Early complications in delayed breast reconstruction: A prospective, randomized study comparing different reconstructive methods in radiated and non-radiated patients

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

For preference sensitive treatments, such as breast reconstructions, there are barriers to conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary aims of this systematic review were to investigate what type of research questions are explored by RCTs in breast reconstruction, where have they been performed and where have they been published, and to thematise the research questions and thus create an overview of the state of the research field.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials investigating any aspect of breast reconstructions were included. The PubMed database was searched with a pre-defined search string. Inclusion and data abstraction was performed in a pre-defined standardised fashion. For the purpose of this study, we defined key issues as comparison of categories of breast reconstruction and comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, when the thematisation was done.

RESULTS

A total of 419 abstracts were retrieved from the search. Of the 419, 310 were excluded as they were not RCTs concerning some aspect of breast reconstruction, which left us with 110 abstracts to be included in the study. The research questions of the included studies could more or less be divided into seven different themes inclusive of 2 key issues: Other issues - comparison of different categories of breast reconstruction, comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, surgical details within a category of breast reconstruction, surgical details valid for several categories of breast reconstruction, donor site management, anaesthetics, and non-surgical details. Only five studies compared key issues, and they all illustrate the challenges with RCTs in breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 110 publications based on RCTs in breast reconstruction have been published. Seven themes of research questions could be identified. Only five studies have explored the key issues. Better scientific evidence is needed for the key issues in breast reconstruction, for example by implementing a new study design in the field.

Long-term patient-reported back and shoulder function after delayed breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi flap: case-control cohort study

BACKGROUND

Sacrifice of the latissimus dorsi (LD) muscle might entail donor site morbidity when used in delayed breast reconstruction. Previous studies are small, have short follow-up, and demonstrate diverging results. The aims of this study were to evaluate long-term patient-reported effects on shoulder and back function following LD flap harvest, and to investigate predictors for a worse outcome.

METHOD

This is a retrospective observational case-control cohort study. Cases were all patients who had undergone an LD flap reconstruction during the years 2007-2017. Controls were patients reconstructed with a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap during the same time period. Participants completed two validated questionnaires; the BREAST-Q reconstruction LD domains and the Western Ontario Shoulder Osteoarthritis Index (WOOS).

RESULTS

A total of 135 cases (75 per cent) and 118 controls (60 per cent) responded to the questionnaires. The mean follow-up time was 7 years. Patients reconstructed with a LD flap were significantly less satisfied with their back and shoulder function when compared to the DIEP controls, as measured with BREAST-Q and WOOS. Predictors for a poor patient-reported back and shoulder function included axillary surgery and axillary radiotherapy, especially when combined, as well as higher age at reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Patients who have undergone LD flap for delayed breast reconstruction had a lower satisfaction with back and shoulder function, when compared to patients who had undergone a DIEP reconstruction. Delayed LD reconstruction should be used with care, especially in patients who have undergone axillary surgery and axillary radiotherapy.

Expander prosthesis and DIEP flaps in delayed breast reconstruction: Sensibility, patient-reported outcome, and complications in a five-year randomised follow-up study

Breast reconstruction is a given choice for many women following mastectomy. There are a multitude of methods available today, and thus, comparative studies are essential to match patients with suitable methods. The aim of this study was to compare 5-year outcomes following delayed breast reconstruction with expander prosthesis (EP) and with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps. Seventy-three patients, previously randomised to either a permanent EP or a DIEP flap breast reconstruction, were invited for a 5-year follow-up. Assessments included symmetry measurements, breast sensibility with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments and patient-reported outcome (PRO) with the BREAST-Q. Complications within the first 5 postoperative years were recorded. Additionally, BREAST-Q questionnaires were collected from non-randomised patients with an EP breast reconstruction. Between 2019 and 2022, 65 patients completed the follow-ups. Symmetry and PRO were significantly higher in the DIEP flap group. However, EP-reconstructed breasts were significantly more sensate and demonstrated areas with protective sensibility, unlike the DIEP flap breasts. The overall complication rates were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.27). Regression analysis identified body mass index as a risk factor for reoperation in general anaesthesia and for wound infection. No significant differences were found in a comparison of the randomised and the non-randomised EP groups' BREAST-Q results. This randomised 5-year follow-up study found PRO to be favourable following a DIEP flap reconstruction and sensibility to be better in EP reconstructions. The complication rates were comparable; however, longer follow-ups are warranted to cover the complete lifespans of the two breast reconstruction methods.

Donor-Site Satisfaction of DIEP and Latissimus Dorsi Flaps-A Comparative Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

 Understanding of donor-site morbidity and satisfaction after breast reconstruction is limited. There are few previous studies comparing satisfaction with different donor sites in breast reconstruction. This study aimed to examine the long-term patient-reported satisfaction with the donor site of latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps in comparison to the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps. Further, a systematic review of previously published studies was conducted.

METHODS

 In this retrospective cross-sectional study, all women who underwent breast reconstructions with either LD or DIEP flap following mastectomy and radiotherapy between 2007 and 2017 were included; patient-reported satisfaction was assessed using the BREAST-Q reconstruction module. For the systematic review, studies examining patient-reported abdominal satisfaction and well-being, and meeting the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) criteria were included.

RESULTS

 Eligible and responding participants were divided into the LD (n = 135 patients) and DIEP (n = 118 patients) flap groups. Impairment due to muscular weakness of the donor site was more common in the LD group than that of the DIEP group. Bulging was common in the DIEP group and increased over time. Regarding the esthetic appearance of the donor site, the patients in the DIEP group were less satisfied than the LD group. The systematic review showed that most of the patients were dissatisfied with their abdomen after the operation.

CONCLUSION

 Patients who have undergone DIEP flap for breast reconstruction are less satisfied with the donor-site esthetics than those who have undergone LD flap. Patient-reported abdominal bulging was common in the DIEP group and the number seemed to increase over time. Most patients were not satisfied with their abdominal scarring postoperatively, as per the systematic review. These results may indicate a need for more nuanced preoperative patient information, as well as improvements in the surgical management of the donor site, for DIEP flap reconstructions.

Advances in surface modifications of the silicone breast implant and impact on its biocompatibility and biointegration

Silicone breast implants are commonly used for cosmetic and oncologic surgical indications owing to their inertness and being nontoxic. However, complications including capsular contracture and anaplastic large cell lymphoma have been associated with certain breast implant surfaces over time. Novel implant surfaces and modifications of existing ones can directly impact cell-surface interactions and enhance biocompatibility and integration. The extent of foreign body response induced by breast implants influence implant success and integration into the body. This review highlights recent advances in breast implant surface technologies including modifications of implant surface topography and chemistry and effects on protein adsorption, and cell adhesion. A comprehensive online literature search was performed for relevant articles using the following keywords silicone breast implants, foreign body response, cell adhesion, protein adsorption, and cell-surface interaction. Properties of silicone breast implants impacting cell-material interactions including surface roughness, wettability, and stiffness, are discussed. Recent studies highlighting both silicone implant surface activation strategies and modifications to enhance biocompatibility in order to prevent capsular contracture formation and development of anaplastic large cell lymphoma are presented. Overall, breast implant surface modifications are being extensively investigated in order to improve implant biocompatibility to cater for increased demand for both cosmetic and oncologic surgeries.

Patient Reported Outcome and Quality of Life After Delayed Breast Reconstruction - An RCT Comparing Different Reconstructive Methods in Radiated and Non-radiated Patients

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is one of the core outcomes for breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the method of delayed breast reconstruction affects long-term HRQoL.

METHODS

Participants were divided into 2 arms depending on previous radiotherapy, and subsequently randomized between 2 methods of breast reconstruction: a latissimus dorsi flap or a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap in the radiated arm and a thoracodorsal flap and implant or an expander in the non-radiated arm. Validated HRQoL instruments were used: BREAST-Q to evaluate breast specific HRQoL and satisfaction, RAND-36 and EQ-5D to evaluate generic HRQoL, and BDI-21 to measure symptoms of depression and anxiety.

RESULTS

During the recruitment period (2009-2015), 233 patients were randomized. After opt-outs and exclusions, the remaining 107 participants comprise the study sample. Postoperative HrQoL was measured on average 7to 8years post-operatively. Response rates varied between 60 and 82 per cent. The BREAST-Q scores were higher after the reconstruction than before for the great majority of domains in both arms; albeit statistically significant only between the 2 methods for physical well-being chest in the radiated arm. Most participants in both arms had minimal or mild depression both before and after the operation.

CONCLUSION

No distinct differences in long-term HrQoL could be seen for different methods There was a clear improvement in HrQoL compared to pre-reconstruction in all groups, but the effect of specific reconstructive methods on scores could not be reliably demonstrated.

Autologous Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer

Background

Women undergoing autologous reconstruction (AR) after mastectomy for breast cancer and their surgeons must make decisions regarding timing of the AR and choose among various flap types. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of (1) timing of AR relative to chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and (2) various flap types for AR.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies, from inception to March 23, 2021, without language restriction. We assessed risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods.

Results

We screened 15,936 citations. Twelve mostly high risk of bias studies, including three randomized controlled trials and nine nonrandomized comparative studies met criteria (total N = 31,833 patients). No studies addressed timing of AR relative to chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Six flap types were compared, but conclusions were feasible for only the comparison between transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous (TRAM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps. The choice of either flap may result in comparable patient satisfaction with breasts and comparable risk of necrosis (low SoE for both outcomes), but TRAM flaps probably pose a greater risk of harm to the area of flap harvest (abdominal bulge/hernia and need for surgical repair) (moderate SoE).

Conclusions

Evidence regarding details for AR is mostly of low SoE. New high-quality research among diverse populations of women is needed for the issue of timing of AR and for comparisons among flap types.

Implant-based versus Autologous Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

For women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy, the comparative benefits and harms of implant-based reconstruction (IBR) and autologous reconstruction (AR) are not well known. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of IBR versus AR after mastectomy for breast cancer.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from inception to March 23, 2021. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods.

Results

We screened 15,936 citations and included 40 studies (two randomized controlled trials and 38 adjusted nonrandomized comparative studies). Compared with patients who undergo IBR, those who undergo AR experience clinically significant better sexual well-being [summary adjusted mean difference (adjMD) 5.8, 95% CI 3.4-8.2; three studies] and satisfaction with breasts (summary adjMD 8.1, 95% CI 6.1-10.1; three studies) (moderate SoE for both outcomes). AR was associated with a greater risk of venous thromboembolism (moderate SoE), but IBR was associated with a greater risk of reconstructive failure (moderate SoE) and seroma (low SoE) in long-term follow-up (1.5-4 years). Other outcomes were comparable between groups, or the evidence was insufficient to merit conclusions.

Conclusions

Most evidence regarding IBR versus AR is of low or moderate SoE. AR is probably associated with better sexual well-being and satisfaction with breasts and lower risks of seroma and long-term reconstructive failure but a higher risk of thromboembolic events. New high-quality research is needed to address the important research gaps.