Risk factors for implant failure following revision surgery in breast cancer patients with a previous immediate implant-based breast reconstruction

Impact of post-operative infection on revision procedures in breast reconstruction: A marketscan database analysis

BACKGROUND

Esthetic complications, such as capsular contracture and soft-tissue contour defects, hinder the desired outcomes of breast reconstruction. As subclinical infection is a prevailing theory behind capsular contracture, we investigated the effects of post-operative infections on these issues and revision procedures.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective database study (2007-2021) on breast reconstruction patients from the MarketScan® Databases. Esthetic complications were defined by their associated revision procedures and queried via CPT codes. Severe capsular contracture (Grade 3-4) was defined as requiring capsulotomy or capsulectomy with implant removal or replacement. Moderate and severe soft-tissue defects were determined by the need for fat grafting or breast revision, respectively. Generalized linear models were used, adjusting for comorbidities and surgical factors (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

We analyzed the data on 62,510 eligible patients. Post-operative infections increased the odds of capsulotomy (OR 1.59, p < 0.001) and capsulectomy (OR 2.30, p < 0.001). They also raised the odds of breast revision for severe soft-tissue defects (OR 1.21, p < 0.001). There was no significant association between infections and fat grafting for moderate defects. Patients who had post-operative infections were also more likely to experience another infection after fat grafting (OR 3.39, p = 0.0018). In two-stage reconstruction, infection after tissue expander placement was associated with greater odds of infection after implant placement.

CONCLUSION

Post-operative infections increase the likelihood of developing severe soft-tissue defects and capsular contracture requiring surgical revision. Our data reinforce the role of infections in the pathophysiology of capsular contracture. Additionally, infections elevate the risk of subsequent infections after fat grafting for moderate defects, further increasing patient morbidity.

Anatomical Breast Implant Assessment Using Ultrasound: A Case Series from the International Breast Implant Check Clinic

Background

Breast augmentation with anatomic implants can achieve a natural look, but over time, implant-related complications can occur. This includes a risk of potential rotation, which can cause a change in breast shape. Reported rates of rotation vary widely (0%-42%). Implant rotation is often detected by physical examination only or as a perioperative finding. Change in breast shape after augmentation requires clinical evaluation. In-office ultrasound allows for detailed assessment of implants for rotation and other complications.

Methods

Women with anatomical breast implants seeking follow-up at the International Breast Implant Check Clinic in Stockholm, Sweden, from April 2020 to July 2022 were included in the study. Using a standardized protocol, subjective symptoms were recorded, and a physical examination followed by an ultrasound assessment was performed by a single board-certified plastic surgeon (M.J.) trained in implant assessment via ultrasound. Rotation was defined as an implant rotated past 30 degrees off the breast midline at 6 o'clock.

Results

The study included 308 women (mean age 40.1, range 20-78) with bilateral anatomical implants. Overall, 40 women (13.0%) reported a change in breast shape; 35 had one or more implant-related complications, including five with rotation on ultrasound. Of the 308 women, 11 (3.6%) had rotations upon physical examination, and an additional 10 cases were identified using ultrasound.

Conclusions

Rotation is a potential complication of anatomical breast implants. However, in this study, change in breast shape was more commonly caused by other implant-related complications. Ultrasound is a valuable tool in evaluating causes of change in breast shape.

The Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Breast Reconstruction Outcomes and Complications: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

As the incidence of breast cancer and diabetes rises, so does the number of patients with diabetes undergoing breast reconstruction (BR). Patients with diabetes are at a higher risk for post-operative complications. The current study examined the effects of diabetes on BR wound outcomes and overall complications post-operatively.

METHODS

This study followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted a systematic search and meta-analysis for published articles on the effects of DM on BR in January 2022 using the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases. Diabetes, breast reconstruction, and complications were used as keywords.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and five provided data to be included in the meta-analysis published between 2006 and 2020. A total of 19,731 patients (9.07%) had diabetes, whereas 197,812 patients had no diabetes. The results of the pooled outcomes revealed no differences in the risk of total flap loss (p = 0.892) and wound infection (p = 0.579,). Nevertheless, the risk of wound dehiscence was significantly higher among patients with diabetes than their non-diabetic counterparts (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Diabetic patients undergoing BR have a significantly higher risk of wound dehiscence. As a result of the adverse effects of diabetes status on BR outcomes, patients need to be counseled about optimizing their diabetes management before surgery. Because of the heterogeneity in our results, prospective randomized studies are needed to shed light on the consequences of diabetes mellitus in BR surgeries.

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 .

Predictors of Complications after Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Breast reconstruction (BR) is a unique surgical procedure that provides patients undergoing mastectomy with significant psychosocial and aesthetic benefits and has also become a crucial part of the treatment pathway for women with breast cancer. Due to methodological inadequacies and the absence of substantial risk factor analysis, no conclusion can be drawn about the correlation between risk variables and post-surgical complications in BR surgery. We aim to identify the potential risk factors associated with postoperative complications.

Methods

We queried MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL from their inception to March 2022, for published randomized controlled trials and observational studies that assessed complications post-reconstruction procedure in breast cancer patients following mastectomy or evaluated at least one of the following outcomes of major or reoperative complications. The results from the studies were presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

Our pooled analysis demonstrated a significant correlation with BR postoperative complications and risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Diabetes and the development of seroma were found to have a significant relationship. Risk variables such as age, radiotherapy, COPD, and smoking had no significant connection with 0-to-30-day readmission and 30-to-90-day readmission.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis shows that risk factors like age, smoking history, high blood pressure, and body mass index (BMI) have a big effect on complications after BR, and patients with risk factors have a high rate of developing infection.

Long-term outcomes of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without radiotherapy: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy (RT) is a risk factor for impaired outcomes after implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Large studies including long-term follow-up are relatively scarce. The purpose of this analysis was to assess long-term effects of RT in implant-based IBR, distinguishing between implant removal because of postoperative complications versus patient preference.

METHODS

This population-based cohort study included all patients with breast cancer who underwent implant-based IBR in Stockholm between 2005 and 2015. Data were collected through national registers and medical charts. The main endpoint was implant removal owing to postoperative complications (wound breakdown, infection, bleeding) or patient preference (dissatisfaction, pain, capsular contracture), with or without conversion to autologous reconstruction.

RESULTS

Some 1749 implant-based IBRs in 1687 women were included. Median follow-up was 72 (range 1-198) months. Reconstructions were divided according to receipt of RT: No RT (n = 856, 48.9 per cent), adjuvant RT (n = 749, 42.8 per cent), and previous RT (n = 144, 8.2 per cent). Implant removal occurred after 266 reconstructions (15.2 per cent); 68 (7.9 per cent) in the no RT, 158 (21.1 per cent) in the adjuvant RT, and 40 (27.8 per cent) in the previous RT group. Implant removal was because of postoperative complications in 152 instances (57.1 per cent) and was most common in the first 3 years. This was especially observed in the previous RT group, where 15 of 23 implant removals occurred during the first 6 months. Implant removal owing to patient preference (114 of 266, 42.9 per cent) became more common with increasing follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Implant removal after implant-based IBR is significantly associated with RT. The reason for implant removal shifts over time from postoperative complications to patient preference.

Effectiveness of Single vs Multiple Doses of Prophylactic Intravenous Antibiotics in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis is widely used to prevent infection after implant-based breast reconstruction despite the lack of high-level evidence regarding its clinical benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis is superior to single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing surgical site infection (SSI) after implant-based breast reconstruction.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial was conducted at 7 hospitals (8 departments) in Sweden from April 25, 2013, to October 31, 2018. Eligible participants were women aged 18 years or older who were planned to undergo immediate or delayed implant-based breast reconstruction. Follow-up time was 12 months. Data analysis was performed from May to October 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Multiple-dose intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis extending over 24 hours following surgery, compared with single-dose intravenous antibiotic. The first-choice drug was cloxacillin (2 g per dose). Clindamycin was used (600 mg per dose) for patients with penicillin allergy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was SSI leading to surgical removal of the implant within 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the rate of SSIs necessitating readmission and administration of intravenous antibiotics, and clinically suspected SSIs not necessitating readmission but oral antibiotics.

RESULTS

A total of 711 women were assessed for eligibility, and 698 were randomized (345 to single-dose and 353 to multiple-dose antibiotics). The median (range) age was 47 (19-78) years for those in the multiple-dose group and 46 (25-76) years for those in the single-dose group. The median (range) body mass index was 23 (18-38) for the single-dose group and 23 (17-37) for the multiple-dose group. Within 6 months of follow-up, 30 patients (4.3%) had their implant removed because of SSI. Readmission for intravenous antibiotics because of SSI occurred in 47 patients (7.0%), and 190 women (27.7%) received oral antibiotics because of clinically suspected SSI. There was no significant difference between the randomization groups for the primary outcome implant removal (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 0.69-2.65; P = .53), or for the secondary outcomes readmission for intravenous antibiotics (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.65-2.15; P = .58) and prescription of oral antibiotics (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51-1.02; P = .07). Adverse events associated with antibiotic treatment were more common in the multiple-dose group than in the single-dose group (16.4% [58 patients] vs 10.7% [37 patients]; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.05-2.55; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this randomized clinical trial suggest that multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis is not superior to a single-dose regimen in preventing SSI and implant removal after implant-based breast reconstruction but comes with a higher risk of adverse events associated with antibiotic treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2012-004878-26.

Impact of diabetes on outcomes in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As rates of breast cancer and type II diabetes increase, so does the number of women with diabetes undergoing breast reconstruction (BR). Patients with diabetes are at increased risk of postoperative complications. This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the post-operative outcomes of women with diabetes who underwent BR following mastectomy.

METHOD

This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The EMBASE, PUBMED, and MEDLINE electronic databases were searched from inception to November 1, 2020 for studies published in English. Outcomes evaluated were overall complications, surgical complications, and longer hospital stay. Subgroup analysis investigated outcomes, such as implant/flap failure, infection, and necrosis.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria and 38 provided data to be included in the meta-analysis. A total of 151,585 patients were included, of which 9299 had diabetes. Women with diabetes were more likely to experience overall complications (11.6% vs 5.6%; p<0.0001) and surgical complications (7.7% vs 3.3%; p<0.0001), and were more likely to have a prolonged hospital stay (p = 0.04) than women without diabetes. Subgroup analysis showed that implant loss (2.5% vs 1.6%; p = 0.0003), infection (6.8% vs 2.5%; p<0.0001) and necrosis (23.8% vs 6.5; p = 0.001) were significantly higher in women with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that diabetes mellitus increases the risk of complications in patients with breast cancer undergoing BR after mastectomy. Prospective studies are required to establish whether diabetes that is well-controlled prior to reconstruction, including diabetes that is paired with adjuvant radiation therapy, reduces the perioperative risks.

Racial Disparities in Survival of Breast Cancer Patients After Surgery

Introduction

The racial disparities of opportunity to receive the appropriate intervention and lower insurance coverage may result in survival disparities in different races. This study aims to provide a perspective on racial disparities in the survival of breast cancer patients after surgery.

Methods

Through data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, this study estimated the survival of breast cancer patients of different races from 1998 to 2017. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was utilized to adjust the imbalanced clinicopathological features of patients of different races.

Results

This study analyzed 214,965 breast cancer patients after surgery. Among them, 130,746 patients received BCS, and the remaining 84,219 breast cancer patients underwent mastectomy. Although Asian or Pacific Islander (API) patients after surgery showed higher survival benefit than that of white patients in the primary data, after adjusting for age at diagnosis, luminal subtype, grade, T stage, and N stage in different races, white individuals had the longest period of survival was higher than that of the minority groups in BCS group [breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS): HR_Whitevs.API = 0.402, HR_{Whitevs.Black} = 0.132; P < 0.001; overall survival (OS): HR_Whitevs.API = 0.689, HR_{Whitevs.Black} = 0.254; all P < 0.001] and mastectomy group (BCSS: HR_Whitevs.API = 0.325, HR_{Whitevs.Black} = 0.128; P < 0.001; OS: HR_Whitevs.API = 0.481, HR_{Whitevs.Black} = 0.206; all P < 0.001)

Conclusions

We first identified that the survival benefit of the minority group after surgery was lower than that of white individuals, regardless of tumor chrematistics and surgery types.

Radiotherapy and Breast Reconstruction: What Is the Ideal Timing? A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Women undergoing mastectomy choose to pursue breast reconstruction (BR) in order to reduce their body image distress.Adjuvant chest wall irradiation is associated with a negative cosmetic outcome. The aim of our review was to identify the optimal timing of BR relating to radiotherapy delivery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Springer, Wanfang and CNKI, we performed a non-systematic review of articles published up to August 2021.

RESULTS

There is no hard evidence in favor of immediate, delayed or 2-stage BR when post-mastectomy radiation is indicated. Immediate and 2-stage BR seem to be valid alternatives to delayed BR.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is essential in order to assess clinician and patient reported aesthetic outcomes and determine the optimal timing of BR in view of post-mastectomy radiotherapy, in breast cancer survivors.

Effect of Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy With and Without Acellular Dermal Matrix Among Women With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) is established practice. Existing evidence validating ADMs proposed advantages, including improved cosmetics and more single-stage IBBRs, is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether IBBR with ADM results in fewer reoperations and increased health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared with conventional IBBR without ADM.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was an open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of women with primary breast cancer who planned for mastectomy and immediate IBBR, with a 2-year follow-up for all participants. Participants were enrolled at 5 breast cancer units in Sweden and the United Kingdom between 2014 and May 2017. Exclusion criteria included previous radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Data were analyzed until August 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were allocated to immediate IBBR with or without ADM.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary trial end point was number of reoperations at 2 years. HRQoL, a secondary end point, was measured as patient-reported outcome measures using 3 instruments from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

From start of enrollment on April 24, 2014, to close of trial on May 10, 2017, a total of 135 women were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 50.4 [9.5] years); 64 were assigned to have an IBBR procedure with ADM and 65 to the control group who had IBBR without ADM. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the primary outcome. Of 129 patients analyzed at 2-year follow-up, 44 of 64 (69%) had at least 1 surgical event in the ADM group vs 43 of 65 (66%) in the control group. In the ADM group, 31 patients (48%) had at least 1 reoperation on the ipsilateral side vs 35 (54%) in the control group. The overall number of reoperations on the ipsilateral side were 42 and 43 respectively. Within the follow-up time of 24 months, 9 patients (14%) in the ADM group had the implant removed compared with 7 (11%) in the control group. We found no significant mean differences in postoperative patient-reported HRQoL domains, including perception of body image (mean difference, 3; 99% CI, -11 to 17; P = .57) and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome (mean difference, 8; 99% CI, -6 to 20; P = .11).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Immediate IBBR with ADM did not yield fewer reoperations compared with conventional IBBR without ADM, nor was IBBR with ADM superior in terms of HRQoL or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes. Patients treated for breast cancer contemplating ADM-supported IBBR should be informed about the lack of evidence validating ADM's suggested benefits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061527.