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

Is Prepectoral Implant Reconstruction Associated With Better Physical Well-Being?

BACKGROUND

Improvements in mastectomy techniques, implants, and devices for implant support have enabled a resurgence in prepectoral implant reconstruction. One of the drivers of this shift is a perception among patients and physicians that retropectoral implants cause more physical morbidity. Although studies have shown more rapid early recovery among patients who undergo prepectoral reconstruction, little is known about whether this approach improves long-term physical outcomes.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was used to identify patients who underwent immediate implant-based postmastectomy reconstruction from October 2017 to March 2020. Patients who underwent radiation treatment or who failed to complete implant reconstruction were excluded. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including postoperative complications, were analyzed. BREAST-Q surveys were sent to patients 12-24 months following the completion of reconstruction. Bivariate independent t-test and chi-square analysis were used to compare prepectoral and retropectoral cohorts.

RESULTS

168 patients were identified. 78 (46.4%) completed questionnaires and met the inclusion criteria for the study. 33 patients had subpectoral implants and 45 patients had prepectoral implants. Nonresponders had a similar proportion of implant positions to responders (p = 0.32). The median time between mastectomy and completion of the BREAST-Q survey was 21 months (IQR, 20-23 months). Patients with subpectoral reconstruction were older (56 ± 13 vs. 50 ± 13 years, p = 0.048) and had higher BMIs (27.8 ± 7.3 vs. 24.2 ± 3.8 kg/m2, p = 0.012) and were less likely to have undergone direct-to-implant reconstruction (18.2% vs. 51.5%, p = 0.003). There were no other significant clinical or demographic differences between groups. BREAST-Q chest well-being data showed no significant difference in long-term chest wall morbidity among retropectoral and prepectoral cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

For many patients, prepectoral reconstruction confers esthetic benefits, including better projection and more stable implant and nipple position. However, there remain patients for whom a retropectoral approach is more suitable due to the risks of rippling and implant visibility. Surgical decision-making should continue to be individualized according to anatomic and disease-specific factors as well as surgeon and patient preference. However, patients should be reassured that their long-term physical well-being is unlikely to be affected by which technique is chosen.

Finding the Right Fill: The Ideal Tissue Expander Fill in Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

PURPOSE

Although many factors in prepectoral breast reconstruction such as mastectomy weight and flap quality are out of the plastic surgeon's control, some elements such as intraoperative tissue expander (TE) fill can be optimized. This study assesses the impact of intraoperative TE fill on postoperative complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction and posits the optimal fill.

METHODS

All consecutive, prepectoral TE reconstructions performed between March 2017 and December 2022 at a single center were reviewed. A "fill ratio" or ratio of intraoperative TE fill to mastectomy weight (TEF/MW) was constructed to quantify deadspace in the breast pocket, with values closer to 1 signifying less deadspace. Major complications include those requiring readmission or reoperation and minor complications include those that could be treated as an outpatient. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients (318 breasts) with average follow-up of 22 months were included. Patients were, on average, 53 years old, were nonsmoker (98%), were nondiabetic (91%), and had a body mass index of 26 kg/m2. Only immediate reconstructions were included and were performed following prophylactic mastectomies in 34% and therapeutic mastectomies in 66% of cases. Seventy-six (24%) breasts were radiated, and 93 (47%) patients received chemotherapy. Mean mastectomy weight was 546 g, median intraoperative TE fill was 175 ± 250 cc, and median final TE fill was 390 ± 220 cc.Major complications occurred in 64 (20%) breasts and were associated with less deadspace (0.49 vs 0.36, P < 0.05). In multivariable models, a higher fill ratio was associated with 2.4 times higher odds of major complications (95% CI, 1.2-4.7; P = 0.01). Optimal intraoperative TE fill for avoiding major complications was 80 cc, and optimal fill ratio was 0.09.Explantation occurred in 44 (14%) breasts and was associated with less deadspace (0.51 vs 0.35, P < 0.05); the optimal fill for avoiding explantation was 80 cc, and optimal ratio was 0.12.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher intraoperative TE fill and less deadspace were associated with postoperative complications. Filling a TE to 80 cc or approximately a tenth of mastectomy weight may reduce complications.

Impact of Prepectoral Implant Placement and Radiation Modalities (Protons/Photons/Dosimetry) in Mastectomy Patients Undergoing Immediate Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

PURPOSE

For patients with breast cancer receiving mastectomy with direct-to-implant (DTI) immediate breast reconstruction, placing the implant in the prepectoral or subpectoral plane remains debatable, especially in settings of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We reviewed 3039 patients who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction at our institution between 2005 and 2020. Patients receiving DTI with and without PMRT were included. PMRT was delivered either with a photon (3-dimensional-conformal or volumetric arc therapy) or proton therapy, mainly with pencil-beam-scanning. All patients received conventional fractionation (50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions). Primary endpoints were reconstruction complications defined as infection/necrosis requiring debridement; capsular contracture requiring capsulotomy; absolute reconstruction failure entailing permanent removal of the implant without replacement (ie, no salvage reconstruction); and overall reconstruction failure (removal of the implant for any complication with and without salvage reconstruction). Different subgroup analyses were done.

RESULTS

A total of 815 patients met inclusion criteria, with an overall median follow-up of 6.2 years. We found that there is no significant difference between prepectoral versus subpectoral for infection/necrosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; P = .3); capsular contracture (OR, 0.97; P = .9); absolute reconstruction failure (OR, 1.9; P = .12); and overall reconstruction failure (OR, 1.2; P = .5). Findings were confirmed using both logistic regression, time-to-event analysis, and multivariable analyses for the entire cohort and subgroups with and without PMRT. There was no significant difference between protons and photons in terms of infection/necrosis (OR, 1.6; P = .4) and absolute reconstruction failure (OR, 1.2; P = .7), but there were significantly higher risks for capsular contracture with protons (OR, 4.4; P < .001) and overall reconstruction failure compared with photons (OR, 2.0; P = .05). We did not find a significant correlation pattern between different dosimetry factors (the average dose, the maximum dose, and volume in cubic centimeter) in either the reconstructed chest wall target or the skin structure, about reconstruction complications, whether for proton or photon patients.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients receiving single-stage DTI reconstruction with and without PMRT, prepectoral implant placement had similar rates of complications and reconstruction failure compared with subpectoral reconstruction. Protons compared with photons did not increase the risk of infection/necrosis but significantly increased capsular contracture risks.

Patient-reported outcomes 3 and 18 months after mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Prepectoral techniques are becoming standard of care for implant-based breast reconstruction due to reduced impact on chest wall function and improved patient satisfaction. Evidence to support these benefits, however, is lacking. Here, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) in the Pre-BRA cohort are reported.

METHODS

Women undergoing PPBR after mastectomy for breast cancer or risk reduction between July 2019 and December 2020 were recruited. Participants completed the BREAST-Q preoperatively and at 3 and 18 months following surgery together with a single item evaluating overall satisfaction at 18 months. Women completing at least one BREAST-Q scale at any timepoint were eligible for inclusion. Questionnaires were scored according to the developers' instructions and scores compared over time. Exploratory analysis, adjusting for baseline scores was performed to explore factors impacting PROs.

RESULTS

In total 338 of 343 (98.5%) women undergoing PPBR at 40 UK centres were included in the analysis. Compared with baseline scores, women reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful decreases in both 'Physical' and 'Sexual well-being' at 3 and 18 months. Adjusting for baseline, at 18 months, those experiencing implant loss or having surgery for malignancy reported lower scores in all BREAST-Q domains. Overall, two-thirds of women (167/251) rated the outcome of their reconstruction as 'excellent/very good', but experiencing major complications, implant loss, and being dissatisfied with wrinkling/rippling in the reconstructed breast were associated with reduced satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

PPBR impacts postoperative physical well-being and PROs are variable. These findings should be discussed with patients to support informed decision-making based on realistic expectations of outcome.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ISRCTN11898000.

The use of Cortiva® Allograft Dermis in two-staged breast reconstruction: A matched-comparison and cost analyses study

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrices (ADM) are an adjunct in implant-based breast reconstruction. While clinical outcomes have generally been equivocal between brands, a cost analysis between these brands has yet to be conducted. This study reports a single, academic institution's experience with 2 ADM brands in breast reconstruction and provides data on clinical and financial outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent two-staged breast reconstruction with Cortiva® Allograft Dermis ® was matched with a cohort who received AlloDerm RTU. Comparison of clinical outcomes, such as complications and revision surgeries, in addition to a cost analysis was completed.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 24 patients who received Cortiva® and 24 patients who received AlloDerm. There were no statistical differences in demographics or breast-specific characteristics between the cohorts. Major complications were not statistically increased with Cortiva® use [Hazard Ratio 1.78 (0.421-7.66)], but the rate of revision following second-stage reconstruction trended toward significance with Cortiva® use [3.41 (0.99-11.80), p=0.05]. The material base cost and total cost following surgeries were lower for Cortiva® (44% of the AlloDerm costs) but the incremental costs did not display significant difference secondary to comparable complication and revision rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Cortiva® Allograft Dermis was shown to have a decreased cost in base material and total cost associated with surgery while also displaying comparable clinical outcomes and complication rate. Additional studies examining patient-reported outcomes would complement the growing literature comparing ADM brands.

"Prepectoral tissue expanders without mesh as a bridge to delayed autologous breast reconstruction: Experience at a single academic center"

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a useful adjunct in implant-based breast reconstruction. The benefits of using ADM with an expander as a temporary bridge to delayed autologous reconstruction are unknown. Placing prepectoral tissue expanders, without ADM, as a bridge to delayed autologous reconstruction could yield cost savings, shorten operating time and decrease complications. This investigation seeks to demonstrate the safety of placing prepectoral tissue expanders without ADM at the time of mastectomy as the first stage of autologous breast reconstruction. A retrospective, chart review was performed at our major academic institution between 2015 and 2020. Included were female patients, 18 years or older at the time of reconstruction, who underwent mastectomy with prepectoral tissue expander placement followed by autologous breast reconstruction at a delayed second stage. Excluded were patients of male gender, younger than 18, patients with lumpectomy only, subpectoral reconstruction, or immediate autologous reconstruction. Data on ADM, patient demographics, comorbidities, and cancer treatment were collected. There were 189 reconstructed breasts of which 56 (29.6 %) used ADM, 131 (69.3 %) did not use ADM, and 2 patients (1.1 %) of unknown ADM use. Expanders were in place for a mean time of 8.9±6.2 months. There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates between the ADM and no-ADM groups. Therefore, not wrapping prepectoral tissue expanders in ADM, at the time of mastectomy, has an equivalent rate of complications compared to ADM wrapping among patients who go on to have second stage autologous breast reconstruction.

Psychosocial Outcomes of Subpectoral vs. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Analysis

Introduction Breast reconstruction plays a critical role in restoring psychosocial well-being for patients after mastectomy. While both subpectoral and pre-pectoral implant placements are common, their impact on psychosocial outcomes remains understudied. This study investigates the influence of implant placement on patient-reported psychosocial well-being using BREAST-Q (Breast-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire). Methods We reviewed 69 patients who underwent breast reconstruction at Basildon Hospital between 2017 and 2023, utilizing BREAST-Q scales to evaluate psychosocial well-being, physical outcomes, and satisfaction with breasts. Statistical analysis was conducted using independent t-tests to compare psychosocial scores between patients who received subpectoral versus pre-pectoral implants. Results Subpectoral placement was significantly associated with higher psychosocial scores compared to pre-pectoral placement (75.7 vs. 61.9, p=0.046). No significant differences were observed in satisfaction with breasts between the two groups. Linear regression analysis revealed that subpectoral placement was an independent predictor of improved psychosocial outcomes, even after adjusting for other variables. Conclusions Subpectoral implant placement appears to offer superior psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction patients compared to pre-pectoral placement. These findings suggest that subpectoral placement should be considered the preferred option for patients prioritizing psychosocial well-being post-reconstruction. Further research is needed to explore the long-term effects of implant placement on quality of life.

Three and twelve-month analysis of the PROM-Q study: comparison of patient-reported outcome measures using the BREAST-Q questionnaire in pre- vs. sub-pectoral implant-based immediate breast reconstruction

PURPOSE

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is being increasingly performed with implant placed above the pectoral muscle (pre-pectoral), instead of below the pectoral muscle (sub-pectoral). Currently, there is a lack of comparative data on clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- vs. sub-pectoral IBR. We investigated whether this difference in surgical approach influenced clinical or patient-perceived outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective non-randomised longitudinal cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04842240) recruited patients undergoing immediate IBR at the Leeds Breast Unit (Sep 2019-Sep 2021). Data collection included patient characteristics and post-operative complications. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures were collected using the BREAST-Q questionnaire at baseline, 2 weeks, 3- and 12-months post-surgery.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients underwent IBR (46 patients pre-pectoral; 59% vs. 32 patients sub-pectoral; 41%). Similar complication rates were observed (15.2% pre-pectoral vs. 9.4% sub-pectoral; p = 0.44). Overall implant loss rate was 3.8% (6.5% pre-pectoral vs. 0% sub-pectoral; p = 0.13). Respective median Breast-Q scores for pre- and sub-pectoral IBR at 3 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 48; p = 0.01), psychosocial well-being (60 vs. 57; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 76; p = 0.53), and Animation Q scores (73 vs. 76; p = 0.45). Respective Breast-Q scores at 12 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 53; p = 0.3), psychosocial well-being (59 vs. 60; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 78; p = 0.18), and Animation Q scores (69 vs. 73; p = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates equivalent clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- and sub-pectoral IBR. The study findings can be utilised to aid informed decision making regarding either surgical option.

Comparison of Patient-Reported Quality of Life Following Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral and Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Using BREAST-Q: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background  Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction (DIR) is becoming more and more accepted. There is a lack of high-quality studies assessing differences in patient-reported quality of life (QoL) between different implant placement methods. The aim of this randomized controlled (clinical) trial was to compare QoL between women reconstructed by sub- or prepectoral implant placement. Methods  We included women over 18 years eligible for DIR. Patients were randomly assigned to reconstruction by subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement. Assessment of QoL and patient satisfaction was made using the BREAST-Q questionnaire for postmastectomy breast reconstruction and compared between the sub- and prepectoral reconstructed groups preoperatively and after 3 and 12 months of follow-up. Results  A total of 42 women were allocated to sub- or prepectoral reconstruction with 21 patients in each group. There were no differences in patient characteristics between groups. Regarding all the selected BREAST-Q scales: (1) satisfaction with the reconstructed breast, (2) satisfaction with the breast implant, (3) satisfaction with the overall outcome, (4) psychosocial well-being, (5) sexual well-being, and (6) physical well-being-we found no significant differences between the two groups. Assessing each group independently we found, that in both groups sexual well-being improved after surgery postoperatively compared to the preoperative scores. Conclusion  We found high satisfaction and QoL following both sub- and prepectoral breast reconstruction. We found no significant differences between groups suggesting both methods for DIR can be used. Despite our high-quality data, a larger sample size and longer postoperative follow-up are needed to further investigate the differences in QoL between sub- and prepectoral breast reconstruction.

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

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in the UK. Reconstruction - of which implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most common - forms a core part of surgical management of breast cancer. More recently, pre-pectoral IBBR has become common as technology and operative techniques have evolved. Many surgeons use acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in reconstruction however there is little evidence in literature that this improves surgical outcomes. This review will assess available evidence for surgical outcomes for breast reconstructions using ADM versus non-use of ADM.

METHODS

A database search was performed of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2012-2022). Studies were screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Risk of Bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale and ROBIS tools. Analysis and meta-analysis were performed.

RESULTS

This review included 22 studies (3822 breast reconstructions). No significant difference between overall complications and failure rates between ADM and non-ADM use was demonstrated. Capsular contracture, wound dehiscence and implant rippling had significant differences however these results demonstrated high heterogeneity thus wider generalisation may be inaccurate. Patient quality of life scores were not recorded consistently or comparably between papers.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests a lack of significant differences in most complications between ADM use and non-use for pre-pectoral IBBR. If no increase in complications exists between groups, this has significant implications for surgical and legislative decision-making. There is, however, inadequate evidence available on the topic and further research is required.

Establishing an equipoise: Does the use of acellular dermal matrices in pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction improve outcomes?

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in the United Kingdom. Surgical management commonly comprises mastectomy and reconstruction, of which implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most prevalent. Acellular dermal matrices (ADM) are widely used in pre-pectoral IBBR; however, there is limited high-quality evidence supporting their efficacy. This study aimed to establish an equipoise via an expert consensus survey.

METHODS

An online survey was designed with a steering group of experts. Questions covered participant information, opinions regarding surgical outcomes with ADM use in pre-pectoral IBBR and opinions regarding the available scientific evidence on the topic. The survey was advertised via national and international professional organisations. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two participants from the UK, Italy and Australia completed the survey. Key findings of this study included disagreement among participants regarding the surgical outcomes associated with ADM use. Participants who believed that ADM reduced the risk of short-term complications and implant failure/explantation comprised a minority (21.9%). Participants who felt that ADM use improved cosmetic outcomes and reduced long-term complications were a relative majority at 43.8% and 40.6%, respectively. Furthermore, 56.3% of the participants felt that there was scarce scientific evidence on the topic.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insights from international surgeons, establishing a lack of consensus on surgical outcomes, efficacy and evidence-base supporting the use of ADMs in pre-pectoral IBBR. Given this clinical equipoise, alongside the growing burden of breast cancer associated morbidity and need for reconstruction, the implications of this study are that large-scale, prospective, randomised-controlled data are needed to establish whether ADM use in pre-pectoral breast reconstruction improves the outcomes.

Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant versus Staged Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison of Complications

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction has multiple advantages over a staged tissue expander (TE) approach. However, its use may be limited by concerns of increased complications. This study is the largest series to date comparing postoperative outcomes for DTI versus TE reconstruction in the prepectoral plane.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed 348 patients who underwent 536 total immediate, prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions between January of 2018 and December of 2021. The authors compared the presence of risk factors and the rate of six separate complications between patients who underwent DTI versus TE reconstruction up to 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

Of 348 patients, 147 (42%) and 201 (58%) underwent TE and DTI reconstruction ( P = 0.1813), respectively. The overall infection rate was 16.4% ( n = 57). DTI patients had a significantly greater incidence of wounds ( P < 0.0001), including minor ( P < 0.0011) and major wounds ( P < 0.0053). Significantly greater mastectomy resection weights were found for DTI patients who experienced any complication ( P < 0.0076), postoperative wounds ( P < 0.0001), and major wounds specifically ( P < 0.0035). Compared with medium-thickness acellular dermal matrix (ADM), extra thick ADM was associated with significantly increased rates of infection ( P < 0.0408) and wounds ( P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral DTI reconstruction in patients with adequate flap perfusion may have complication rates comparable to staged TE reconstruction, apart from a higher incidence of postoperative wounds. Greater mastectomy resection weights and thickness of ADM may specifically contribute to infection and wound-healing complications. Prepectoral DTI reconstruction is encouraged in the patients with adequate flap perfusion and moderate to low mastectomy resection weights who desire comparable or smaller implant volumes.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Direct-to-Implant vs Tissue Expander Placement in Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction after mastectomy has gained increasing popularity. While concerns over ischemic complications related to tension on the mastectomy flap persist, newer techniques and technologies have enhanced safety of this technique.

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of DTI and 2-stage tissue expander (TE) reconstruction.

METHODS

A prospective cohort design was utilized to compare the incidence of reconstructive failure among patients undergoing DTI and TE reconstruction by unadjusted bivariate and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses. Secondary clinical outcomes of interest included specific complications requiring intervention (infection, seroma, hematoma, mastectomy flap necrosis, incisional dehiscence, device exposure) and time to final drain removal. Patient-reported outcomes on BREAST-Q were also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients (257 breasts) underwent DTI reconstruction and 222 patients (405 breasts) received TEs. DTI patients were significantly younger with lower BMIs; less diabetes, hypertension, and smoking; and smaller breast sizes; they also underwent more nipple-sparing mastectomies with prepectoral reconstructions. Rates of any complication (18% DTI vs 24% TE, P = .047), reconstructive failure (5.1% vs 12%, P = .004), and seroma (3.9% vs 11%, P < .001) were significantly lower in the DTI cohort on unadjusted analyses; however, there were no significant differences on adjusted regressions. Patient-reported satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being were more substantively improved with DTI reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral DTI reconstruction is a viable option for postmastectomy reconstruction in carefully selected patients, with no significant increase in reconstructive failure or other complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023389072.

Quantifying the Impact of Prepectoral Implant Conversion on Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Conversion of subpectoral reconstruction to the prepectoral plane has been increasing in popularity. However, there is a paucity of research assessing patient-reported outcomes after this operation. The primary aim of this study was to examine patient-reported outcomes after conversion of implants from the subpectoral to prepectoral plane using the BREAST-Q.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively examined patients who underwent subpectoral-to-prepectoral implant conversion by three surgeons at two separate centers from 2017 through 2021. Patient demographics, primary indication for the conversion, surgical characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and BREAST-Q scores were obtained.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight breasts in 39 patients underwent implant conversion. The most common primary indications for implant conversion were chronic pain (41%), animation deformity (31%), and cosmetic concerns (28%). Average BREAST-Q scores improved significantly preoperatively to postoperatively in all the domains measured (satisfaction with breasts, satisfaction with implants, physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being) ( P < 0.01). When examined by primary indication, all cohorts had significant preoperative to postoperative score improvement in satisfaction with breasts ( P < 0.001) and physical well-being ( P < 0.01) domains. Fifteen breasts (22%) developed postoperative complications, with implant loss in 9% of breasts.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of subpectoral implants to the prepectoral plane significantly improves BREAST-Q outcomes in all aspects, including patient satisfaction with breasts and implants, as well as psychosocial, physical, and sexual well-being. Implant conversion to the prepectoral plane is becoming the authors' primary solution for most patients with chronic pain, animation deformity, or cosmetic concerns after subpectoral reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Minimizing Nipple-Areolar Complex Complications in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

PURPOSE

Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) viability remains a significant concern following prepectoral tissue expander (TE) reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). This study assesses the impact of intraoperative TE fill on NAC necrosis and identifies strategies for mitigating this risk.

METHODS

A chart review of all consecutive, prepectoral TEs placed immediately after NSM was performed between March 2017 and December 2022 at a single center. Demographics, mastectomy weight, intraoperative TE fill, and complications were extracted for all patients. Partial NAC necrosis was defined as any thickness of skin loss including part of the NAC, whereas total NAC necrosis was defined as full-thickness skin loss involving the entirety of the NAC. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients (83 breasts) with an average follow-up of 22 months were included. Women were on average 46 years old, nonsmoker (98%), and nondiabetic (100%) and had a body mass index of 23 kg/m2. All reconstructions were performed immediately following prophylactic mastectomies in 49% and therapeutic mastectomies in 51% of cases. Three breasts (4%) were radiated, and 15 patients (33%) received chemotherapy. Mean mastectomy weight was 346 ± 274 g, median intraoperative TE fill was 150 ± 225 mL, and median final TE fill was 350 ± 170 mL. Partial NAC necrosis occurred in 7 breasts (8%), and there were zero instances of complete NAC necrosis. On univariate analysis, partial NAC necrosis was not associated with any patient demographic or operative characteristics, including intraoperative TE fill. In multivariable models controlling for age, body mass index, mastectomy weight, prior breast surgery, and intraoperative TE fill, partial NAC necrosis was associated with lower body mass index (odds ratio, 0.53; confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.98; P < 0.05) and higher mastectomy weight (odds ratio, 1.1; CI, 1.01-1.20; P < 0.05). Prior breast surgery approached significance, as those breasts had a 19.4 times higher odds of partial NAC necrosis (95% CI, 0.88-427.6; P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Nipple-areolar complex necrosis following prepectoral TE reconstruction is a rare but serious complication. In this study of 83 breasts, 7 (8%) developed partial NAC necrosis, and all but one were able to be salvaged.

Clinical Outcomes of Transaxillary Reverse-Sequence Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study of Initial 68 Procedures

BACKGROUND

Minimal access breast surgery improves cosmetic outcomes over conventional breast surgery but still faces barriers in becoming standard procedure for breast reconstruction. This report introduces a novel technique of transaxillary reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-E-NSM) followed by direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction (DTI-PBR) and describes its clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled patients who underwent R-E-NSM and DTI-PBR from March 2021 to December 2021 at a single institution. Perioperative data, surgical complications, oncologic outcomes, and patient- and surgeon-reported cosmetic results were noted.

RESULTS

The 60 patients in this study who underwent 68 R-E-NSM and DTI-PBR had a mean age was 40.4 ± 10.3 years. The average durations of uni- and bilateral operations were 156.5 ± 48.3 min and 191.3 ± 36.1 min, respectively. The overall surgical complication rate was 13.3%, including 10.0% of patients with minor complications and 3.3% of patients with major complications. The study had one case (1.7%) of implant loss and one case (1.7%) of skin flap necrosis treated by reoperation. During the median follow-up period of 24 months, one patient (1.7%) who discontinued chemotherapy for myelosuppression experienced liver metastases 5 months postoperatively, and one patient experienced new-onset contralateral ductal carcinoma in situ 24 months postoperatively. The preoperative and 18-month postoperative Breast-Q scores for satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and chest well-being did not differ significantly, and the Scar-Q was 81.2 ± 14.5 points. The good-to-excellent rate in surgeon-reported cosmetic results reached 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

Transaxillary R-E-NSM followed by DTI-PBR is a safe and efficient technique with high cosmetic outcomes and reliable medium-term oncologic results.

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy

Patients requesting breast reconstruction after mastectomy is an increasing group at plastic- and breast surgery departments in Denmark. This review summarises the present surgical techniques for reconstruction with/without postoperative chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. These surgical techniques are continuously updated. The most determining factor when selecting a reconstructive technique, is postoperative radiation therapy. Each patient is unique, and an individual assessment is made when planning surgery. The concept of a "babysitter implant" is currently being investigated in Denmark and might be an option for selected patients.

Prepectoral versus Submuscular Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Comparison of Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common reconstructive approach after mastectomy. Prepectoral implants offer advantages over submuscular implants, such as less animation deformity, pain, weakness, and postradiation capsular contracture. However, clinical outcomes after prepectoral reconstruction are debated. The authors performed a matched-cohort analysis of outcomes after prepectoral and submuscular reconstruction at a large academic medical center.

METHODS

Patients treated with implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy from January of 2018 through October of 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were propensity score exact matched to control demographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative differences. Outcomes assessed included surgical-site occurrences, capsular contracture, and explantation of either expander or implant. Subanalysis was done on infections and secondary reconstructions.

RESULTS

A total of 634 breasts were included (prepectoral, 197; submuscular, 437). A total of 292 breasts were matched (146 prepectoral:146 submuscular) and analyzed for clinical outcomes. Prepectoral reconstructions were associated with greater rates of SSI (prepectoral, 15.8%; submuscular, 3.4%; P < 0.001), seroma (prepectoral, 26.0%; submuscular, 10.3%; P < 0.001), and explantation (prepectoral, 23.3%; submuscular, 4.8%; P < 0.001). Subanalysis of infections revealed that prepectoral implants have shorter time to infection, deeper infections, and more Gram-negative infections, and are more often treated surgically (all P < 0.05). There have been no failures of secondary reconstructions after explantation in the entire population at a mean follow-up of 20.1 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is associated with higher rates of infection, seroma, and explantation compared with submuscular reconstructions. Infections of prepectoral implants may need different antibiotic management to avoid explantation. Secondary reconstruction after explantation can result in long-term success.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Patient-reported outcomes: A primer for plastic surgeons

Surgical care today is no longer evaluated only on clinical outcomes but also on holistic patient wellbeing. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a representation of the patient's perspective on their results and wellbeing. The aim of this review is to establish PROs as the center of healthcare and plastic surgery, to delineate important PROs in plastic surgery practice and research, to discuss the future of PROs within our discipline, and to encourage surgeons to incorporate PROs into their practice. PROs are an important parallel of clinical outcomes in that they can use the patient's perspective to 1) support clinical findings, 2) detect differences in care when there are no clear clinical differences, 3) track progress longitudinally, and 4) support systemic improvements in healthcare. Plastic surgery as a field is naturally aligned with PROs because, as a discipline, we focus on patient form and function. The emerging forefronts of plastic surgery such as lymphedema care, gender-affirming care, peripheral nerve surgery, migraine surgery, and breast implant illness are critically dependent on PROs. In the next decade, we predict that there will be a continued proliferation of robust PRO measures and integration into healthcare delivery. Outcomes research in surgery should continue to evolve as surgeons provide increasingly more benefits to improve patient wellbeing. Plastic surgeons must continue to play a prominent role in the future of PROs.

Return to Activities of Daily Living after Breast Cancer Surgery: An Observational Prospective Questionnaire-Based Study of Patients Undergoing Mastectomy with or without Immediate Reconstruction

Background

Patients often ask about the time taken to return to activities of daily living (ADLs) after breast surgery, but there is a lack of data to give accurate guidance. We aimed to assess the feasibility of a study to determine the time taken to return to ADLs after mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction.

Materials and Methods

A prospective multicentre, self-reported questionnaire-based feasibility study of women who had undergone mastectomy ± reconstruction was performed, between Jan 2017 and Dec 2019. Women were asked to self-report when they returned to 15 ADLs with a 5-option time scale for "return to activity."

Results

The questionnaire was returned by 42 patients (median [range] age: 64 [31-84]). Of these, 22 had simple mastectomy, seven mastectomy and implant reconstruction, seven mastectomy and autologous reconstruction (DIEP), and six did not specify. Overall, over 90% could manage stairs and brush hair by two weeks and 84% could get in and out of the bath by four weeks. By 1-2 months, 92% could do their own shopping and 86% could drive. 68% of women employed returned to work within four months. Compared to simple mastectomy, patients undergoing reconstruction took a longer time to return to getting in/out of bath (<2 vs. 2-4 weeks), vacuuming (2-4 weeks vs. 1-2 months), and fitness (1-2 vs. 3-4 months). There was a slower return to shopping (1-2 months vs. 2-4 weeks), driving and work (both 3-4 vs. 1-2 months), and sports (3-4 vs. 1-2 months) in autologous reconstruction compared to implant reconstruction.

Conclusion

This study is feasible. It highlights slower return to specific activities (particularly strength-based) in reconstruction patients, slower in autologous compared with implant reconstruction. The impact on return to ADLs should be discussed as part of the preoperative counselling as it will inform patients and help guide their decision making. A larger study is required to confirm these results.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q

BACKGROUND

Over the years, plastic surgery has acquired a central role in the integrated treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using the prepectoral approach has emerged as an alternative to reconstruction using the subpectoral technique to overcome the complications arising from this type of surgery resulting as a consequence of muscle elevation. The satisfaction and quality of life of patients undergoing DTI breast reconstruction were evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire, comparing the prepectoral and the subpectoral technique.

METHODS

A single-center cross-sectional study on patients who underwent mastectomy and DTI breast reconstruction at our institution between 2013 and 2021 was conducted. Eighty-one patients were included and mainly divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: 52 patients undergoing a subpectoral breast reconstruction approach and 29 patients receiving a prepectoral breast reconstruction. In order to assess the quality of life, the postoperative BREAST-Q module was administered electronically to the enrolled patients.

RESULTS

Higher scores in BREAST-Q domains were recorded from patients who underwent mastectomy and breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique: psychosocial well-being (P<0.0085), sexual well-being (P<0.0120), physical well-being: lymphoedema (P<0.0001) and satisfaction with information received (P<0.0045). There were further statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to postoperative complications (p<0.0465) and the need for reoperation (p<0.0275).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique were more satisfied in terms of psychosocial, sexual and also physical well-being. These patients also had statistically lower complications and reoperations compared to patients who received breast reconstruction with the subpectoral technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors 38 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 39 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 40 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 41 Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Safety and Quality of Life in Women with Immediate Reconstruction with Polyurethane Implants after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Outcomes from The Preq-20 Trial

INTRODUCTION

Various studies have evaluated the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on the complications of breast cancer surgery, most of which were retrospective and did not assess the variables related to postoperative risk factors. The aim of this study is to analyse the safety and satisfaction of women included in the PreQ-20 trial who underwent NAC and who underwent mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with prepectoral polyurethane implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The patients included in the study belong to the prospective study PreQ-20. The study group consisted of patients who underwent immediate reconstruction after primary systemic therapy. The control groups consisted of patients with immediate reconstruction and adjuvant chemotherapy (control group 1) and patients with an infiltrating carcinoma or in situ ductal carcinoma who did not require chemotherapy (control group 2).

RESULTS

The study included 157 women, 58 (36.9%) of whom underwent primary systemic therapy. The indication for genetic study was significantly greater for the study group (87.9%) than for control groups 1 (49.1%) or 2 (30.4%). Seventy-two (45.9%) of the patients underwent bilateral mastectomy (BM), a procedure that was performed significantly more frequently in the study group (69%) than in control groups 1 (30.2%) or 2 (34.8%). The incidence rate for BM after complete pathologic response was 78%. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of complications between the groups. Implant loss was significantly more frequent in control group 1 (13.2%) than in the study group (3.4%) and control group 2 (2.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Mastectomy with prepectoral polyurethane implant reconstruction in patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy presented a similar incidence of complications compared with patients who underwent primary surgery. There is a high rate of BM in women with NAC.

Does breast oncoplastic surgery improve quality of life?

Breast Oncoplastic Surgery (OS) has established itself as a safe procedure associated with the treatment of breast cancer, but the term is broad, encompassing procedures associated with breast-conserving surgeries (BCS), conservative mastectomies and fat grafting. Surgeons believe that OS is associated with an increase in quality of life (QOL), but the diversity of QOL questionnaires and therapeutic modalities makes it difficult to assess from the patient's perspective. To answer this question, we performed a search for systematic reviews on QOL associated with different COM procedures, and in their absence, we selected case-control studies, discussing the main results. We observed that: (1) Patients undergoing BCS or breast reconstruction have improved QoL compared to those undergoing mastectomy; (2) In patients undergoing BCS, OS has not yet shown an improvement in QOL, a fact possibly influenced by patient selection bias; (3) In patients undergoing mastectomy with reconstruction, the QoL results are superior when the reconstruction is performed with autologous flaps and when the areola is preserved; (4) Prepectoral implants improves QOL in relation to subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction; (5) ADM do not improves QOL; (6) In patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomy, satisfaction is high with the indication, but the patient must be informed about the potential complications associated with the procedure; (7) Satisfaction is high after performing fat grafting. It is observed that, in general, OS increases QOL, and when evaluating the procedures, any preservation or repair, or the use of autologous tissues, increases QOL, justifying OS.

The Impact of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on the Outcomes of Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction is the mainstay treatment choice for patients subjected to a mastectomy. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is deemed to be a promising alternative to subpectoral reconstruction. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is necessary for locoregional recurrence control and to improve the disease-free survival rate in locally advanced breast cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was designed to reveal the surgical, aesthetic, and oncological outcomes of prepectoral IBBR after PMRT.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed from inception to March 28, 2022. All clinical studies that included patients who were subjected to prepectoral IBBR and PMRT were included. Studies that included patients who received radiation therapy before prepectoral IBBR were excluded.

RESULTS

This systematic review included six articles encompassing 1234 reconstructed breasts. Of them, 391 breasts were subjected to PMRT, while 843 breasts were not subjected. Irradiated breasts were more susceptible to develop wound infection (RR 2.49; 95% 1.43, 4.35; P = 0.001) and capsular contracture (RR 5.17; 95% 1.93, 13.80; P = 0.001) than the non-irradiated breasts. Furthermore, irradiated breasts were more vulnerable to losing implants (RR 2.89; 95% 1.30, 6.39; P = 0.009) than the non-irradiated breast. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the risk of implant extrusion (RR 1.88; 95% 0.20, 17.63; P = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with prepectorally IBBR and PMRT were more vulnerable to developing poor outcomes. This included a higher risk of breast-related and implant-related adverse events.

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 .

Subpectoral versus prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction: A propensity score-matched analysis of 30-day morbidity and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Approximately 80% of patients undergoing total mastectomy in the US opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). A two-stage reconstruction with tissue expander (TE) remains the most common technique. Since the implementation of ADMs, a prepectoral approach has gained popularity and is becoming the standard of care. Herein, we compared the surgical and postoperative outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage IBBR.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed between January 2011 and December 2020. We included female patients undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR. The primary outcomes of this study were to compare the 30-day morbidity and the overall rate of complications during the first and second stages of reconstruction, and to compare the time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Propensity score matching was implemented.

RESULTS

After matching, 154 reconstructions were analyzed, 77 in each group. The two matched groups exhibited comparable (p > 0.05) characteristics for all analyzed demographic and intraoperative independent variables. Reconstructions in the prepectoral group had a shortened median time for drain removal (13-days vs. 15-days, p = 0.001). The intraoperative expansion volumes were higher in the prepectoral group (300 ml versus 200 ml, p = 0.025). The 30-day morbidity and first- and second-stage complication rates were not significantly different between groups. The time to start postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) was not significantly different between groups (134-days versus 126.5-days, p = 0.58).

CONCLUSION

Prepectoral and subpectoral TE placement had comparable complication rates during the first and second stages of IBBR. Timing for TE-to-Implant exchange and initiation of PMRT were comparable between the two approaches.