinical and radiological features was created to select the optimal surgery post-NACT and improve oncological and aesthetic outcomes.

Examination of Outcome Disparities in Reports of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are mixed results in surgical complications regarding the usage of prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive synthesis of surgical complications between the subpectoral and prepectoral reconstructive method.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for literature published up until December 2022. Studies that compared subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction and reported at least one postoperative complication were included. The following 8 major outcomes were included: revision and reoperation, capsular contracture, explantation, seroma, hematoma, infection, skin necrosis, and animation deformity. Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare outcomes of the 2 techniques. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare whether practice differences in different countries may have an impact on outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were identified in our literature search. Two thousand three hundred sixty patients were included, representing a total of 3135 breasts. Our analysis demonstrated that prepectoral reconstruction had significantly lower odds of developing postoperative hematoma [odds ratio (OR), 0.62; P = 0.05], seroma (OR, 0.67; P = 0.01), infection (OR, 0.64; P = 0.03), revision and reoperation (OR, 0.44; P < 0.00001), and animation deformity (OR, 0.01; P < 0.00001), compared with the subpectoral method. Subgroup analysis showed that differences between 3 countries (United States, Korea, Italy) are low (all subgroup heterogeneity test P > 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

While both subpectoral and prepectoral are safe methods for breast reconstruction, the prepectoral technique may lead to lower odds of developing multiple major postoperative complications.

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).

Surgical Planning after Neoadjuvant Treatment in Breast Cancer: A Multimodality Imaging-Based Approach Focused on MRI

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) today represents a cornerstone in the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer and highly chemo-sensitive tumors at early stages, increasing the possibilities of performing more conservative treatments and improving long term outcomes. Imaging has a fundamental role in the staging and prediction of the response to NACT, thus aiding surgical planning and avoiding overtreatment. In this review, we first examine and compare the role of conventional and advanced imaging techniques in preoperative T Staging after NACT and in the evaluation of lymph node involvement. In the second part, we analyze the different surgical approaches, discussing the role of axillary surgery, as well as the possibility of non-operative management after-NACT, which has been the subject of recent trials. Finally, we focus on emerging techniques that will change the diagnostic assessment of breast cancer in the near future.

Direct-to-Implant Subcutaneous Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Complications and Patient's Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

The use of direct-to-implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction has increased over the last years. The goal of this systematic review is to deliver an updated review of the safety of this technique and its impact on quality of life. We also compare subcutaneous vs submuscular complications, through meta-analysis.

METHODS

Literature review through PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were performed by PRISMA criteria. Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria for subcutaneous review and 15 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. All included studies were evaluated for complications and answers to the BREAST-Q. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel, IBM SPSS, and Cochrane RevMan.

RESULTS

In 2863 patients and 3988 breasts that undergone direct to implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction, 8,21% had rippling, 5,64% seroma, 1,74% hematoma, 3,40% infection, 3,01% wound dehiscence, 3,93% skin necrosis, 3,34% nipple-areolar-complex (NAC) necrosis, 3,07% capsular contracture, 0,00% animation deformity, and 3,83% an implant removal. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in the odds ratio of animation deformity, a but statistically significant higher odds ratio of rippling. Subcutaneous and submuscular reconstructions had similar BREAST-Q scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct-to-implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction does not harm the patient's quality of life, comparatively with submuscular, saving the pectoral muscle from dissection and preventing animation deformity, but increasing the risk of rippling.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 .

Single-port nipple-sparing subcutaneous mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction for breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study compares the perioperative results, aesthetic outcome and oncologic safety of single-port insufflation endoscopic nipple-sparing subcutaneous mastectomy combined with immediate reconstruction using prosthesis implantation (SIE-NSM-IRPI) with those of conventional open-nipple and areola-sparing subcutaneous mastectomy combined with immediate reconstruction using prosthesis implantation (C-NSM-IRPI).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 64 early-stage breast cancer patients were divided into SIE-NSM-IRPI (n = 38) and C-NSM-IRPI (n = 26) groups. Perioperative results (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, drainage duration, and recent complications) were then compared between the two groups. Differences in satisfaction with the breasts, psychosocial well-being, physical well-being (chest) and sexual well-being were analyzed according to the BREAST-Q scale, and survival outcomes were also compared.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 51.5 months. The incision length of SIE-NSM-IRPI was shorter than that of C-NSM-IRPI (P < 0.001). SIE-NSM-IRPI achieved the same detection rate and median number of sentinel lymph nodes as C-NSM-IRPI (3.00vs. 4.00, P = 0.780). The incidence of prosthesis removal due to infection or prosthesis exposure in the SIE-NSM-IRPI group was lower than that in the C-NSM-IRPI group (P = 0.015). Satisfaction with breasts (82.00vs.59.00, P < 0.001), psychosocial well-being (93.00vs.77.00, P = 0.001) and physical well-being (chest) (89.00vs.82.00, P < 0.001) scores were higher in the SIE-NSM-IRPI group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in disease-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.829, 95% confidence interval = 0.182-3.779) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.919, 95% confidence interval = 0.169-21.842).

CONCLUSION

In this selected cohort of patients with early breast cancer, SIE-NSM-IRPI was comparable to C-NSM-IRPI, considering oncologic safety and detection of sentinel lymph nodes. It had a lower incidence of prosthesis removal, shorter incision length, and was associated with better patient satisfaction with the breasts. More random clinical trials of this novel approach in a larger cohort of Chinese patients with an extended follow-up period are needed in the future.

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.

Preserving Nipple Sensitivity after Breast Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

As breast-conserving procedures become increasingly safe and viable options for surgical management of breast cancer, efforts have focused on assessing and optimizing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as nipple sensation. This study aims to evaluate the current understanding of nipple-areolar complex (NAC) sensation outcomes in breast cancer patients undergoing breast cancer surgeries, namely, nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSM), skin-sparing mastectomies (SSM), and lumpectomies.

Methods

Articles including terms related to "nipple," "mastectomy," "sensation," and "patient-reported outcome" were queried from three databases according to PRISMA guidelines. Study characteristics, patient demographics, and surgical details were recorded. Outcomes of interest included objective nipple sensitivity testing and PROMs.

Results

Of 888 manuscripts identified, 28 articles met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies (n = 578 patients) used objective measures to evaluate sensitivity, such as monofilament testing. Sixteen studies (n = 1785 patients) assessed PROMs through validated or investigator-generated surveys. Three of the included studies reported NAC sensitivity in patients who received NSM with neurotization (n = 203 patients) through a variety of techniques that used various grafts to coapt a lateral intercostal nerve to the NAC nerve stumps. Results of investigator surveys showed that of 1565 patients without neurotization, nipple sensation was maintained in 29.0% (n = 453) of patients. Of 138 NSM patients without NAC neurotization, SWM testing showed an average loss of protective sensation in the nipple (average SWM score: 4.7) compared to normal or diminished sensation to light touch in nonoperated controls (average SWM score: 2.9, n = 195). Of patients who underwent NSM with neurotization, one study (n = 78) reported maintenance of NAC sensation in 100% of patients, while another study (n = 7) reported average diminished protective sensation in the nipple (average SWM score: 3.9).

Conclusion

Our study has shown that objective and patient-reported results of nipple sensitivity support nipple-sparing techniques as a viable option for preserving NAC sensation, although patients can expect a decrease in sensation overall. Neurotization of the NAC during NSM shows promising results of improved postoperative nipple sensitivity, though additional studies are warranted to confirm this finding. Variations between study methodologies highlight the lack of standardization in sensory testing techniques when evaluating NAC sensation.

Oncoplastic Breast Surgery versus Conservative Mastectomy in the Management of Large Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): Surgical, Oncological, and Patient-Reported Outcomes

Oncoplastic level II breast-conserving surgery (OPS2) allows for wider excisions than standard breast-conserving surgery, but the literature on this technique in the treatment of DCIS is scarce. This study compares OPS2 to conservative mastectomy (CM) in patients undergoing surgery for large DCIS. The clinical, radiological, surgical, and post-operative data of 147 patients who underwent either CM or OPS2 for large DCIS between 2007 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The surgical, oncological, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were analyzed and compared between the two groups. The surgical outcomes were similar, in terms of margin involvement (p = 0.211), complication rate (p = 0.827), and re-excision rate (p = 1). The rate of additional surgery for cosmetic optimization was significantly lower in the OPS2 group: only 1 (1.8%) patient required surgical adjustments versus 24 (26.4%) patients in the CM group (p < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was lower in the OPS2 group (p < 0.001). The oncological outcomes did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.662). The PRO analysis showed better outcomes in the OPS2 group, which achieved statistical significance in the sexual well-being module (p = 0.015). Skin sensitivity loss was also significantly lower in the OPS2 group (p < 0.001). When feasible, OPS2 should be considered in the treatment of large DCIS, as it is safe and shows high levels of patient satisfaction.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix: Have We Come Full Circle?

Breast reconstruction is an integral part of breast cancer treatment [...].

Prepectoral vs. Submuscular Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Our Early Experience

Background: Conservative mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) is an oncologically accepted technique that offers improved esthetic results and patient quality of life. Traditionally, implants have been placed in a submuscular (SM) plane beneath the pectoralis major muscle (PMM). Recently, prepectoral (PP) placement of the prosthesis has been increasingly used in order to avoid morbidities related to manipulation of the PMM. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of SM vs. PP IPBR after conservative mastectomy in patients with histologically proven breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed two cohorts of patients that underwent mastectomy with IPBR after NAC in our institution from January 2018 to December 2021. Conservative mastectomy was performed in 146 of the 400 patients that underwent NAC during the study period. Patients were divided into two groups based on the positioning of implants: 56 SM versus 90 PP. Results: The two cohorts were similar for age (mean age 42 and 44 years in the SM and PP group respectively) and follow-up (33 and 20 months, respectively). Mean operative time was 56 min shorter in the PP group (300 and 244 min in the SM and PP group). No significant differences were observed in overall major complication rates. Implant loss was observed in 1.78% of patients (1/56) in the SM group and 1.11% of patients (1/90) in PP group. No differences were observed between the two groups in local or regional recurrence. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience, which represents one of the largest series of patients undergoing PP-IPBR after NAC at a single institution documented in the literature, seems to confirm that PP-IPBR after NAC is a safe, reliable and effective alternative to traditional SM-IPBR with excellent esthetic and oncological outcomes; it is easy to perform, reduces operative time and minimizes complications related to manipulation of PPM. However, this promising results need to be confirmed in prospective trials with longer follow-up.

Comparison of Outcomes Following Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implants for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy helps to restore quality of life while aiming at providing optimal cosmetic outcomes. Both prepectoral (PP) and subpectoral (SP) breast implants are widely used to fulfill these objectives. It is, however, unclear which approach offers stronger postoperative benefits. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature through PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ResearchGate, following the PRISMA guidelines. Quantitative analysis for postoperative pain as the primary outcome was conducted. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and postoperative complications such as seroma, implant loss, skin necrosis, wound infection, and hematoma. (3) Results: Nine articles involving 1119 patients were retrieved. Our results suggested increased postoperative pain after SP implants and significantly higher rates of seroma following PP implants (p < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was found to be similar between the two groups; however, the heterogeneity of measurement tools did not allow us to pool these results. The rates of implant loss, skin necrosis, wound infection, and hematoma showed no significant differences between the two cohorts. (4) Conclusion: Our data suggest that both implant placements are safe and effective methods for breast reconstruction following mastectomy. However, homogeneity in outcome measurements would allow one to provide stronger statistical results.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has recently been introduced to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic outcomes in women having implant-based procedures. High-quality evidence to support the practice of PPBR, however, is lacking. Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b study that aimed to establish the safety, effectiveness, and stability of PPBR before definitive evaluation in an RCT. The short-term safety endpoints at 3 months after surgery are reported here.

METHODS

Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating UK centres between July 2019 and December 2020 were invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology, and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss at 3 months. Other outcomes of interest included readmission, reoperation, and infection.

RESULTS

Some 347 women underwent 424 immediate implant-based reconstructions at 40 centres. Most were single-stage direct-to-implant (357, 84.2 per cent) biological mesh-assisted (341, 80.4 per cent) procedures. Conversion to subpectoral reconstruction was necessary in four patients (0.9 per cent) owing to poor skin-flap quality. Of the 343 women who underwent PPBR, 144 (42.0 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication. Implant loss occurred in 28 women (8.2 per cent), 67 (19.5 per cent) experienced an infection, 60 (17.5 per cent) were readmitted for a complication, and 55 (16.0 per cent) required reoperation within 3 months of reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates following PPBR are high and implant loss is comparable to that associated with subpectoral mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. These findings support the need for a well-designed RCT comparing prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.

Level II Oncoplastic Surgery as an Alternative Option to Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction in the Neoadjuvant Setting: A Multidisciplinary Single Center Experience

Oncoplastic surgery level II techniques (OPSII) are used in patients with operable breast cancer. There is no evidence regarding their safety and efficacy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The aim of this study was to compare the oncological and aesthetic outcomes of this technique compared with those observed in mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (MIBR), in post-NAC patients undergoing surgery between January 2016 and March 2021. Local disease-free survival (L-DFS), regional disease-free survival (R-DFS), distant disease-free survival (D-DFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared; the aesthetic results and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated using BREAST-Q. A total of 297 patients were included, 87 of whom underwent OPSII and 210 of whom underwent MIBR. After a median follow-up of 39.5 months, local recurrence had occurred in 3 patients in the OPSII group (3.4%), and in 13 patients in the MIBR group (6.1%) (p = 0.408). The three-year L-DFS rates were 95.1% for OPSII and 96.2% for MIBR (p = 0.286). The three-year R-DFS rates were 100% and 96.4%, respectively (p = 0.559). The three-year D-DFS rate were 90.7% and 89.7% (p = 0.849). The three-year OS rates were 95.7% and 95% (p = 0.394). BREAST-Q highlighted significant advantages in physical well-being for OPSII. No difference was shown for satisfaction with breasts (p = 0.656) or psychosocial well-being (p = 0.444). OPSII is safe and effective after NAC. It allows oncological and aesthetic outcomes with a high QoL, and is a safe alternative for locally advanced tumors which are partial responders to NAC.

Nipple sparing mastectomy with prepectoral immediate prosthetic reconstruction without acellular dermal matrices: a single center experience

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) is an oncologically accepted technique that allows to improve aesthetic results and patient quality of life. Traditionally, implant for reconstruction have been placed in a submuscolar (SM) plane, beneath the pectoralis major muscle (PMM). Recently, prepectoral (PP) placement of prosthesis is increasingly used in order to avoid morbidities related to manipulation of PMM. The aim of the present study was to report our experience with 209 NSMs and IPBR using a prepectoral approach and polyurethane-coated implant without acellular dermal matrices (ADMs).

METHODS

A retrospective review of breast cancer patients who underwent NSM followed by PP - IPBR from January 2018 to April 2021 was performed. Data were recorded in order to evaluate operative details, major complications and oncological outcomes. Aesthetic results and patient quality of life were measured by a specific "QOL assessment PRO" survey.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine patients (269 breasts) with PP - IPBR after NSM were included. Mean age was 47 (25-73) years and median follow-up was 14 (1-40) months. A simultaneous contralateral implant-based mammoplasty of symmetrization after unilateral NSM was carried out in six of 149 (4%) patients. Implant loss was observed in three of 209 patient (1.44%); two of 209 (0.96%) patients developed a full-thickness NAC necrosis that required excision. During follow-up one local relapse (0.48%) and two regional nodes recurrences (0,96%) was observed. Patient satisfaction, assessed using a personalized QOL Assessment PRO survey, in term of aesthetic results, chronic pain, shoulder dysfunction, sports activity, sexual and relationship life and skin sensibility, was excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience shows that PP-IPBR using polyurethane-coated implant after NSM is a safe, reliable and effective alternative to traditional IPBR with excellent aesthetic outcomes and high patient quality of life; it is easy to perform, minimizes complications related to manipulation of PPM and reduces operative time while resulting also in a cost-effective technique.

Current trends in breast reconstruction

Breast reconstruction is nowadays a component of surgical treatment of breast cancer; therefore plastic surgeons are widely involved in breast reconstruction procedures either after mastectomy or after wide quadrantectomy. The aim is to reduce the distortion of breast shape and to improve the aesthetic outcome of the oncological procedure taking in account the symmetric appearance of the breasts. In post quadrantectomy reconstruction, breast reshaping with mammoplasty pattern could be applied in large and ptotic breast; otherwise flaps from lateral thoracic area could be used as well in post mastectomy reconstruction. In the case of mastectomy, the mastectomy procedure itself has become increasingly conservative, thus allowing an improvement in the aesthetic results of the reconstruction, especially if an implant is used. If adequate thickness of the mastectomy flap is preserved, the prosthesis can be placed in front of the muscle (prepectoral reconstruction), rather than behind the muscle (submuscular reconstruction). In prepectoral reconstruction the postoperative recovery is easier and less distressing for the patient and the postoperative appearance is more natural then in submuscular reconstruction. Autologous breast reconstruction implies the use of flaps (tissue taken from donor areas and used to reconstruct the breast area after appropriate molding), this technique allows to obtain a natural appearance of the breast with similar characteristics to the original one, and can be used in the radiated field. Different options of flaps include flaps from back area (local flaps) and flaps from distant areas (free flaps), basically from abdomen and inner tight.