Complication Profile of Total Submuscular Versus Prepectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare the safety profile of prepectoral breast reconstruction with total submuscular tissue expander reconstruction, previously our standard. Primary outcomes of interest in this retrospective cohort study were incidence of infection, hematoma, seroma, mastectomy flap necrosis, and reconstruction loss.

METHODS

Total submuscular and prepectoral with acellular dermal matrix reconstructions consecutively performed by a single surgeon (P.D.S.) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, were compared. Demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as complications and complication types, were extracted for all patients. A t test was used to assess differences in continuous variables. Multivariate logistics regression was used to assess the association between type of reconstruction and complication rate. The statistical significance was set at 0.05 for all comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients (234 breasts) were included. There was a significantly greater incidence of infection (16.5% vs 5.5%, P < 0.01) in the prepectoral/acellular dermal matrix cohort. However, reconstructive loss was low in both cohorts (2.5% and 3.0%, P = 0.83). Adjusted odds ratio for complications in the prepectoral cohort was 2.26, but this was not statistically significant (adjusted P = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral breast reconstruction shares an overall complication profile that is not greater than that of total submuscular reconstruction. It is associated with a greater risk of infection; however, the ability to salvage the reconstruction with early, aggressive intervention results in low rates of reconstructive loss, comparable with those of total submuscular reconstruction.

Preservation of the Implant in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomies: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Mastectomies are an integral part of breast cancer treatment for many patients.1 Of those patients, a significant number have previously undergone breast augmentation before being diagnosed with breast cancer. Therefore, we developed the novel technique of performing nipple- and implant-sparing mastectomies (NISMs) for women with prior breast augmentations. This study will assess the plausibility of using NISMs versus nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSMs) in this subgroup of patients by comparing the complication rates.

METHODS

Data were collected on age, tumor size, tumor grade, receptors, and the interval between mastectomy and implant exchange for both groups. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics. Independent samples t tests, χ2 tests, and Fisher exact tests were used to compare the NISM and NSM cohorts. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between complications and mastectomy type and was summarized as an odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients underwent an NISM and 35 patients underwent an NSM. The overall rate of complications was less in NISM cases than in NSM cases (20% vs 27%). However, this difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.64; P = 0.278).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall complication rate was lower with NISMs compared with NSMs. Nipple- and implant-sparing mastectomy is a novel, viable, and safe option for patients with breast cancer and a history of submuscular breast augmentation.

Disparities in Use and Access to Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction Among African American Women: A Targeted Review of the Literature

Postmastectomy breast reconstruction is a therapy that has been shown to have positive psychological effects on its recipients. There is evidence that racial disparities in its use exist, particularly among African American (AA) women. The purpose of this targeted review of the literature was to examine the use of postmastectomy breast reconstruction among AA women and to explore factors that contribute to such disparities. Published literature that evaluated rates of breast reconstruction in AA women, as well as barriers to reconstruction in this population, was reviewed. All of the reviewed data consisted of retrospective studies. There are conflicting data in the literature regarding disparities in the rates of postmastectomy breast reconstruction among AA women. However, a majority of studies found that AA women were less likely (odds ratios: 0.36-0.71) to receive postmastectomy breast reconstruction compared to white women. System-associated factors, physician-associated factors, and patient-associated factors interact in a complex manner that contributes to the reported disparities. Although there are trends suggesting racial disparities in the rates of postmastectomy breast reconstruction exist, the published data are retrospective and are inherently limited. The pursuit of breast reconstruction is highly individual and involves multiple factors that interact in a complex manner. To this end, prospective studies encompassing sociodemographic factors, clinical factors, and patient preferences are necessary to determine what interventions by physicians can have the greatest impact in ensuring equal access to this therapy when it is desired.