Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction

Mastopexy: with or without Acellular Dermal Matrix?

In the years after unilateral breast reconstruction, the reconstructed breast resists ptosis more than natural breast tissue in the native contralateral breast. As acellular dermal matrix (ADM) becomes fully incorporated into the recipient's anatomy, thus reinforcing the inferior pole of the uplifted breast, we combined our mastopexy cases with ADM in an attempt to reduce the rate of recurrent ptosis.

Method

This was a prospective randomized analysis of a cohort of 24 patients, divided into two groups (A and B); all underwent primary unilateral mastopexy to correct grade III breast ptosis. Our patients had previously undergone contralateral skin sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction, for invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ that originally was symmetrical to their native breast. The symmetrization mastopexy in half of our patients was carried out with the addition of an ADM sling to the inferior pole of the breast, to act as an internal, subcutaneous supportive "bra" (A). The other half of patients received a standard symmetrization mastopexy, without the addition of an ADM support (B). Patients were followed up for 36 months.

Results

The difference between control arm and study groups revealed a statistical difference (P < 0.05), when comparing the follow-up period. From the sixth postoperative month onward, the measurements for group A revealed a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) when compared with group B.

Conclusion

The additional ADM sling acts as an added layer of support, thus delaying reoccurrence of ptosis following mastopexy.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications Following Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Biological Matrix-Assisted Direct-to-Implant and Latissimus Dorsi Flap

Background

Implant-based breast reconstruction is increasingly becoming the most common method of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in use today. As the traditional autologous reconstruction technique, latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) is employed by surgeons for reconstruction after breast cancer surgery, including partial mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, and others. The authors aim to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications between the SIS matrix-assisted direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction and the autologous LDF breast reconstruction.

Methods

Patients undergoing the SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction or mastectomy with LDF reconstruction or partial mastectomy with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) reconstruction were enrolled in a single institution from August 2010 to April 2019. Patients were included for analysis and divided into three groups: those who underwent LDF reconstruction, those who underwent MLDF reconstruction, and patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted DTI breast reconstruction. PROs (using the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire) and complications were evaluated.

Results

A total of 135 patients met the inclusion criteria: 79 patients (58.5%) underwent SIS matrix-assisted DTI, 29 patients (21.5%) underwent LDF breast reconstruction, and 27 patients (20%) underwent MLDF breast reconstruction. PROs and complication rates between LDF reconstruction group and MLDF reconstruction group showed no statistically significant differences. Furthermore, BREAST-Q responses found that patients in the whole autologous LDF reconstruction group had better psychosocial well-being, showing a mean score of 84.31 ± 17.28 compared with SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction, with a mean score of 73.52 ± 19.96 (p = 0.005), and expressed higher sexual well-being (69.65 ± 24.64 vs. 50.95 ± 26.47; p = 0.016). But there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for postoperative complications.

Conclusion

This retrospective study showed no statistically significant differences between LDF breast reconstruction and MLDF breast reconstruction. However, patients in the whole autologous LDF reconstruction group yielded superior PROs than patients in the SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction group in the psychosocial well-being and sexual well-being domains.

Biological Matrix-Assisted One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications

BACKGROUND

Biological matrix-assisted one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) could improve the inframammary fold to achieve good esthetic results. However, whether biological matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR yields better postoperative outcomes compared with two-stage IBBR remains unclear. We aimed to compare and analyze surgical complications and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire between biological matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR and traditional two-stage IBBR.

METHODS

From May 2015 to June 2019, eligible patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR or two-stage IBBR were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. PROs were measured with BREAST-Q version 2.0, which scored the health-related quality of life, satisfaction, and experience domains. Complications were divided into major complications (patients requiring reoperation) and minor complications (patients who could be treated in the dressing room). PROs and complications were compared between the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR and two-stage IBBR groups. A multivariate linear regression analysis was used to identify the social and surgical factors that affected PROs.

RESULTS

At our institution, 124 eligible patients were recruited. Seventy-nine patients (63.7%) underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR reconstruction, and 45 patients (36.3%) underwent tissue expander/implant reconstruction (two-stage IBBR). Postoperative BREAST-Q version 2.0 was completed by 68 of 79 patients (86.1%) in the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR group and by 35 of 45 patients (77.8%) in the two-stage IBBR group. In the satisfaction-related quality of life domain, satisfaction with breast was 9.27 points higher in the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR group (p = 0.012) compared with the two-stage IBBR group. The multivariate linear regression analysis showed that implant volume (p = 0.031) and postoperative radiotherapy (p = 0.036) significantly influenced the PRO of satisfaction with breast. However, patients in the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR group had a higher minor complication rate compared with patients in the two-stage IBBR group (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective study showed that although patients treated with biological matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR tended to have higher postoperative complication rates, this technique correlated with better PROs compared with two-stage IBBR.

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 .

Simple prosthesis versus prosthesis plus titanium-coated polypropylene mesh for implant-based immediate breast reconstruction after total mastectomy for breast cancer

Background

Our study compares the cosmetic effects, postoperative complications, and quality of life of immediate breast reconstruction with simple prosthesis or prosthesis plus titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TCPM) after total mastectomy for breast cancer.

Methods

In total, 69 patients who underwent total mastectomy, sentinel lymph node biopsy, and immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction from January 2015 to December 2018 in our hospital were selected, and their cosmetic effects, complications, and quality of life after reconstruction were recorded immediately after surgery and 6 months after surgery.

Results

Of these 69 patients, 29 were in the simple prosthesis group and 40 in the prosthesis + TCPM group. The incidence of surgical complications was 17.2% in the simple prosthesis group (5/29; including 4 cases of capsular contracture and 1 case of infection) 15.0% in the prosthesis + TCPM group (6/40; 1 case of flap necrosis, 2 cases of poor wound healing, 2 cases of hematomas, and 1 case of inadequate blood supply to nipple). The complications were successfully managed after symptomatic treatment in both groups. No prosthesis loss was noted. The incidence of postoperative complications showed there to be no significant differences between these two groups (P=0.06, χ²=0.80). The satisfaction rate of patients on cosmetic effects was 95.0% (38/40) in the prosthesis + TCPM group, significantly higher than that in the simple prosthesis group (75.90%, 22/29) (P=0.05, χ²=3.87). The quality of life in the simple prosthesis group at 2 weeks and six months after the operation was significantly lower than that in the prosthesis + TCPM group. The incidence rate of arm pain and fatigue at 2 weeks after operation was significantly higher than that in the prosthesis + TCPM group (P=0.04, χ²=4.42). The satisfaction of family life and sexual interest 6 months after the operation was also significantly lower in the simple prosthesis group than in the prosthesis + TCPM group (P=0.03, χ²=4.95).

Conclusions

Breast reconstruction with prosthesis combined with TCPM does not increase surgical complications and has a good cosmetic effect and high patient satisfaction. Thus, it is a safe and reconstruction method.

Update in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

Implant-based reconstruction (IBR) remains the most commonly utilized breast reconstruction option for post-mastectomy patients. IBR can be approached as either a one-stage reconstruction or a two-stage reconstruction. Facilitated by improvements in surgical technology and advanced techniques, one-stage reconstruction, also known as direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, involves the insertion of an implant at the time of mastectomy. The decision to pursue either a DTI or a two-stage reconstruction is based on several factors, including the patient's overall health, expected risk of postoperative complications, and associated costs to both the patient and hospital.

Immediate and Long-term Complications of Direct-to-implant Breast Reconstruction after Nipple- or Skin-sparing Mastectomy

Background:

Traditionally, breast reconstruction options after mastectomy comprise an autologous flap or staged expander/implant reconstruction, or a combination of both. Recent introduction of skin or nipple-sparing mastectomies have led to much interest in direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstructions. We performed a retrospective review of our initial experience.

Methods:

Between June 1998 and December 2010, 31 of 671 patients (4.6%) who received implant-only breast reconstruction underwent direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy for primary or recurrent cancers, or risk reduction. Their files were audited, and the primary factor examined was the failure of reconstruction with loss of prosthesis. Other complications, revision surgery, and aesthetic result are also recorded.

Results:

The mean follow-up period for the 31 patients was 49.5 months. A total of 45 mastectomies were performed for 21 primary and 4 recurrent breast cancers after previous conservation surgery and radiotherapy (RT), and 20 for risk reduction. Ten patients received RT (4 before mastectomy and 6 afterward). Average size of implants was 380.0 g (range, 205–620 g). The most common postoperative complications were seromas (20%); only 1 implant was lost (2.22%). Nineteen breasts required revision surgery after 6 months with 1 more implant lost. Despite the high revision rate, 28 (90.3%) had excellent or good aesthetic result.

Conclusions:

Immediate single-stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction has a high rate of both immediate postoperative complications and revisions after 6 months, especially after RT. However, most complications are manageable and do not necessarily result in implant loss. Most cases can have a successful outcome without implant loss with excellent or good cosmetic results.

Novel devices for implant-based breast reconstruction: is the use of meshes to support the lower pole justified in terms of benefits? A review of the evidence

The use of novel devices such as acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) to support the lower pole in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) has been described as one of the most important advances in breast reconstructive surgery following mastectomy. However, the majority of outcomes studies focus primarily on providing evidence for the rates of short-term complications associated with their use, as opposed to their reported benefits. Given the high costs associated with using ADMs, together with an increasing number of alternative, cheaper synthetic products entering the market, it is important to clarify whether their use is actually justified and whether the alternative products offer equivalent or superior outcomes. The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive and updated review of the evidence for the benefits of using different products for lower pole support (LPS) in IBBR compared to reconstructions without. A secondary aim was to determine if there is any evidence to support the use of one product over another.

Direct-to-Implant versus Two-Stage Tissue Expander/Implant Reconstruction: 2-Year Risks and Patient-Reported Outcomes from a Prospective, Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction offers time-saving advantages over two-stage techniques. However, use of direct-to-implant reconstruction remains limited, in part, because of concerns over complication rates., The authors' aim was to compare 2-year complications and patient-reported outcomes for direct-to-implant versus tissue expander/implant reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients undergoing immediate direct-to-implant or tissue expander/implant reconstruction were enrolled in the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium, an 11-center prospective cohort study. Complications and patient-reported outcomes (using the BREAST-Q questionnaire) were evaluated. Outcomes were compared using mixed-effects regression models, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 1427 patients, 99 underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction and 1328 underwent tissue expander/implant reconstruction. Two years after reconstruction and controlling for covariates, direct-to-implant and tissue expander/implant reconstruction patients did not show statistically significant differences in any complications, including infection. Multivariable analyses found no significant differences between the two groups in patient-reported outcomes, with the exception of sexual well-being, where direct-to-implant patients fared better than the tissue expander/implant cohort (p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective, multi-institutional study showed no statistically significant differences between direct-to-implant and tissue expander/implant reconstruction, in either complication rates or most patient-reported outcomes at 2 years postoperatively. Direct-to-implant reconstruction appears to be a viable alternative to expander/implant reconstruction. This analysis provides new evidence on which to base reconstructive decisions.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

An Alternative Technique for Immediate Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction-A Case Series

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

The practice of breast reconstruction continues to evolve with the introduction of new technologies. The authors describe a unique approach allowing immediate direct-to-implant reconstruction that can be performed on an outpatient basis.

Methods:

After a nipple-sparing mastectomy, acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-covered implants are placed in a prepectoral position in an immediate reconstruction. Assessment of results was performed via a retrospective review of demographic and procedural data.

Results:

Forty-five patients (79 breasts), mean age 46.8 years, were treated with direct-to-implant reconstruction using ADM-wrapped implants placed above the muscle with mean follow-up of 23.1 months (median 22 mo). Mean body mass index was 24.3, and 15 patients (33.3%) were current or former smokers. Twenty-seven patients (60%) had prior breast surgery with 22 (49%) exposed to chemotherapy and 34 (76%) radiation. Procedure time averaged 155 minutes and hospital length of stay averaged 0.6 days. Complications included flap necrosis in 22 cases (28%), seroma in 12 (15%), infection in 8 (10%), rippling in 28 (35%), and contracture in 8 (10%). In 14 breasts (18%), postoperative wound complications (flap necrosis or infection) led to implant loss.

Conclusions:

The availability of ADM and cohesive gel implants has allowed us to perform above-the-muscle implant breast reconstruction in reduced time and often on an outpatient basis. Complication rates were comparable to expected results of standard expander-to-implant, staged breast reconstruction. This technique is a viable option delivering clinically and aesthetically acceptable results in select patients.

Implant-based breast reconstruction following conservative mastectomy: one-stage vs. two-stage approach

Conservative mastectomy with preservation of the nipple areolar complex is now considered a safe and effective technique in properly selected patients. Good candidates for this procedure include women with small to moderate breast volume having therapeutic or prophylactic mastectomy. Both autologous and prosthetic options are available; however prosthetic techniques are performed more frequently. Prosthetic approaches include immediate 1-stage (direct to implant) or 2-atge (tissue expander/implant) techniques. Delayed prosthetic reconstruction is also possible with conservative mastectomy. This manuscript will review the 1-stage and 2-stage methods with an emphasis on indication, surgical techniques, and outcomes.