Comparison of subcutaneous versus submuscular expander placement in the first stage of immediate breast reconstruction

Pre-Pectoral Tissue Expander and Acellular Dermal Matrix for a Two-Stage Muscle Sparing Breast Reconstruction: Indications, Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes with Histological and Ultrasound Follow-Up-A Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the paper is to present a single-center experience with two-stage pre-pectoral breast reconstruction using tissue expander entirely covered by acellular dermal matrix (ADM), reporting surgical indications, technique, clinical and histological outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of consecutive patients who had undergone immediate pre-pectoral expander-based breast reconstruction with ADM over a two years period (2019-2021) was analyzed. The primary clinical outcome measures included patients' subjective assessment of satisfaction and pain. Secondary outcomes were complication rates, the frequency of readmissions and incidence of capsular contracture. All patients underwent ultrasound examination 3 weeks postoperatively and at the end of tissue expansion completion. Histological examination of the periprosthetic tissue was performed during the second stage of the reconstructive procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients with a mean age of 46.5 years (range: 24-62) underwent collectively 54 breast reconstructions with a mean follow-up of 22.5 months after definitive implant placement. The time to reach the final volume was on average 47.2 days (range 40-58). Complications occurred in 14 (25.9%) breast reconstructions: 11 (20.4%) seromas, 2 (3.7%) infections, 1 (1.8%) flap necroses, 2(3.7%) expander removals. Overall scores for Satisfaction were all significantly increased after surgery. Histological examination revealed complete ADM integration in the host tissue, with thinner, less sclerotic tissue compared to the submuscular capsular samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Tissue expander-ADM-based breast reconstruction can be safely used in selected cases for two-stage pre-pectoral breast reconstructions and can result in significant pain-relief procedure with optimal aesthetical outcomes.

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 .

Paravertebral Blocks in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Do Not Induce Increased Postoperative Blood or Drainage Fluid Loss

Background: Women undergoing a mastectomy often suffer severely from the sequelae of losing one or both breasts. Implant-based breast reconstruction restores female body integrity but can result in significant postoperative pain. The use of paravertebral catheters has been shown to aid significantly in pain management during the postoperative recovery. However, the vasodilation that is induced by paravertebral blocks may lead to prolonged drainage fluid secretion, blood loss and increased likelihood of revision surgery. Therefore, we analyzed the effects of paravertebral blocks after combined mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Methods: We analyzed 115 breast surgeries at the department of Plastic Surgery at the University clinic of St. Poelten between 1 August 2018 and 31 December 2022. Patients were analyzed regarding postoperative hemoglobin loss and drainage fluid volumes and their correlation with paravertebral blocks. Statistical analyses were performed using Levene's Test for Equality of Variances within our cohort. Results: The postoperative hemoglobin loss did not differ significantly between our groups (p = 0.295). Furthermore, a paravertebral block did not increase the amount of postoperative drainage fluid volumes (p = 0.508). Women receiving paravertebral blocks also did not stay longer in hospitals (p = 0.276). No paravertebral block-associated complication was seen. Conclusions: In this study, we demonstrated paravertebral blocks to be safe adjuncts in breast reconstruction to minimize pain without leading to increased blood loss or seroma formation. This indicated that vasodilatation induced by paravertebral blocks did not negatively influence the postoperative recovery. In conclusion, postoperative pain management using paravertebral blocks can be a beneficial therapeutic adjunct in surgical management of breast cancer patients.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Prompts Revisiting the Anatomical Boundaries of the Breast: A Radiographic and Cadaveric Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the location of superficial fascial system condensations in relation to classic anatomical breast boundaries. Cadaveric studies have provided some understanding, but knowledge about the precise location of these condensations remains limited.

METHODS

Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was conducted to assess the fascial condensations defining the breast footprint relative to landmarks such as the latissimus, clavicle, sternal border, and inframammary fold. Concurrently, cadaveric mastectomies were performed to measure the breast borders in relation to these landmarks for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 290 breasts underwent preoperative MRI. Eight cadaveric breast dissections were completed. Radiographically, the lateral breast fascial condensation was 3.9 cm medial to the latissimus dorsi, whereas cadaveric measurements were 4.5 cm. The medial condensation was 2.1 cm lateral to the sternal border radiographically and 4.8 cm to the midline in cadavers. The superior fascial condensation was 2.3 cm inferior to the clavicle radiographically and 5.5 cm by dissection. The inferior condensation was above the inframammary fold in 82.7% of breasts by MRI and 100% of cadaveric breasts. MRI and cadaveric investigation showed similar patterns of breast tissue fascial condensations relative to standard breast boundaries. Breast skin flap thickness was greater peripherally (MRI, 11.5 mm; cadaver, 11.1 mm) than centrally (MRI, 6.6 mm; cadaver, 5.5 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI and cadaveric analysis demonstrated a close correlation between the superficial fascial system and standard breast boundaries, although variations existed between subjects. Collaborating with breast oncologists and using preoperative imaging to identify individual fascial condensations may enhance the camouflage of prepectoral implants after mastectomy.

Prospective Clinical Trial for Predicting Mastectomy Skin Flap Necrosis with Indocyanine Green Angiography in Implant-Based Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Indocyanine green angiography (ICG-A) is a useful tool for evaluating mastectomy skin flap (MSF) perfusion during breast reconstruction. However, a standardized protocol for interpreting and applying MSF perfusion after mastectomy has not been established yet. The purpose of this study is to establish criteria for assessing MSF perfusion in immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction while correlating ICG-A findings with postoperative outcomes METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted at a single institution and involved patients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction between August 2021 and August 2023. The terms "hypoperfused flap" and "hypoperfused area" were defined according to ICG-A perfusion. MSF exhibited < 30% perfusion, excluding the nipple and the corresponding region, respectively. Data on the hypoperfused flap, hypoperfused area, and MSF necrosis were collected.

RESULTS

Fifty-three breast cases were analyzed. Eight patients developed MSF necrosis (15.1%, 8/53). Of these, two patients underwent surgical debridement and revision within 3 months (3.8%, 2/53). There were nine cases of a hypoperfused flap, eight of which developed MSF necrosis. The hypoperfused flap was a significant predictor of the occurrence of MSF necrosis (p < 0.001). There was a tendency for increased full-thickness necrosis with a wider hypoperfused area.

CONCLUSIONS

The hypoperfused flap enabled the prediction of MSF necrosis with high sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Considering the presumed correlation between the extent of the hypoperfused area and the need for revision surgery, caution should be exercised when making intraoperative decisions regarding the reconstruction method.

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 .

Impact of the Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment Score on Expander-Based Reconstruction Success

Background/Objectives: The rising incidence of breast cancer has led to more mastectomies and increased demand for reconstruction. While retropectoral reconstruction with expanders is common, it has complications like postoperative pain and animation deformity. Prepectoral reconstruction, aided by advancements in biological and synthetic meshes, offers a promising alternative. Methods: This study prospectively evaluated the "Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment Score" on 20 patients undergoing mastectomy at Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, from July 2022 to February 2024. Patients with scores between 5 and 8 were included. The procedure involved the use of ADM (Acellular Dermal Matrix) or titanium-coated polypropylene mesh, followed by postoperative expansions and final implant placement after six months. Results: The mean age of patients was 51.85 years, with a mean BMI of 24.145 kg/m2. ADM was used in 15 cases and synthetic mesh in 5. Complications were one exposure of the expander, one superficial skin necrosis and one seroma. Statistical analysis showed a trend toward fewer complications with higher scores, though this was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.139). Conclusions: Prepectoral reconstruction with expanders is a viable option, offering benefits such as reduced operating time, better volume control, and a more natural breast contour compared to the retropectoral approach. Although the trend suggests fewer complications with higher assessment scores, further studies with larger samples are needed for confirmation.

Comparative complications of prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Introduction

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the complications associated with prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) compared to subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) in patients diagnosed with breast cancer.

Materials and methods

A comprehensive search was performed in four databases, including Medline, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL, to collect literature published up until December 31, 2024. In addition, we conducted a thorough manual examination of the bibliographies of the identified papers, as well as pertinent reviews and meta-analyses. We conducted a search on three clinical trial registries, namely ClinicalTrials.gov, Controlled-trials.com, and Umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm. Meta-analyses were conducted on total complications, hematoma, infection, wound healing issues, necrosis, capsular contracture, rippling, animation deformity, and reoperation.

Results

A total of 40 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with SBR, PBR significantly reduced the incidence of animated malformations (OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.70, P=0.003, I ²=12%), but increased the incidence of ripples (OR=2.39, 95% CI: 1.53 to 3.72, P=0.0001, I ²=10%) and seroma (OR=1.55, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.35, P=0.04, increasing I ²=70%).

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that PBR and SBR have comparable safety profiles, with similar total complication rates. Specifically, PBR is more likely to cause rippling and seroma, whereas SBR is more prone to causing animation deformity.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024565837, identifier CRD42024565837.

Safety Profile Comparison of 2 Smooth Tissue Expander Types: Artoura and CPX4

INTRODUCTION

With the recent transition to smooth tissue expanders (TEs), functional differences between TE subtypes have not been fully elucidated. This study evaluated the differences in TE characteristics and complications between 2 commonly used Mentor smooth TE models, Artoura and CPX4.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who received either smooth Mentor Artoura or CPX4 TE from 2012 to 2022 was conducted. Demographic data, perioperative information, pain scores, TE variables, cancer characteristics, and complications were collected. A multivariate analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between TE subtype and complications while controlling for demographic, TE characteristics, radiation, and chemotherapy exposure.

RESULTS

During the study period, 62 smooth Artoura TEs and 79 smooth CPX4 TEs were used. Patients who received CPX4 smooth implants tended to be older (51.09 vs 46.18 years old, P = 0.02) and have a higher body mass index (28.66 vs 23.50 kg/m 2 , P < 0.001). There were no differences among patient comorbidities. CPX4 required on average a greater total fill volume (422.23 vs 348.07 mL, P = 0.01) and had a greater drain duration (16.91 vs 14.33 days, P = 0.05). There were no differences in TE plane placement between Artoura and CPX4. Additionally, there were no differences in complication rates, including infection, hematomas, seromas, wound breakdown, TE replacement, and capsular contracture. When controlling for body mass index, diabetes, TE plane placement, acellular dermal matrix use, radiation exposure, and chemotherapy, there was no association between TE subtype and any individual complication.

DISCUSSION

Differences in total fill volume and drain duration were significantly different between Mentor Artoura and CPX4 implants, which may influence TE subtype selection. However, Artoura and CPX4 have excellent and equivalent safety profiles with similar complication rates, even when controlling for demographic and TE characteristics.

Early Complications in Prepectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant placement for postmastectomy breast reconstruction has increased in recent years. Benefits of prepectoral reconstruction may include lack of animation deformities and reduced postoperative pain, but its complication profile is currently unclear. This study aimed to examine the complication profile of prepectoral tissue expanders (TEs) to determine factors associated with TE loss.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed to identify all patients who underwent immediate prepectoral TE reconstruction from January 2018 to June 2021. The decision to use the prepectoral technique was based on mastectomy skin quality and patient comorbidities. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative details were evaluated. Outcomes of interest included TE loss, seroma, hematoma, infection/cellulitis, mastectomy skin flap necrosis requiring revision, and TE exposure. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with TE loss.

RESULTS

The study identified 1225 TEs. The most frequent complications were seroma (8.7%, n = 106), infection/cellulitis (8.2%, n = 101), and TE loss (4.2%, n = 51). Factors associated with TE loss in the univariate analysis included ethnicity, history of smoking, body mass index, mastectomy weight, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In the multivariate regression analysis, only mastectomy weight had a positive association with TE loss (odds ratio, 1.001; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction can be performed safely with an acceptable early complication profile. The study data suggest that increasing mastectomy weight is the most significant factor associated with TE loss. Further research examining the quality of the soft tissue envelope and assessing patient-reported outcomes would prove beneficial.

Impact of Initial Filling Medium on Outcomes of Subpectoral, Two-Stage, Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Air versus Saline

BACKGROUND

In two-stage expander-based breast reconstruction, the use of air as the initial filling medium has been suggested to confer clinical advantages over conventional saline, but this has not been demonstrated in a large series. This study aimed to evaluate the association between material type (air versus saline) for initial expander filling and postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent immediate, subpectoral, tissue expander-based breast reconstruction between January of 2018 and March of 2021. The participants were categorized into two groups according to the material used for initial filling: saline-inflated expanders, which were used during the first 22 months consecutively, and air-inflated expanders, which were used during the latter 17 months consecutively. Complications including mastectomy flap necrosis and postoperative expansion profiles were compared. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 443 breasts (400 patients), including 161 air-filled and 282 saline-filled breasts, were analyzed. The two groups had similar baseline characteristics. The air-filled group showed a significantly lower rate of mastectomy flap necrosis; this difference remained significant after adjustment for other variables in the multivariable analysis. The rates of other complications did not differ between the two groups. The air-filled group had fewer office visits and a shorter period to complete expansion.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of air for initial expander filling could provide safe and reliable outcomes with reduced patient discomfort during postoperative expansion; thus, air-filled expanders might be an effective alternative to saline-filled expanders.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Subpectoral Implant Placement Is Not Protective against Postmastectomy Radiotherapy-Related Complications Compared to Prepectoral Placement

BACKGROUND

Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is associated with altered cosmetic outcomes and higher complication rates in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). Conventional wisdom suggests that muscle coverage is somewhat protective against PMRT-related complications. In this study, the authors compared surgical outcomes in patients who underwent two-stage prepectoral versus subpectoral IBR in the setting of PMRT.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent mastectomy and PMRT with two-stage IBR from 2016 to 2019. The primary outcome was breast-related complications, including device infection; the secondary outcome was device explantation.

RESULTS

The authors identified 179 reconstructions (101 prepectoral and 78 subpectoral) in 172 patients with a mean follow-up time of 39.7 ± 14.4 months. There were no differences between the prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions in rates of breast-related complications (26.7% and 21.8%, respectively; P = 0.274), device infection (18.8% and 15.4%, respectively; P = 0.307), skin flap necrosis (5.0% and 1.3%, respectively; P = 0.232), or device explantation (20.8% and 14.1%, respectively; P = 0.117). In adjusted models, compared with prepectoral device placement, subpectoral device placement was not associated with a lower risk of breast-related complications [hazard ratio (HR), 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.41 to 1.36], device infection (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.49), or device explantation (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.19).

CONCLUSIONS

Device placement plane was not predictive of complication rates in IBR in the setting of PMRT. Two-stage prepectoral IBR provides safe long-term outcomes with acceptable postoperative complication rates comparable to those with subpectoral IBR, even in the setting of PMRT.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

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.

Anatomic Location of Tissue Expander Placement Is Not Associated With Delay in Adjuvant Therapy in Women With Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Tissue expanders in breast reconstruction are traditionally placed retropectoral. Increasingly, patients are undergoing prepectoral placement. The impact of this placement on the initiation of adjuvant treatment is unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted to identify women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy followed by radiation and/or chemotherapy. Women were divided into 3 groups: prepectoral tissue expander placement, retropectoral tissue expander placement, and no immediate reconstruction. A treatment delay was defined as greater than 8 weeks between tissue expander placement and adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Of 634 women, 205 (32%) underwent tissue expander placement, and 429 (68%) did not have immediate reconstruction. Of those with tissue expanders placed, 84 (41%) had prepectoral placement, and 121 (59%) had retropectoral placement. The median time to adjuvant therapy was 49 days for the entire cohort: no reconstruction, 47 days; prepectoral, 57 days; and retropectoral, 55 days. Treatment delays were observed in 34% of women: no reconstruction, 28%; prepectoral, 51%; and retropectoral, 46% ( P < 0.001). Tissue expander placement was associated with a delay to adjuvant therapy when compared with no reconstruction ( P < 0.001). The location of the tissue expander did not impact the odds of having a delay. On multivariable analysis, having reconstruction, having postoperative infection, not undergoing chemotherapy treatment, and being a current smoker were associated with a delay to adjuvant therapy. A delay to treatment was not associated with worse survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of a tissue expander delayed adjuvant therapy. The location of tissue expander placement, retropectoral versus prepectoral, did not impact the time to adjuvant treatment.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Reconstruction: How Do We Choose?

Aspects of a patient's lifestyle, their state of health, breast size, and mastectomy skin flap quality are factors that influence the suggested plane of dissection in implant-based breast reconstruction. This article aims to review developments in prosthetic breast reconstruction and provide recommendations to help providers choose whether prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction in the best approach for each of their patients.

Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Risk-Reducing Mastectomy in BRCA Mutation Carriers: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Women with BRCA gene mutations have a higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Furthermore, cancer is usually diagnosed at a younger age compared to the wild-type counterpart. Strategies for risk management include intensive surveillance or risk-reducing mastectomy. The latter provides a significant reduction of the risk of developing breast cancer, simultaneously ensuring a natural breast appearance due to the preservation of the skin envelope and the nipple-areola complex. Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common technique after risk-reducing surgery and can be achieved with either a submuscular or a prepectoral approach, in one or multiple stages. This study analyzes the outcomes of the different reconstructive techniques through a retrospective review on 46 breasts of a consecutive, single-center case series. Data analysis was carried out with EpiInfo version 7.2. Results of this study show no significant differences in postoperative complications between two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction and direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, with DTI having superior aesthetic outcomes, especially in the prepectoral subgroup. In our experience, the DTI prepectoral approach has proven to be a safe and less time-consuming alternative to the submuscular two-stage technique, providing a pleasant reconstructed breast and overcoming the drawbacks of subpectoral implant placement.

A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes in Prepectoral Smooth Versus Textured Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Textured tissue expanders (TEs) had previously gained popularity due to minimizing expander migration, rotation, and capsule migration. Recent studies, though, have revealed increased risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma associated with certain macrotextured implants, prompting surgeons at our institution to switch to smooth TEs; evaluation is thus required for specific viability and similarity of outcomes of smooth TEs. Our study aims to evaluate perioperative complications in prepectoral placement of smooth versus textured TEs.

METHODS

Our retrospective study evaluated perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent bilateral prepectoral TE placement, with either smooth or textured TE, at an academic institution between 2017 and 2021 performed by 2 reconstructive surgeons. The perioperative period was defined as the interval between expander placement until conversion to flap/implant or removal of TE due to complications. Our primary outcomes included hematoma, seroma, wounds, infection, unspecified redness, total number of complications, and returns to operating room secondary to complications. Secondary outcomes included time to drain removal, total number of expansions, hospital length of stay, length of time until the next breast reconstruction procedure, next breast reconstruction procedure, and number of expansions.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-two patients were evaluated in our study (141 textured, 81 smooth). After propensity matching (71 textured, 71 smooth), our univariate logistic regression showed no significant difference in perioperative complications between smooth and textured expanders (17.1% vs 21.1%; P = 0.396) or complications that required a return to the operating room (10.0% vs 9.2%; P = 0.809). No significant differences were noted for hematoma, seroma, infections, unspecified redness, or wounds between both groups. A significant difference was noted in days to drain out (18.57 ± 8.17 vs 20.13 ± 0.07, P = 0.001) and type of the next breast reconstruction procedure (P < 0.001). Our multivariate regression showed that breast surgeon, hypertension, smoking status, and mastectomy weight were significant for increased risk for complications.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates similar rates and effectiveness of smooth versus textured TE when used for prepectoral placement, making smooth TEs a safe and valuable alternative for breast reconstruction because of their decreased risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma compared with textured TEs.

Postoperative Complications Following Prepectoral Versus Partial Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of evidence comparing the safety of prepectoral and partial subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADM). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the postoperative complications of the two approaches.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The rates of the complications were, respectively, pooled, and relative risk (RR) was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the incidence between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

Ten articles reporting on 2667 breast reconstructions were eligible. The hematoma rate was lower in the prepectoral group (RR  =  0.590, 95% CI 0.351-0.992). No significant difference was observed in terms of seroma (RR = 1.079, 95% CI 0.489-2.381), skin flap necrosis (RR = 0.936, 95% CI 0.587-1.493), infection (RR = 0.985, 95% CI 0.706-1.375), tissue expander/implant explantation (RR  =  0.741, 95% CI 0.506-1.085), wound dehiscence (RR = 1.272, 95% CI 0.605-2.673), capsular contracture (RR = 0.939, 95% CI 0.678-1.300) and rippling (RR = 2.485, 95% CI 0.986-6.261). The RR of animation deformity for the prepectoral group compared with the subpectoral group was 0.040 (95% CI, 0.002-0.853).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggested that with appropriate patient selection, prepectoral breast reconstruction could avoid animation deformity without incurring higher risk of early wound complications, capsular contracture or rippling than partial subpectoral breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should complete a comprehensive assessment of the patients before choosing appropriate surgical approaches in clinical practice.

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 .

Clinical and Healthcare Resource Use Outcomes between Dual-plane and Prepectoral Techniques in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

This multicenter, retrospective study compared clinical outcomes and healthcare resource use in patients who underwent dual-plane (DP) or prepectoral (PP) implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy in the United States.

Methods

Medical records were selected for patients at five sites undergoing immediate one-stage direct-to-implant (first hospitalization) or two-stage IBR (first and second hospitalization) using either DP or PP. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for potential confounders. Complications and healthcare resource use were assessed with logistic regression; pain severity was assessed with ordinary least-squares regression.

Results

After inverse probability of treatment weighting, data from 255 patients (DP = 130, PP = 125) and 441 breasts (DP = 226, PP = 215) were analyzed. Mean pain severity scores were lower with PP versus DP immediately after IBR for first (P = 0.0002) and second hospitalizations (P = 0.0145), and before discharge for first (P < 0.0001) and second hospitalizations (P = 0.0002). A greater proportion of PP versus DP patients had a shorter hospital length of stay (≤ 23 hours) for first hospitalization (P = 0.0052); proportions were similar for second hospitalization (P = 0.5499). Intravenous narcotics were prescribed less frequently to PP versus DP patients during first (61.1% versus 69.8%, respectively; P = 0.1486) and second (37.5% versus 55.3%, respectively; P = 0.0172) hospitalizations. Complication rates were low in both groups after first hospitalization discharge (DP: 13.6%, PP: 12.5%, P = 0.7225).

Conclusion

This retrospective study suggests that the PP technique in IBR may offer benefits related to clinical outcomes and health resource utilization; however, larger studies, including randomized controlled trials, are needed to confirm.

A Comparative Study of Secondary Procedures after Subpectoral and Prepectoral Single-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most commonly used procedure to reconstruct the breast after mastectomy. The advantages and disadvantages of subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement remain a matter of debate. This study compares the need for secondary aesthetic procedures between prepectoral and subpectoral IBR.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent subpectoral or prepectoral IBR between 2015 and 2018 under a single surgeon at a tertiary breast unit. The primary endpoint was the number of secondary procedures performed to improve the aesthetic outcome. Secondary endpoints included the number of secondary procedures during the first year.

RESULTS

A total of 271 one-stage IBRs were performed (subpectoral, n = 128 in 74 patients; prepectoral, n = 143 in 84 patients). Overall, more patients required secondary procedures in the subpectoral group (36.5% versus 19%; P = 0.014), although through longer follow-up. The most common procedures were pocket revision and implant exchange [11.7% versus 3.5% ( P = 0.010); 11.7% versus 4.2% ( P = 0.021)], whereas fat grafting was similar between the two groups (46% versus 40.5%; P = 0.777). When adjusted for follow-up time, there was no significant difference in the number of secondary procedures undertaken in the subpectoral versus the prepectoral group (21% versus 16%, respectively; P = 0.288) at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The requirement for secondary procedures at 1 year was not different between groups. The need for fat grafting was not increased following prepectoral IBR.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Comparison of Human, Porcine, and Bovine Acellular Dermal Matrix in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to determine rates of overall complications and failure of prepectoral breast reconstruction between various types of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs).

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common reconstructive technique after mastectomy in the United States. Traditionally, the reconstruction has been performed in the subpectoral plane; however, there has been an emerging interest in prepectoral reconstruction using ADM. Human (hADM), porcine (pADM), and bovine (bADM) ADMs are available for use, but little is known about the benefits and complication profiles of each for prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Studies examining complications after the use of ADM for prepectoral breast reconstruction were identified using MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, LILACS, and the Web of Science from January 2010 to August 2021. Titles and abstracts of 1838 studies were screened, followed by full-text screening of 355 articles. Thirty-three studies were found to meet inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

From the 33 studies, 6046 prepectoral reconstructions were examined. Implant loss was comparable across the different types of ADM (pADM, 4.0%; hADM, 4.0%; bADM, 3.7%). Bovine ADM had the highest rate of capsular contracture (6.1%), infection (9.0%), skin flap necrosis (8.3%), dehiscence (5.4%), and hematoma (6.1%) when compared with both hADM and pADM. Human ADM had the highest rate of postoperative seroma (5.3%), followed by pADM (4.6%) and bADM (4.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among the prepectoral breast reconstruction studies using hADM, pADM, or bADM included in our analysis, complication profiles were similar. Bovine ADM had the highest proportion of breast complications in the following categories: capsular contracture, infection rate, skin flap necrosis, dehiscence, and hematoma. Implant loss was comparable across the cohorts. Overall, prepectoral breast reconstruction using ADM leads to relatively low complication rates with the highest rates within the bADM cohort.

A prospective comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral methods for immediate breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: the cogwheel-shaped anterior wrapping method

Background Prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently gained wide recognition for its advantages, such as rapid recovery and less pain. This study compared the effectiveness of and differences between the prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction techniques.Methods Eighty-three patients (90 breasts) who underwent prepectoral or subpectoral breast reconstruction surgery between January 2019 and December 2020 were prospectively recruited. Patient demographics, comorbidities, oncological treatment, and intraoperative and postoperative data were evaluated to investigate the validity and stability of each surgical technique. The follow-up period was a minimum of 18 months.Results The surgical cohorts (22 prepectoral and 68 subpectoral) had comparable demographics. No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the two groups. The prepectoral group showed shorter operation times than the subpectoral group (mean: 97.27 and 127.63 minutes, respectively; P<0.001). Fewer days elapsed until drain removal and the total amount of drainage was less in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (mean: postoperative day [POD] 8.95 and 10.06, respectively; P=0.048) and (501.72 mL and 671.19 mL, respectively; P=0.009). The numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) scores at POD 7 were significantly lower in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (mean: 0.41 and 1.82, respectively; P=0.029). There were no statistically significant differences in the NPRS scores at POD 1 or the BREAST-Q questionnaire scores at 3 months.Conclusions Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix can feasibly replace the conventional subpectoral breast reconstruction technique and has the advantages of reducing operation time, length of hospitalization, and long-term postoperative pain.

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.

Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction at a Major Safety-Net Hospital: Managing the Outsized Risk of Infection

Background

Immediate tissue expander (TE) breast reconstruction is reported to have the highest rate of postoperative infection among reconstructive modalities. The risk of infection is higher among patients treated at safety-net hospitals.

Objectives

The goal of this study was to identify significant contributing factors to the elevated infection risk at our major safety-net institution.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on all TE-based reconstruction patients with a diagnosis of postoperative infection between 2015 and 2019. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative risk factors for infection were determined and compared across patient and procedure demographics.

Results

Two hundred forty-three patients, for a total of 412 breast reconstructions, were included in our study. Significant preoperative selection factors were identified to contribute to the elevated risk of infection, including the following: older age, higher BMI, and diabetes. Significant intraoperative and postoperative contributing factors included greater mastectomy weight, larger TE's and intraoperative fill volume, and longer drain duration. Doxycycline treatment for infected patients resulted in a significantly higher rate of resolution.

Conclusions

Safety-net hospital population patients undergoing TE breast reconstruction are at higher risk for postoperative infection. Personal and procedural risk factors are identified. Balancing the benefits of immediate breast reconstruction with TEs with the elevated risk of postoperative infection remains challenging. Implementation of more stringent eligibility criteria may help mitigate the risk of infection.

Level of Evidence 4

Quality of life, pain of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with a discussion on cost: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PIBR) has regained popularity, despite decades-long preference for subpectoral implant placement. This paper aims to compare patient-reported outcomes (PRO) between prepectoral and subpectoral approaches to implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The primary PRO was with the BREAST-Q, and postoperative pain scores, while the secondary outcomes were complication rates.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed library was performed. All studies on patients undergoing IBBR after mastectomy that compared prepectoral to subpectoral placement and PROM or postoperative pain were included.

RESULTS

A total of 3789 unique studies of which 7 publications with 216 and 332 patients who received prepectoral and subpectoral implants, respectively, were included for meta-analysis. Patients with prepectoral implant placement had significantly higher satisfaction with the outcome (p = 0.03) and psychosocial well-being (p = 0.03) module scores. The pain was lower in patients with prepectoral implants on postoperative day 1 (p<0.01) and day 7 (p<0.01). The subgroup analysis of prepectoral breast implants showed that complete acellular dermal matrix coverage had lower rates of wound dehiscence (p<0.0001), but there were no significant differences in complications between one-stage and two-stage procedures.

CONCLUSION

Overall, patients with prepectoral implants reported higher BREAST-Q scores and lower postoperative pain and lower complications rates than patients with subpectoral implants. In appropriately selected patients, prepectoral implant placement with ADM coverage, be it the primary placement of an implant or placement of a tissue expander before definitive implant placement, should be the modality of choice in patients who choose IBBR. Further research should focus on patient selection, strategies to reduce cost and cost-benefit analysis of PIBR.

Prepectoral and Subpectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of 90-Day Clinical and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral placement of tissue expanders for two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction potentially minimizes chest wall morbidity and postoperative pain. The authors explored 90-day clinical and health-related quality-of-life outcomes for prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors conducted a propensity score-matching analysis (nearest neighbor, 1:1 matching without replacement) of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral or subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction between December of 2017 and January of 2019. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, race/ethnicity, smoking status, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and laterality of reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were perioperative analgesia use, 90-day postoperative patient-reported pain, complication rates, and BREAST-Q physical well-being of the chest scores.

RESULTS

Of the initial cohort of 921 patients, 238 were propensity-matched and included in the final analysis. The matched cohort had no differences in baseline characteristics. Postoperative ketorolac (p = 0.048) use was higher in the subpectoral group; there were no other significant differences in intraoperative and postoperative analgesia use. Prepectoral patients had lower pain on postoperative days 1 to 2 but no differences on days 3 to 10. BREAST-Q physical well-being of the chest scores did not differ. Prepectoral patients had higher rates of seroma than subpectoral patients (p < 0.001). Rates of tissue expander loss did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

This matched analysis of 90-day complications found lower early postoperative pain in prepectoral tissue expander patients but no longer-term patient-reported differences. Although prepectoral reconstruction patients experienced a higher rate of seroma, this did not translate to a difference in tissue expander loss. Long-term analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes is needed to understand the full profile of the prepectoral technique.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: early and long-term safety evaluation of 146 unselected cases of the early pre-pectoral era of a single-institution, including cases with previous breast irradiation and post-mastectomy radiation therapy

We re-evaluated acute and early-late toxicity-related factors among pre-pectoral immediate tissue expander/implant (TE/I) breast reconstruction (BR) unselected, first-era, cases, including previous breast radiation treatment and post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). A retrospective analysis of 146 (117 therapeutic and 29 prophylactic) pre-pectoral reconstructions, between 2012 and 2016, considered patient-related (age, body mass index [BMI], smoke-history, comorbidity, BRCA mutation), and treatment-related characteristics (previous irradiation, axillary surgery, PMRT, pre- and postoperative chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and target-therapy). Safety was evaluated as acute and early-late complications, and TE/I failures. At multivariate analysis of the 146 cases (117 patients submitted to BR) a significant factor related to acute toxicity was: BMI ≥ 25 (31.3% [≥ 25] vs 8.8% [< 25]; OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.56-12.6; p = 0.003), while previous breast surgery on ipsilateral side presented a borderline significance (31.6% [previous surgery] vs 7.4% [no previous surgery]; OR 3.74, 95% CI 0.97-14.40; p = 0.055). Factors significantly related to TE/I failure were: current or previous smoking exposition (13.8% [smokers] vs 2.6% [non-smokers]; OR 7.32, 95% CI 1.37-39.08; p = 0.02) and preoperative chemotherapy (18.8% [yes] vs 3.5% [no]; OR 8.16, 95% CI 1.29-51.63; p = 0.026). At 4-year median follow-up, 3 deaths, 5 locoregional recurrences, and 14 distant metastases occurred. Immediate pre-pectoral BR is safe and effective, with low rates of acute and early-late complications. BMI and previous breast surgery were related to higher complications but not failure; smoking and preoperative chemotherapy were related to TE/I explant. Previous RT and PMRT were related neither to early-late toxicity nor failure.

The Impact of Adjuvant Radiotherapy on Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Surgical and Satisfaction Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Adjuvant radiotherapy could be a necessary step in the oncological treatment for breast cancer. However, radiotherapy may have negative effects on implant-based immediate breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of adjuvant radiation therapy on surgical results and patient-reported satisfaction outcomes in women undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction.

Methods

A systematic search in PubMed was conducted on September 2019 and updated on April 2021. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Observational Studies. RevMan 5 was used for statistical analysis. We obtained relative risks to determine the complication incidence and mean differences for 2-year BREAST-Q scores.

Results

Fourteen studies were included. A total of 11,958 implant-based immediate reconstructions were performed, 2311 received postmastectomy radiation therapy, and 9647 were considered as control group. Surgical complications, reoperation rates, and reconstruction failure were significantly higher among irradiated breasts. Significantly lower BREAST-Q scores were reported by irradiated women receiving radiotherapy.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis combines reconstruction complication rates with aesthetic and patient-reported satisfaction outcomes. Adjuvant radiotherapy is consistently associated with greater complication rates and poorer aesthetic and satisfaction outcomes. The magnitude of association is significantly lower when the reconstruction is based on autologous tissues.

Assessing Postsurgical Outcomes with Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Literature Review and Meta-analysis Update

Background:

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is an alternative to subpectoral/dual-plane reconstruction.

Methods:

This study examined outcomes of prepectoral reconstruction using a meta-analysis of data pooled with data from our previous review. Thirty studies were included.

Results:

Explantation, seroma, and infection were the most common complications with no animation deformity reported. Significantly lower odds of infection were observed with prepectoral compared with dual-plane reconstruction.

Conclusions:

Current literature suggests that prepectoral reconstruction may be associated with lower rates of postsurgical infections.

Tissue Expansion after Non-Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: A Comparative Study of Expansion Courses of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement with Acellular Dermal Matrix

Although skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy has been popular in the treatment of breast cancer, the radical excision of breast tissue is unavoidable in certain circumstances. However, the ability of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to expand remains questionable, and this situation may further hinder tissue expansion. From October 2017 to January 2020, patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expander placement using ADM whose initial fill volume was less than 50 mL were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcomes were the number of visits and number of days required to complete the expansion, and the secondary outcomes were the amount of postoperative expansions, expander fill ratio and expander volume. Between the prepectoral group (n = 26) and subpectoral group (n = 39), the mean number of days (81.46 days versus 88.64 days, p = 0.365) and mean number of visits (5.08 versus 5.69, p = 0.91) required to complete expansion exhibited no significant differences. Additionally, there were no significant differences in the mean amount of postoperative expansion (314.23 mL versus 315.38 mL, p = 0.950), the mean final volume (353.08 mL versus 339.62 mL, p = 0.481) or the mean final volume ratio (0.89 versus 0.86, p = 0.35) between the two groups. Therefore, we suggest that prepectoral tissue expander placement after conventional mastectomy can be a valid option.

Understanding the Evidence and Improving Outcomes with Implant-Based Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the risks, benefits, and safety profile of prepectoral breast reconstruction. 2. Have knowledge of primary immediate and delayed prepectoral breast reconstruction techniques and secondary procedures required. 3. Describe data on outcomes of prepectoral breast reconstruction.

SUMMARY

Once considered to have an unacceptable complication profile, prepectoral breast reconstruction is increasing in popularity because of decreased surgical invasiveness and postoperative pain and the absence of animation deformity. Short-term outcomes studies comparing prepectoral breast reconstruction to partially submuscular techniques demonstrate similarly acceptable rates of postoperative complications. Aesthetic outcomes demonstrate similar rates of capsular contracture but increased rippling and implant palpability of the upper pole. Postoperative functional data are limited but overall show decreased pain and more rapid return of function but equivalent satisfaction on the BREAST-Q. Long-term aesthetic data and rates of revision are lacking.

Comparative Analysis of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Recent advances in mastectomy and reconstruction have allowed for an evolution in implant-based breast reconstruction to a muscle-sparing, prepectoral approach. Advantages of this technique may include reductions in postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, less narcotic usage, and improved aesthetic outcomes. Postoperative complication rates are described as comparable to subpectoral techniques; however, little comparative data exist to adequately assess prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement.

Methods

To address this knowledge gap, we performed a single institution retrospective review of 186 (83 prepectoral, 103 subpectoral) consecutive immediate breast reconstructions. All cases were tracked for a minimum of 2 years between 2016 and 2021.

Results

Prepectoral patients demonstrated an overall higher seroma rate (P = 0.001), with all other postoperative complications being comparable. Prepectoral patients tolerated higher intraoperative tissue expander fill volumes (P < 0.001), shorter hospital stays (P = 0.007), fewer clinic visits for tissue expansion (P < 0.001), and experienced less animation deformity (P = 0.005). Both groups demonstrated similar pain scores (P = 0.65) and needs for narcotics (P = 0.8) as well as comparable scores of capsular contracture (P = 0.791).

Conclusions

Our comparative analysis of consecutive immediate implant-based breast reconstructions finds prepectoral reconstruction to be safe and effective. Compared with subpectoral reconstruction, the prepectoral approach may offer quicker tissue expansion, less postoperative office visits, less need for muscle relaxants, and a shorter hospital stay with a comparable complication profile.

Safety Profile and Predictors of Aesthetic Outcomes After Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction With Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix

INTRODUCTION

Prepectoral acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-assisted breast reconstruction has demonstrated improved pain scores, faster return to full range of motion, and an appropriate postoperative safety profile when compared with cohorts with submuscular implant placement; however, there are limited data on aesthetic outcomes. Basic science biointegration research has previously demonstrated faster ADM incorporation with fenestrated compared with confluent ADM. We report the safety profile of anterior support meshed ADM prepectoral breast reconstruction and analyze predictive factors for aesthetic outcomes after gel implant placement.

METHODS

All consecutive immediate staged prepectoral expander-to-implant breast reconstructions with more than 6 months of follow-up were compared with a partially submuscular cohort for demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications. All patients 1 to 3.5 years after gel implant placement were evaluated for the impact of clinical characteristics on aesthetic outcomes.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-four prepectoral tissue expander placements were compared with 535 partially submuscular tissue expanders with no significant differences in demographics. There was increased wound dehiscence repaired in clinic and insignificantly decreased seromas with prepectoral expander placement. One hundred sixty breasts were reconstructed with gel implants, and 12 underwent autologous reconstruction during the conduct of the study. The remaining 21 patients were continuing expansion, and 3 succumbed to disease progression. Regression analysis of 86 breast reconstructions showed that a body mass index of greater than 30, fat grafting, and highly cohesive anatomic implants decreased rippling, whereas radiation increased capsular contracture (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral meshed ADM breast reconstruction has an equivalent safety profile to partially submuscular ADM-assisted reconstruction and early aesthetic ratings comparable with other published accounts of implant-based reconstruction. Radiated skin envelopes carry higher capsular contracture rates. Thin patients have a higher risk of visible rippling, whereas fat grafting and higher cohesivity implants are associated with less rippling.

Impact of Radiation on Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction in Prepectoral Versus Submuscular Planes

BACKGROUND

Postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) in the setting of radiation (XRT) comes with a high risk of perioperative complications regardless of reconstruction method. The aim of study was to identify the effects of XRT on IBR using a prepectoral versus submuscular approach.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed after institutional review board approval was obtained. Patients at a single institution who had 2-stage IBR from June 2012 to August 2019 were included. Patients were separated into 4 groups: prepectoral with XRT (group 1), prepectoral without XRT (group 2), submuscular with XRT (group 3), and submuscular without XRT (group 4). Patient demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty-seven breasts among 213 patients underwent 2-stage IBR. The average age and body mass index were 50.10 years and 29.10 kg/m2, respectively. One hundred nine breasts underwent prepectoral reconstruction (44 in group 1, 65 in group 2), and 278 breasts underwent submuscular reconstruction (141 in group 3, 137 in group 4). Prepectoral tissue expander placement was associated with higher complication rates in the radiated group (38.6% compared with 34.0% submuscular) and lower complication rates in the nonradiated group (26.2% compared with 29.2% submuscular), although significantly less explants were performed in prepectoral group, regardless of XRT status. The 3 most common complications overall were contracture (15.1% radiated, 10.4% nonradiated), infection (18.4% radiated, 11.9% nonradiated), and seroma (15.7% radiated, 10.9% nonradiated).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-stage, prepectoral tissue expander placement performs clinically better than submuscular in nonradiated patients compared with radiated patients; however, no statistical significance was identified. Prepectoral had a significantly less incidence of reconstructive failure than submuscular placement regardless of XRT status. Future larger-scale studies are needed to determine statistically significant difference in surgical approach.

Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Historically Controlled, Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The rising popularity of prepectoral tissue expander placement with acellular dermal matrices in immediate breast reconstruction has prompted many studies on the safety of this technique. However, a comprehensive propensity-matched, historically controlled trial comparing perioperative outcomes following prepectoral versus partial subpectoral (dual-plane) placement of tissue expanders is lacking.

METHODS

Retrospective propensity-matched cohort analysis was performed on all patients of two senior reconstructive surgeons who underwent bilateral tissue expander placement following a mastectomy with one of three breast surgeons at a single academic institution from 2012 onward (n = 260). Two matched groups (prepectoral and partial subpectoral) each consisted of 102 patients. Univariate and multivariable analyses were also performed to contextualize the risks associated with prepectoral reconstruction relative to demographic characteristics and other clinical factors.

RESULTS

Compared to dual-plane subpectoral placement, prepectoral placement resulted in similar rates of overall perioperative complications (32 percent versus 31 percent; p = 1.00) and perioperative complications that required operative treatment (21 percent versus 21 percent; p = 1.00). There were no significant differences between the groups in complication rates for hematomas, seromas, impaired wound healing, and infection. Although prepectoral placement was associated with prolonged time to drain removal, those patients completed the expansion process twice as fast, were expanded further in the operating room, and were more than twice as likely to forgo clinic-based expansion. Prepectoral reconstruction was not associated with increased risk for any complications in univariate or multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral tissue expander placement permitted greater intraoperative filling of expanders and a reduced likelihood of clinic-based expansion, with no increase in adverse outcomes compared to partial subpectoral placement. Adoption of this technique may reduce unnecessary clinic visits; shorten the delay before adjuvant therapy; and minimize patient apprehension, pain, and discomfort related to clinic-based expansion.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Complications After Immediate 2-Stage Tissue Expander/Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Deeper Look at the Second Stage

BACKGROUND

Complications after 2-stage tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction have been studied as outcomes of a single procedure. We separately evaluated complications after the second stage and assessed factors associated with the outcomes of the second stage of breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients who underwent immediate 2-stage breast reconstruction between February 2010 and April 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, surgical factors of the first stage of breast reconstruction, and complications and number of revision surgeries after the second stage were recorded. Factors associated with postoperative complications were analyzed, and a risk-scoring system was devised.

RESULTS

We analyzed 619 patients who underwent 653 immediate 2-stage breast reconstructions. Multivariate analysis showed that complications were associated independently with smoking history, radiotherapy, and a final inflation volume of 450 mL or greater. Each factor contributed 1 point in the creation of a risk-scoring system. The overall complication rate was increased as the risk score increased (1.2%, 4.7%, and 16.0% for 0, 1, and 2 risk scores, respectively, P < 0.001). Revision operation rate was also significantly different across the 3 groups (0.2%, 1.6%, and 12.0% for 0, 1, and 2 risk scores, respectively, P < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.732 and 0.731 for the logistic regression model and risk-scoring system, respectively (P = 0.975).

CONCLUSIONS

In the second stage of immediate 2-stage tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction, the rate of complication and revision surgery can be predicted by a novel risk-scoring system. Greater attention and preventive measures for complications are needed for high-risk patients.

Revision Rates in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Delayed-Immediate Autologous Breast Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Breast reconstruction in the prepectoral plane has recently fallen into favor. Minimizing the number of revisionary procedures after reconstruction is an important factor in improving patient care, but long-term studies on the effects of prepectoral reconstruction are limited. In this study, we compare the revision rates after delayed-immediate, autologous reconstruction between prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions.

METHODS

Postoperative charts for all patients undergoing subpectoral or prepectoral delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction were retrospectively reviewed at our single tertiary-care institution between 2009 and 2018. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and oncologic history were recorded. Charts after second stage reconstruction were reviewed for up to eighteen months to determine if revisions were necessary. Data collected included the total number of surgeries performed, the average number of procedures performed during each surgery, and the type of revision that was performed. Statistical tests included the chi squared test, unpaired t-test, and logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Data from 89 patients with 125 breast reconstructions were collected. There was a 41.6% of these that were prepectoral reconstructions (P), and 58.4% were subpectoral reconstructions (S). For both groups, nipple sparing, followed by skin sparing mastectomies were most common. Mastectomy rates were not statistically different. Fewer breasts in the prepectoral cohort required any revisions (P, 21.2% vs S, 47.9%; P = 0.002). The subpectoral cohort had higher rates of soft tissue rearrangement (P, 7.7% vs S, 21.9%, P = 0.032), fat grafting (P, 9.6% vs S, 27.4%; P = 0.014), and nipple reconstruction (P: 5.8% vs 20.5%, P = 0.020). Mean follow-up time was not significantly different between patient groups (P, 290.5 days vs S, 375.0 days, P = 0.142). Subpectoral expander placement was found to be the only variable independently predictive of requiring 1 or more revision (P = 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Breast reconstruction performed in the prepectoral plane is associated with lower overall rates of revisionary surgery. Rates of soft tissue rearrangement, fat grafting, and nipple reconstruction after autologous reconstruction trended higher in subpectoral reconstructions.

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

Background: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) using traditional submuscular (SM) positioning of implants versus prepectoral (PP) positioning of micropolyurethane-foam-coated implants (microthane) without further coverage. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of breast cancer patients treated by nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and IPBR in our institution during the two-year period from January 2018 to December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based on the plane of implant placement: SM versus PP. Results: 177 patients who received IPBR after NSM were included in the study; implants were positioned in a SM plane in 95 patients and in a PP plane in 82 patients. The two cohorts were similar for mean age (44 years and 47 years in the SM and PP groups, respectively) and follow-up (20 months and 16 months, respectively). The mean operative time was 70 min shorter in the PP group. No significant differences were observed in length of hospital stay or overall major complication rates. Statistically significant advantages were observed in the PP group in terms of aesthetic results, chronic pain, shoulder dysfunction, and skin sensibility (p < 0.05), as well as a trend of better outcomes for sports activity and sexual/relationship life. Cost analysis revealed that PP-IPBR was also economically advantageous over SM-IPBR. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience seems to confirm that PP positioning of a polyurethane-coated implant is a safe, reliable and effective method to perform IPBR after NSM.

Complication Rate of Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Using Human Acellular Dermal Matrices

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is currently the most frequently performed reconstructive technique post mastectomy. Even though submuscular IBR continues to be the most commonly used technique, mastectomy technique optimization, the possibility to check skin viability with indocyanine green angiography, the enhanced propensity of patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomies, and the introduction of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have paved the way to the rediscovery of the subcutaneous reconstruction technique. The aim of this article is to update the complication rate of immediate and delayed prepectoral IBR using human ADMs (hADMs).

METHODS

A literature search, using PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and Google Scholar database according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, was conducted to evaluate complication rates of prepectoral implant-based reconstructions using hADMs. The following MeSH terms were used: "prepectoral breast reconstruction acellular dermal matrix," "prepectoral breast reconstruction ADM," "human ADM breast reconstruction," and "human acellular dermal matrix breast reconstruction" (period: 2005-2020; the last search took place on April 2, 2020).

RESULTS

This meta-analysis includes 1425 patients (2270 breasts) who had undergone immediate or delayed prepectoral IBR using different types of hADMs. The overall complication rate amounted to 19%. The most frequent complication was represented by infection (7.9%), followed by seroma (4.8%), mastectomy flap necrosis (3.4%), and implant loss (2.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall complication rate was 19%. The most frequent complications were infection, seroma, and mastectomy flap necrosis, while capsular contracture was rare.

Blossom smart expander technology for tissue expander-based breast reconstruction facilitates shorter duration to full expansion: A pilot study

Background

This study evaluated the Blossom system, an innovative self-filling, rate-controlled, pressure-responsive saline tissue expander (TE) system. We investigated the feasibility of utilizing this technology to facilitate implant-based and combined flap with implant-based breast reconstruction in comparison to conventional tissue expansion.

Methods

In this prospective, single-center, single-surgeon pilot study, participants underwent either implant-based breast reconstruction or a combination of autologous flap and implantbased breast reconstruction. Outcome measures included time to full expansion, complications, total expansion volume, and pain scores.

Results

Fourteen patients (TEs; n=22), were included in this study. The mean time to full expansion was 13.4 days (standard error of the mean [SEM], 1.3 days) in the combination group and 11.7 days (SEM, 1.4 days) in the implant group (P=0.78). The overall major complication rate was 4.5% (n=1). No statistically significant differences were found in the complication rate between the combination group and the implant group. The maximum patient-reported pain scores during the expansion process were low, but were significantly higher in the combination group (mean, 2.00±0.09) than in the implant group (mean, 0.29±0.25; P=0.005).

Conclusions

The reported average duration for conventional subcutaneous TE expansion is 79.4 days, but this pilot study using the Blossom system achieved an average expansion duration of less than 14 days in both groups. The Blossom system may accommodate single-stage breast reconstruction. The overall complication rate of this study was 4.5%, which is promising compared to the reported complication rates of two-stage breast reconstruction with TEs (20%–45%).

Optimizing non-opioid pain control after implant-based breast reconstruction: a review of the literature and proposed pain control algorithm

Despite the intense focus on the opioid epidemic and its known association with surgical procedures, there is a paucity of evidence-based literature on pain management in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). Herein, we present an updated review of the literature aimed at identifying pain treatment protocols to minimize narcotic use and its associated potential addiction in IBR. A comprehensive review of the published English literature was conducted using Ovid Medline/PubMed Database without timeframe limitations. The inclusion criteria of selected articles presented in this review included studies reporting objective outcomes of pain modulation (preoperatively, intraoperatively and postoperatively) in IBR. Articles for inclusion were stratified based on intervention. A total of 219 articles were identified in the initial search query, with 23 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Pain optimization interventions in IBR are herein summarized and analyzed based on the reported outcomes of each respective study. There is a substantial need for evidence-based guidelines in the plastic surgery literature for pain optimization without the use of opioids. While this review of studies to date investigates potential solutions, we hope this area of study continues to be a top priority for plastic surgeons to allow for optimized post-operative care for patients following IBR.

Meta-analysis of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: guide to patient selection and current outcomes

PURPOSE

 This meta-analysis provides a large-scale comparison of prepectoral vs. subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction, with primary outcomes of patient safety and efficacy.

METHODS

Literature review was performed via PRISMA criteria, 33 studies met inclusion criteria for prepectoral review and 13 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Patient characteristics and per-breast complications were collected. Data were analyzed using Cochrane RevMan and IBM SPSS.

RESULTS

In 4692 breasts of 3014 patients that underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction, rippling was observed as the most common complication, followed by seroma and skin flap necrosis. Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant decrease in odds of skin flap necrosis and capsular contracture in prepectoral groups compared to subpectoral groups. Odds of infection, seroma, and hematoma were equal between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has surged in popularity in recent years. This review and large-scale analysis corroborates current literature reporting a favorable safety profile with emphasis on patient selection. Variability in skin flap thickness and vascularity mandates thoughtful selection of patients whose overall health and intra-operative skin flap assessment can tolerate a muscle-sparing reconstruction.

The influence of mastectomy and reconstruction on residual upper limb function in breast cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Breast cancer survivorship is common (90% of women survive 5 or more years), but many women are not able to return to full function and well-being after treatment due to functional limitations, persistent pain, and inability to perform daily activities. Since each surgical reconstructive option (e.g., autologous tissue flaps versus implants) can impact shoulder and arm function differently, it is important to understand how shoulder and upper limb strength, mobility, and function are influenced by the type of surgical intervention. Efforts can then focus on prehabiliation strategies to prevent the onset of limitations and on developing rehabilitation protocols that directly target shortcomings.

METHODS

The current paper presents a review summarizing how shoulder and upper limb function may be affected by surgical mastectomy and breast reconstruction.

RESULTS

Mastectomy and breast reconstruction with implants or autologous tissues present different functional outcomes for patients. Each surgical procedure is associated with unique sequelae derived from the tissues and procedures associated with each surgery. Characterizing the specific functional outcomes associated with each surgical approach will promote the development of targeted rehabilitation strategies that can be implemented into a multidisciplinary treatment planning pathway for breast cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical treatments for breast cancer, including mastectomy and breast reconstruction, can have negative effects. Focused efforts are needed to better understand treatment-specific effects so that targeted rehabilitation can be developed to improve patient function, QoL, and ability to return to work and life activities post-breast cancer.

Surgical Outcomes in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has reemerged as a popular option for prosthetic-based breast reconstruction. Recent published literature highlights good outcomes; however, techniques are evolving and options exist for different technologies. The aim of this study is to evaluate short-term complication rates of prepectoral reconstructions using Cortiva acellular dermal matrix.

Methods:

A multicenter retrospective study was conducted of all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate direct-to-implant or 2-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with Cortiva (RTI Surgical, Alachua, Fla.) between January 2016 and September 2018. The incidence of surgical complications was determined and studied against patient demographics and procedural details.

Results:

One-hundred eighteen patients met the inclusion criteria for a total of 183 individual breasts reconstructed with prepectoral implant. Average length of follow-up was 9.26 months (range, 1.0 month to 2.5 years). Thirty-two breasts (17.49%) experienced 1 or more complications. Prepectoral reconstruction was successful 89.07% of the time. Infection was the most common cause of both reoperation and implant failure, with 7.65% of all breasts requiring washout and 5.46% failing prosthetic reconstruction secondary to infection.

Conclusions:

Surgical outcomes for prepectoral breast reconstruction using 2-stage and direct-to-implant are similar and comparable to the literature for dual-plane reconstruction, with infection being the main cause of failure.

Comparing Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement Outcomes in Delayed-Immediate Autologous Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction has traditionally involved placement of tissue expanders (TE) in the subpectoral (SP) position. Development of acellular dermal matrices has renewed interest in the prepectoral (PP) pocket, which avoids extensive muscle manipulation. We compare complication rates between PP and SP TE placement in autologous delayed-immediate breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients undergoing autologous, delayed-immediate breast reconstruction at our institution (June 2009 to December 2018) was performed. Demographics, comorbidities, perioperative information, and complication incidence ≤12 months' follow-up were collected from first- and second-stage surgeries. Complications were modeled using univariable and multivariable binary logistic regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients met the inclusion criteria, and data from 125 breast reconstructions were evaluated. Complication rates following TE placement trended lower in the PP cohort (28.8% vs 37%, P = 0.34). Overall complication rates following autologous reconstruction were significantly lower for PP reconstructions (7.7% vs 23.3%, P = 0.02). Multivariable regression showed TE position (P = 0.01) was a significant predictor of ≥1 complication following autologous reconstruction. Time delay between first- and second-stage surgeries was greater for SP reconstructions (199.7 vs 324.8 days, P < 0.001). Postoperative drains were removed earlier in the PP cohort (8.6 vs 12.0 days, P < 0.001). Mean follow-up time was 331.3 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral reconstruction in the delayed-immediate autologous reconstruction patient leads to significantly lower complication rates, shorter duration between first- and second-stage surgeries, and shorter times before removal of breast drains compared with SP reconstructions.

Surgeon's preference of subcutaneous tissue resection: most important factor for short-term complications in subcutaneous implant placement after mastectomy-results of a cohort study

Purpose

Little is known about the reason of high short-term complication rates after the subcutaneous placement of breast implants or expanders after mastectomy without biological matrices or synthetic meshes. This study aims to evaluate complications and their risk factors to develop guidelines for decreasing complication rates.

Methods

We included all cases of mastectomy followed by subcutaneous implant or expander placement between 06/2017 and 05/2018 (n = 92). Mean follow-up time was 12 months.

Results

Explantation occurred in 15 cases (16.3%). The surgeon’s preference for moderate vs. radical subcutaneous tissue resection had a significant influence on explantation rates (p = 0.026), impaired wound healing or infection (requiring surgery) (p = 0.029, p = 0.003 respectively) and major complications (p = 0.018).

Multivariate analysis revealed significant influence on complication rates for radical subcutaneous tissue resection (p up to 0.003), higher implant volume (p up to 0.023), higher drain volume during the last 24 h (p = 0.049), higher resection weight (p = 0.035) and incision type (p = 0.011).

Conclusion

Based on the significant risk factors we suggest the following guidelines to decrease complication rates: favoring thicker skin envelopes after surgical preparation, using smaller implants, removing drains based on a low output volume during the last 24 h and no use of periareolar incision with extension medial or lateral. We should consider ADMs for subcutaneous one-stage reconstructions.

The individual surgeon’s preference of subcutaneous tissue resection is of highest relevance for short-term complications—this has to be part of internal team discussions and should be considered in future trials for comparable results.

The Pre-BRA (pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction EvAluation) feasibility study: protocol for a mixed-methods IDEAL 2a/2b prospective cohort study to determine the safety and effectiveness of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most commonly performed reconstructive technique worldwide. Subpectoral reconstruction with mesh is the current standard of care but new prepectoral techniques have recently been introduced. Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) may improve outcomes for patients but robust evaluation is required. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are ideally needed but the short-term safety of PPBR is yet to be established; the technique and its indications are evolving and it has yet to be adopted by a sufficient number of surgeons for an RCT to be feasible.The Pre-BRA study aims to determine the feasibility of using mixed-methods within an IDEAL 2a/2b (IDEAL, Idea-Development-Exploration-Assessment-Long-term) study to explore the short-term safety of PPBR and determine when the technique is sufficiently stable for evaluation in a pragmatic RCT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b prospective multicentre cohort study with embedded qualitative research.Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating centres will be invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology and complication data will be collected and patient-reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3 and 18 months postoperatively. The primary safety endpoint will be implant loss at 3 months.Surgeons performing PPBR will be asked to complete questionnaires regarding their practice and report any modifications made to the procedure or learning arising from complications via free-text response fields on electronic case-report forms. Semistructured will explore surgeons' experiences in detail to identify emerging best practice. This will be fed back to participating surgeons to promote shared learning.The Pre-BRA study will aim to recruit 341 patients from 30 to 40 UK centres over a 12-month period. Recruitment will commence Spring 2019.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has full ethical approval from OXFORD-B South Central Committee Ref:19/SC/0129. Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11898000; Pre-results.

Reducing Expansion Visits in Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander Placement

BACKGROUND

The numerous office visits required to complete expansion in implant-based breast reconstruction impact patient satisfaction, office resources, and time to complete reconstruction. This study aimed to determine whether prepectoral compared to subpectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction offers expedited tissue expansion without affecting complication rates.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from January of 2016 to July of 2017 by a single surgeon were grouped into subpectoral (partial submuscular/partial acellular dermal matrix) or prepectoral (complete acellular dermal matrix coverage), and reviewed. The primary outcomes were total days and number of visits to complete expansion. Groups were compared by univariate analysis with significance set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

In total, 101 patients (subpectoral, n = 69; prepectoral, n = 32) underwent 184 immediate implant-based breast reconstructions (subpectoral, n = 124; prepectoral, n = 60). There was no difference in age, body mass index, smoking, or diabetes between the groups (all p > 0.05). Follow-up was similar between groups (179.3 ± 98.2 days versus 218.3 ± 119.8 days; p = 0.115). Prepectoral patients took fewer days to complete expansion (40.4 ± 37.8 days versus 62.5 ± 50.2 days; p < 0.001) and fewer office visits to complete expansion (2.3 ± 1 .7 versus 3.9 ± 1.8; p < 0.001), and were expanded to greater final volumes than subpectoral patients (543.7 ± 122.9 ml versus 477.5 ± 159.6 ml; p = 0.017). Between prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions, there were similar rates of minor complications (25 percent versus 18.5 percent; p = 0.311), readmissions (5 percent versus 2.4 percent; p = 0.393), seromas (8.3 percent versus 5.6 percent; p = 0.489), reoperations for hematoma (3.3 percent versus 1.6 percent; p = 0.597), and explantations (5 percent versus 2.4 percent; p = 0.393).

CONCLUSION

This novel analysis demonstrates that prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction can facilitate expansion to higher total volumes in nearly half the office visits compared to subpectoral placement in similar populations without increasing complication rates.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.