The Impact of Animation Deformity on Quality of Life in Post-Mastectomy Reconstruction Patients

Capsular Contracture After Postmastectomy Radiation in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Effect of Implant Pocket and Two-Stage Surgery

Capsular contracture (CC) is a concerning issue for individuals undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) with implant-based breast reconstruction. This study investigated whether the extent of CC and implant migration differs based on implant placement and the reconstruction stage. Insertion plane and stage of breast implants were investigated, and the presence and severe cases of CC and implant migration were analyzed. Among 195 participants, 83 were in the pre-pectoral group, and 112 were in the sub-pectoral group. Two-staged surgery was performed on 116 patients, while 79 underwent direct-to-implant (DTI). Notably, The occurrence of CC (prepectoral, 17 [20.48%] and subpectoral, 42 [37.50%]; p = 0.011), CC severity (prepectoral, 4 [4.82%] and subpectoral, 17 [15.17%]; p = 0.021), and implant upward migration (prepectoral, 15 [18.07%] and subpectoral, 38 [33.92%]; p = 0.014) significantly varied between the two groups. The incidence of CC was more common in the DTI group (odds ratio [OR], 2.283; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.164-4.478). Furthermore, subpectoral placement was an independent risk factor for occurrence (OR, 2.989; 95% CI, 1.476-6.054) and severity of CC (OR, 38.552; 95% CI, 1.855-801.186) and upward implant migration (OR, 2.531; 95% CI, 1.263-5.071). Our findings suggest that pre-pectoral reconstruction and the two-stage operation benefit patients who may undergo PMRT. These approaches can help reduce the incidence of CC and abnormal implant migration following radiation, leading to improved aesthetic outcomes and greater patient satisfaction.

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.

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.

Technical Refinements and Outcomes Assessment in Prepectoral Pocket Conversion After Postmastectomy Radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Several studies show how submuscular breast reconstruction is linked to animation deformity, shoulder dysfunction, and increased postoperative chest pain, when compared to prepectoral breast reconstruction. In solving all these life-impairing side effects, prepectoral implant pocket conversion has shown encouraging results.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to propose a refinement of the prepectoral implant pocket conversion applied to previously irradiated patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on 42 patients who underwent previous nipple- or skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate submuscular reconstruction, followed by radiotherapy. We performed fat grafting sessions as regenerative pretreatment. Six months after the last fat graft, we performed the conversion, with prepectoral placement of micropolyurethane foam-coated implants. We investigated the preconversion and postconversion differences in upper limb range of motion, Upper Extremity Functional Index, and patient satisfaction with the breast and physical well-being of the chest.

RESULTS

We reported a resolution of animation deformity in 100% of cases. The range of motion and the Upper Extremity Functional Index scores were statistically improved after prepectoral implant pocket conversion. BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with the breast and physical well-being of the chest were also improved.

CONCLUSIONS

The refined prepectoral implant pocket conversion is a reliable technique for solving animation deformity and improving quality of life in patients previously treated with submuscular reconstruction and radiotherapy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

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.

A proposed reconstruction method of a 3D animation scene based on a fuzzy long and short-term memory algorithm

With the development of computer technology leading to a broad range of virtual technology implementations, the construction of virtual tasks has become highly demanded and has increased rapidly, especially in animation scenes. Constructing three-dimensional (3D) animation characters utilizing properties of actual characters could provide users with immersive experiences. However, a 3D face reconstruction (3DFR) utilizing a single image is a very demanding operation in computer graphics and vision. In addition, limited 3D face data sets reduce the performance improvement of the proposed approaches, causing a lack of robustness. When datasets are large, face recognition, transformation, and animation implementations are relatively practical. However, some reconstruction methods only consider the one-to-one processes without considering the correlations or differences in the input images, resulting in models lacking information related to face identity or being overly sensitive to face pose. A face model composed of a convolutional neural network (CNN) regresses 3D deformable model coefficients for 3DFR and alignment tasks. The manuscript proposes a reconstruction method for 3D animation scenes employing fuzzy LSMT-CNN (FLSMT-CNN). Multiple collected images are employed to reconstruct 3D animation characters. First, the serialized images are processed by the proposed method to extract the features of face parameters and then improve the conventional deformable face modeling (3DFDM). Afterward, the 3DFDM is utilized to reconstruct animation characters, and finally, high-precision reconstructions of 3D faces are achieved. The FLSMT-CNN has enhanced both the precision and strength of the reconstructed 3D animation characters, which provides more opportunities to be applied to other animation scenes.

Selective Capsulotomies and Partial Capsulectomy in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Revision Surgery

Background

Breast cancer with about 2.3 million diagnoses and 685,000 deaths globally is the most frequent malignancy in the female population. Continuous research has led to oncological and reconstructive advances in the management of breast cancer, thus improving outcomes and decreasing patient morbidity. Nowadays, the submuscular expander and prosthesis (E/P) implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) accounts for 73% of all reconstructions. Despite its widely accepted efficacy, the technique is not free from complications and up to 28% of cases require revision surgery for mechanical complications such as capsular contracture, implant displacement/rotation, and implant rupture. With this study, the authors report their experience in the management of E/P IBR revision surgery through the technique of Selective Capsulotomies (SCs) and Partial Capsulectomy (PC).

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on patients who had previously undergone E/P IBR and presented for revision reconstruction between January 2013 and May 2023 at the Department of Plastic Surgery of the University of Siena, Italy. Reasons for revision included capsular contracture, implant displacement/rotation, and implant rupture. Revision reconstructions involved SC and PC with implant replacement. Fat grafting was also considered. The complication rate was evaluated by analysis of patients' medical records. Patients' satisfaction with the treatment was assessed through a specific questionnaire.

Results

32 patients underwent revision surgeries. No early complication occurred. Recurrence rate was assessed at 19% with average follow-up of 59 months (range: 13-114 months). The average time between revision surgery and recurrence was 3 years (range: 1-6 years). 23 patients answered the questionnaire and were overall satisfied with the treatments (8.29/10).

Conclusions

SC possibly associated to PC is a valuable option for E/P IBR revision surgery with minimal complications, reduced surgical trauma, short operating time, and relatively low recurrence risk. In addition, treated patients are overall satisfied with the results over time.

Local Flaps to Cover Skin Necrosis after Skin-sparing Mastectomy and Prepectoral Reconstruction from PreQ-20 Trial

Background

In recent years, mastectomy has increasingly been indicated for women at high risk and those with breast cancer. Prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane implant is an option for these patients. Nevertheless, this procedure can become complicated with exposure of the implant. The aim of this article is to describe the feasibility of local flaps to treat skin necrosis and dehiscence after prepectoral reconstruction and its impact on implant loss.

Methods

This study includes the women who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the PreQ-20 protocol (12), which assessed patients with exposed implant who required a local flap for its coverage. Three types of flaps were used: thoracoepigastric, lateral thoracic, and batwing.

Results

The study included 226 skin-sparing mastectomies and immediate reconstruction using prepectoral implants (52.7% bilateral mastectomies). Some 20.9% of the patients showed complications, with wound dehiscence the most frequent. Thirteen local flaps to cover the implant were performed. All flaps presented appropriate perfusion; however, the implant cover failed in six patients (46.2%).

Conclusions

The use of local flaps can be a low-morbidity option for preventing implant loss when skin dehiscence or necrosis occurs and delays in oncology treatments.

Managing the animation deformity in breast reconstruction transposing the implant to a partial prepectoral pocket: Early experience and preliminary results with a new technique

BACKGROUND

Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction remains the most commonly used technique for rebuilding a breast. Subpectoral implant placement minimizes complications, such as capsular contracture, implant visibility, malposition, and extrusion. Nevertheless, it is associated with high animation deformity (AD). Prepectoral reconstruction eliminates AD but is subject to a higher risk of implant extrusion and visibility. In this prospective, single-center study we present a new technique aimed to create a new hybrid pocket in which the upper portion of the implant is placed subcutaneously, whereas its inferior pole is still covered by a pectoralis muscle sling reducing implant lower pole visibility and palpability.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In each case, the prosthesis was removed and a new hybrid pocket was created by splitting the muscle into two portions, separating its cranial part from the overlying subcutaneous tissue and anchoring it back to the chest wall. The caudal muscle sling was left adherent to the subcutaneous tissue of the central part of the breast. Patient outcomes were evaluated with a BREAST-Q questionnaire preoperatively and 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients with severe postoperative breast animation were enrolled (8 bilateral and 40 unilateral). No major complications occurred. After a 1-year follow-up, the aesthetic and functional satisfaction rate was high and a good implant coverage was achieved. No residual AD of the breast was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Changing the implant placement from the subpectoral to a partially subcutaneous plane, both severe AD and implant extrusion can be avoided, expanding the indications for safe prosthetic breast reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level of evidence IV.

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.

How to convert a submuscular/dual plane reconstruction to a pre-pectoral pocket implant reconstruction

A conversion from subpectoral breast reconstruction to pre-pectoral breast reconstruction can help with animation resolution and improved patient satisfaction. We describe the conversion technique involving removal of the existing implant, creating a neo-pre-pectoral pocket and restoring the pectoral muscle to its natural position.

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 .

Risk stratification in subpectoral to prepectoral pocket conversion to reduce post-reconstruction animation deformity

BACKGROUND

Animation deformity is a morbid complication that impacts women undergoing subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Transferring implants from the subpectoral to prepectoral space, pocket conversion, can be performed to minimize this issue. While prior literature has evaluated outcomes associated with this procedure, we investigated the risk factors most commonly associated with post-conversion complications.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort investigation of women undergoing prepectoral pocket conversion. Pre-conversion clinical characteristics and surgical complications (major and minor) were collected. Predictors for postoperative complications were identified using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Odds ratios (OR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) are presented with 95% confidence intervals, and p-values were assessed at α = 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 34 patients (63 breasts) were included. Pocket conversion relieved animation deformity in all breasts. The overall rates of major and minor complications were 14.3% (n = 9/63) and 34.9% (n = 22/63), respectively, by mean follow-up of 11.1 months. After adjusting for confounders, pre-conversion implant rupture (OR= 6.00, CI= 0.99-34.58; aOR= 12.8, CI= 1.15-170.32) and duration of implant placement (OR=1.35, CI= 1.07-1.78; aOR= 1.1, CI= 1.00-1.21) were found to be significant predictors of major postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

With a fairly inclusive patient population, this series provides data for improved risk stratification of patients considering conversion to relieve animation deformity. Interestingly, traditional risk factors (namely, body mass index and smoking status) were not significant predictors for postoperative complications, suggesting that conversion may be safe in high-risk patients. Such data support more informed preoperative counseling and wider application of this procedure.

Direct-to-Implant Subcutaneous Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Complications and Patient's Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

The use of direct-to-implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction has increased over the last years. The goal of this systematic review is to deliver an updated review of the safety of this technique and its impact on quality of life. We also compare subcutaneous vs submuscular complications, through meta-analysis.

METHODS

Literature review through PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were performed by PRISMA criteria. Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria for subcutaneous review and 15 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. All included studies were evaluated for complications and answers to the BREAST-Q. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel, IBM SPSS, and Cochrane RevMan.

RESULTS

In 2863 patients and 3988 breasts that undergone direct to implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction, 8,21% had rippling, 5,64% seroma, 1,74% hematoma, 3,40% infection, 3,01% wound dehiscence, 3,93% skin necrosis, 3,34% nipple-areolar-complex (NAC) necrosis, 3,07% capsular contracture, 0,00% animation deformity, and 3,83% an implant removal. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in the odds ratio of animation deformity, a but statistically significant higher odds ratio of rippling. Subcutaneous and submuscular reconstructions had similar BREAST-Q scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct-to-implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction does not harm the patient's quality of life, comparatively with submuscular, saving the pectoral muscle from dissection and preventing animation deformity, but increasing the risk of rippling.

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 .

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) remains the standard and most popular option for women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy worldwide. Recently, prepectoral IBBR has resurged in popularity, despite limited data comparing prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2021, was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, data were extracted by independent reviewers. Studies that compared prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR for breast cancer were included.

RESULTS

Overall, 15 studies with 3,101 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that patients receiving prepectoral IBBR experienced fewer capsular contractures (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.92; P = 0.02), animation deformity (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.25; P = 0.002), and prosthesis failure (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference between prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR in overall complications (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.09; P = 0.19), seroma (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.59-2.51; P = 0.60), hematoma (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18; P = 0.22), infection (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.63-1.20; P = 0.39), skin flap necrosis (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.45-1.08; P = 0.11), and recurrence (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.52-3.39; P = 0.55). Similarly, no significant difference was found in Breast-Q scores between the prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that prepectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction is a safe modality and has similar outcomes with significantly lower rates of capsular contracture, prosthesis failure, and animation deformity compared with subpectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix: Have We Come Full Circle?

Breast reconstruction is an integral part of breast cancer treatment [...].

Evaluation of Breast Animation Deformity following Pre- and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background  The incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) is reported to be substantial after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with subpectoral implant placement. It has, however, never been examined if BAD can occur following prepectoral implant placement. Our primary aim was to compare the incidence and degree of BAD after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement. Secondary aim of this study was to assess and compare the level of pain between sub- and prepectoral reconstructed women. Methods  In this randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to reconstruction by either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines. The degree of BAD was assessed by the "Nipple, Surrounding skin, Entire breast (NSE)" grading scale 12 months after surgery. The level of postoperative pain was assessed on a numerical pain rating scale. Results  We found a significant difference in the degree of BAD favoring patients in the prepectoral group (23.8 vs. 100%, p  < 0.0001; mean NSE grading scale score: 0.4 vs. 3.6, p  < 0.0001). The subpectoral reconstructed group reported higher levels of pain on the three subsequent days after surgery. No significant difference in pain levels could be found at 3 months postoperatively. Conclusion  The incidence and degree of BAD was significantly lower in women reconstructed by prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Unexpectedly, we found mild degrees of BAD in the prepectoral group. When assessing BAD, distortion can be challenging to discern from rippling.

Evaluation of the Safety of a GalaFLEX-AlloDerm Construct in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is gaining in popularity. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are an integral part of prepectoral reconstruction. However, large quantities of ADM are required for total implant coverage and the cost of ADMs could be a deterrent to reconstruction. To minimize the cost, the authors have resorted to the use of a bioabsorbable mesh, GalaFLEX, as a partial replacement to ADMs. This study evaluates the comparative safety of using a GalaFLEX-AlloDerm construct versus AlloDerm alone in prepectoral reconstruction.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent immediate, expander-implant, prepectoral breast reconstruction were included in this retrospective study. Patients were stratified into two groups: those who received GalaFLEX-AlloDerm combination versus AlloDerm alone. In GalaFLEX-AlloDerm reconstructions, the lower third of the expander was covered by the AlloDerm while the rest of the expander was covered by GalaFLEX. Complications following reconstruction were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

AlloDerm alone was utilized in 128 patients (249 breasts) and GalaFLEX-AlloDerm in 135 patients (250 breasts). Rate of any complication was 7.6% in the AlloDerm alone group and 6.4% in the GalaFLEX-AlloDerm group. Rate of infection, major skin necrosis, seroma, capsular contracture, prosthesis exposure/extrusion, and prosthesis loss were ≤3.0% in the GalaFLEX-AlloDerm group and did not differ significantly from those in the AlloDerm only group.

CONCLUSIONS

GalaFLEX bioabsorbable matrix is a less costly alternative to ADMs in two-staged, prepectoral reconstruction with comparable safety outcomes. Further long-term data and clinical experience are needed to better understand the safety of this matrix for use in breast reconstruction.

Pectoral Muscle Re-Attachment with Breast Implant Removal

Breast implant removal is an increasingly requested procedure. An uncommon but important reason for this is breast animation deformity (BAD). Although methods such as the split muscle have been used for prevention and correction of animation deformity successfully for many years, [1, 2] we occasionally see patients who have undergone explantation and present with unresolved animation. These patients have had prior unsuccessful attempts at correction by further muscle release, and explantation was done as a final attempt at resolution. We regard muscle re-attachment as key to correction of animation. Herein we present illustrative cases and discuss technical points.

Extramuscular and Intramuscular Course of the Nerve Innervating the Abdominal Part of the Pectoralis Major Muscle: An Anatomical Study with Regard to Transaxillary Endoscopic Subpectoral Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

During transaxillary endoscopic subpectoral breast augmentation, the innervation of the abdominal part of the pectoralis major muscle can be injured. The question has been raised whether this could even be of value, as for a better result, the caudal fibers of the pectoralis major muscle have to be detached from their origin. The authors' aim was to identify the exact position and the intramuscular course and target of these nerve branches.

METHODS

Fifty pectoralis major muscles and their supplying nerve branches from 27 formalin-fixed anatomical specimens were studied using macroscopic dissection and anthropometry. Furthermore, eight muscles underwent the modified Sihler procedure to determine the intramuscular course and target of the supplying nerve branches.

RESULTS

The branches for the abdominal part of the pectoralis major muscle pierced the pectoralis minor muscle or coursed around its lower border 3.2 to 8.4 cm from the tip of the coracoid process. Within the muscle, at least one small nerve branch, innervating the abdominal part, ascended into the lowermost portion of the sternocostal head, and anastomosed with the lowest small branch of its supplying nerve branches.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the variable position of the nerve branches, they may often cross the operative field during transaxillary endoscopic breast augmentation. However, their interruption can be of value, because weakening of the lower part of the pectoralis major muscle is desired to keep the implant in place, and to avoid animation deformity.

Comparing post-surgical outcomes of pre-pectoral versus dual-plane direct-to-implant breast reconstruction without increasing the use of acellular dermal matrix

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction when performed using the dual-plane technique can be associated with increased postoperative pain, longer recovery, functional impairment, and animation deformity. These issues can be avoided by using the pre-pectoral technique that traditionally uses larger pieces of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and results in increased costs. It is unclear how these two methods compare when the technique is modified to avoid the use of additional ADM.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction using a dual-plane or pre-pectoral technique between January 2014 and December 2019. Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction was performed using a partial anterior coverage technique, and therefore no additional ADM was used per case as compared to the dual-plane technique. Rates of post-surgical complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 77 patients, 48 (86 breasts) underwent dual-plane reconstruction, whereas 29 (48 breasts) underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction. Mean follow-up time for the dual-plane and pre-pectoral groups was 23.3 and 8.7 months, respectively (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in the rates of any of the short-term post-surgical outcomes between the two groups: seroma (14% vs 6.3%, p = 0.175); hematoma (2.3% vs 4.2%, p = 0.617); skin/nipple necrosis (7% vs 10.4%, p = 0.522); wound skin infection (2.3% vs 2.1%, p = 1.0); wound dehiscence (4.7% vs 2.1, p = 0.654); and implant loss (1.2% vs 8.3%, p = 0.055).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-pectoral reconstruction using a partial anterior coverage technique appears to be a safe alternative to dual-plane reconstruction when considering short-term post-surgical complications.

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.

Short- to Medium-term Outcome of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Direct-to-implant Reconstruction using Acellular Dermal Matrix

Subpectoral implant reconstruction (SIR) is associated with animation deformity and increased postoperative pain. The aim of our study was to compare the short- to medium-term outcome of prepectoral implant reconstruction (PIR) and SIR with acellular dermal matrix.

A Critical Appraisal of Late Complications of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers improved aesthetics without compromising oncologic safety. Subpectoral breast reconstruction has long been standard practice, although prepectoral reconstruction has recently resurged in popularity. Due to this recent paradigm shift, studies comparing long-term outcomes by reconstructive plane are lacking.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive NSMs with implant-based reconstruction in either the prepectoral or subpectoral plane from 2014 to 2018. Patient demographics, implant specifications, and operative details were collected to evaluate primary outcomes of prosthetic failure and unplanned reoperations by reconstructive plane. Secondary outcomes included animation deformity, capsular contracture, rippling, plane change, and minor revisions, including fat grafting. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 405 NSMs were performed on 228 women (subpectoral = 202, prepectoral = 203), with a mean follow-up of 2.1 years (standard deviation 1.1). During the study period (2014-2018), a shift from subpectoral to predominantly prepectoral mastectomies occurred in 2017. Prepectoral reconstructions were more often direct-to-implant (DTI) compared with subpectoral (73.9% vs. 33.2%, p < 0.001). Prepectoral reconstruction demonstrated significantly reduced prosthetic failure (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.65) and unplanned reoperations (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.77) compared with subpectoral reconstruction after controlling for implant characteristics and other possible confounders. Prepectoral patients experienced decreased animation deformity overall (19.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), with plane changes seen in 10.6% of subpectoral reconstructions for animation deformity correction. Prepectoral patients experienced an increase in rippling (15.3% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.003) without a significant increase in fat grafting (subpectoral = 11.6% vs. prepectoral = 12.3%, p = 0.829).

CONCLUSIONS

This single-institution experience compares late complications of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based reconstruction following NSM. Prepectoral reconstruction can be safely performed with improved understanding of mastectomy planes, readily affords DTI reconstruction, and reduces animation deformity at the expense of rippling.

The nerve supply to the pectoralis major: An anatomical study and clinical application of the denervation in subpectoral breast implant surgery

BACKGROUND

Using the subpectoral approach, animation deformity or breast distortion due to pectoralis muscle contraction is common. Although the anatomy of the pectoral nerves has been extensively studied, only few studies have related the location of these nerves to bony landmarks.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim is to clarify the anatomy and possible variations of the innervation of the pectoralis major in relation to bony landmarks useful for surgery and to identify the preferred level for (selective) denervation by 1) transecting the nerves and 2) splitting the muscle in subpectoral breast implant surgery in cadavers.

METHODS

Fourteen pectoral regions (both left and right side) were dissected on 7 formaldehyde-fixed cadavers. The origin, locations, and course were mapped and (distances to) landmarks were reported.

RESULTS

The lateral pectoral nerve, medial pectoral nerve, and ansa pectoralis were identified in all cadavers. Nerve branches pierce the pectoralis minor or run along its upper or lower border. The piercing nerves vary from one to three branches and were consistently located lateral to the midclavicular line. The horizontal and vertical distances to bony landmarks varied greatly and depended on the size and location of the pectoralis minor, except for the nerve running along the upper border of the PMin, which was located consistently around 30% of the clavicular line from the acromioclavicular joint to the sternoclavicular joint.

CONCLUSION

We were unable to define a fixed landmark to mark pre- or peroperatively. However, we could define guidelines that help to identify and excise or preserve nerves of interest.

Pattern of local recurrence after mastectomy and reconstruction in breast cancer patients: a systematic review

Background

This study aimed to describe the locations of local recurrences based on the mastectomy and reconstruction type in breast cancer patients.

Methods

In November 2020, a systematic literature review was performed through MEDLINE/PubMed and the Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials. Publications that included skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by breast reconstruction and described the location of local recurrences were analyzed. Exclusion criteria included salvage or prophylactic mastectomy, unclear distinction between local and regional recurrences, rare tumor types.

Results

From 19 publications, 272 local recurrences lesions were reported in a total of 4,787 patients. After autologous reconstruction (n=2,465), local recurrences were located in the skin in 45 (1.8%) patients, in the chest wall in 18 (0.7%), and in the nipple-areolar complex in 9 (0.4%). After implant reconstruction (n=1,917), local recurrences sites included the skin in 91 (4.7%) patients, chest wall in 8 (0.4%), and nipple-areolar complex in 8 (0.4%). Of the 70 lesions with reported in-breast location, 57 (81.4%) relapsed in the original tumor location.

Discussion

Although meta-analysis was not conducted, present analysis demonstrated that most local recurrences after skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy occurred within the skin or subcutaneous tissues. It was found that the original tumor location was the most frequent site of relapse. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the original tumor overlying the skin while planning postmastectomy radiation therapy.

Breast Animation Deformity: A Retrospective Study on Long-Term and Patient-Reported Breast-Q Outcomes

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the aesthetic outcomes and quality of life of patients who underwent neurotomy of the lateral and medial branch of the pectoralis nerve for animation deformity after breast reconstruction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Health-related quality of life questionnaire and cosmetic outcome evaluation were conducted using the preoperative and the postoperative BREAST-Q modules for reconstructive surgery. An external author also assessed the general aesthetic outcome before and after surgery.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients with animation deformity after breast reconstruction were enrolled: 43 in group 1 (second-stage breast reconstruction), 10 in group 2 (permanent breast prosthesis), and 9 in group 3 (Baker III-IV capsular contraction). Patients scored high level of satisfaction with outcome concerning all aspects of the survey. Overall satisfaction with breast was significantly increased after surgery in all the 3 groups, whereas physical well-being was improved in group 1 and group 3 and psychosocial well-being was improved in group 1. General outcome evaluation by an external author, compared with the preoperative condition, also showed significant improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Section of the lateral and medial branches of the pectoralis nerve represents an easy and reproducible technique, associated with low morbidity and very good results in terms of patient satisfaction, comfort, and hospitalization.

Prepectoral immediate breast reconstruction with polyurethane foam-coated implants: Feasibility and early results in risk-reducing and therapeutic mastectomies

BACKGROUND

There is a renewed interest for prepectoral reconstruction. We aimed to describe the feasibility and the early complications associated with immediate one-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using prepectoral anatomical polyurethane (PU) foam-coated implants alone, for women with breast cancer or mutation carriers undergoing risk-reducing surgery.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, retrospective review of 50 patients (mean age of 49 years), who underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and immediate prepectoral PU implant-based reconstruction. All procedures were performed by the same senior operator, from July 2018 to March 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 64 mastectomies (25 SSMs and 39 NSMs) with one-stage prepectoral PU foam-coated implant reconstruction were performed. Out of 50 patients, 6 required surgical revision within 30 days, because of hematoma (2), wound dehiscence (2) infection (1), and full thickness nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis (1). Four patients developed a cutaneous rash with spontaneous resolution. Statistical analysis showed a significant influence of hypothyroidism and previous radiotherapy on the risk of complications. The association with prior radiotherapy (pRT) was not significant using binary logistic regression. When excluding oncological reasons and patient's wish for NAC excision, our decision to perform an NSM was influenced by breast cup size, preoperative measurements, and breast weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Early experience with immediate prepectoral DTI reconstruction with PU-covered implants alone suggests that it is a reliable procedure. Prior breast irradiation does not increase postoperative complication rates in our series. NAC preservation was decided according to preoperative lower breast measurements.

Development and Psychometric Validation of the BREAST-Q Animation Deformity Scale for Women Undergoing an Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

To assess the impact of animation deformity on health-related quality of life, a content-specific, valid, and reliable patient-reported outcome measure is needed. This report describes the development and validation of the BREAST-Q Animation Deformity scale.

METHODS

Women with breast cancer who had an implant-based reconstruction provided data. In phase 1 (January 2017 and December 2018), qualitive and cognitive patient interviews and expert input were used to develop and refine scale content. In phase 2 (March to June 2019), a field test study with members of the Love Research Army (LRA) was conducted. Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) analysis was used to examine psychometric properties.

RESULTS

In phase 1 of the study, qualitative (n = 11) and cognitive (n = 4) interview data and expert input (n = 9) led to the development of a 12-item scale measuring animation deformity. In phase 2, 651 LRA members provided data and 349 participated in a test-retest study. In the RMT analysis, the data fit the Rasch model (X²(96) = 104.06; p = 0.27). The scale's reliability was high, with person separation index and Cronbach alpha values with/without extremes of ≥ 0.84 and ≥ 0.92 respectively, and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.94). Mean scores on the Animation Deformity scale varied as predicted across subgroups of participants who reported differing amounts of change in breast appearance when their arms were lifted overhead or when they lifted something heavy, and for increasing happiness with the overall outcome of their breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

The 12-item Animation Deformity scale forms a new scale in the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module that can be used in comparative effectiveness research or to inform clinical care.

Dual-Plane Retro-pectoral Versus Pre-pectoral DTI Breast Reconstruction: An Italian Multicenter Experience

Background

The use of conservative mastectomies has risen significantly during the last few years. The reconstructive choice of direct-to-implant reconstruction has become more practicable with modern mastectomy techniques. The initial trend in Italian centers was to use dual-plane hybrid reconstruction. However, a high level of complications has been registered. From 2015 onward, in our centers, a pre-pectoral approach has been adopted. The authors sought to describe the Italian trend to gradually discard the sub-pectoral technique with lower lateral pole coverage of the prosthesis using ADMs comparing it with the pre-pectoral approach with ADMs, without any muscle dissection, in terms of complication rates.

Materials and Methods

A multicenter retrospective clinical study was performed from January 2010 to June 2018. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: Cases with an ADM-only coverage pre-pectoral reconstruction made up the first group (Group 1). Those with the retro-pectoral muscular position + ADM implant coverage comprised the second one (Group 2). Complications such as seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, surgical site infection, reconstruction failure, animation deformity and capsular contracture were recorded.

Results

We performed 716 direct-to-implant reconstructions: 509 were partially sub-pectoral and 207 were pre-pectoral. Minimum follow-up was 1 year. Incidence of complications was higher in dual-plane reconstructions. There were statistical significant differences in the rates of seroma and hematoma.

Conclusion

Using the pre-pectoral approach, the authors have experienced favorable aesthetics and superior clinical and functional outcomes. Retro-pectoral muscular ADM implant coverage has to be considered only in specific complicated second-stage surgeries.

Level of Evidence V

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00266-020-01892-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How to Optimize Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has become a popular method of postmastectomy breast reconstruction due to its numerous benefits in properly selected patients. Prepectoral reconstruction, as compared with retropectoral position, offers the advantage of leaving the pectoralis muscle undisturbed and in its original anatomic position, resulting in significantly decreased acute and chronic pain, improved upper extremity strength and range of motion, and avoidance of animation deformity. The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) allows for precise control of the breast pocket, resulting in aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. ADMs have the added benefit of reducing capsular contracture, especially in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy. Although prepectoral breast reconstruction is effective, the breast implant is placed closer to the skin flap with less vascularized soft tissue coverage. Therefore, optimizing outcomes in prepectoral breast reconstruction requires careful patient selection, intraoperative mastectomy flap evaluation, and perioperative surgical algorithms specific to prepectoral reconstruction.

Hot Topics in Breast Surgery

Since the first implant-based breast surgeries were performed nearly 70 years ago, breast augmentation it has changed drastically. As understanding of breast augmentation has advanced, so too have the technologies and techniques used to improve results and minimize the risk of complications in breast implant surgery. This article reviews some of the novel techniques and technologies used today in breast augmentation surgery. How these tools and techniques will withstand the test of time remains to be seen, but they no doubt will add to the fascinating and ever-evolving history of breast augmentation.

A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

Background and objectives: Until now subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) has been the predominant form; however, it can present with pectoralis muscle contraction and animation deformity. To avoid these complications, surgeons have begun placing breast implants in the same anatomic space as the breast tissue that was removed. We report a comparative analysis of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) versus subpectoral breast reconstruction to analyze their differences. Materials and Methods: Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) performed from February 2015 to February 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We then compared the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of the two groups (prepectoral vs. subpectoral) based on the overall incidence of complications, pain scale, and the duration of drainage. Results: A total of 167 patients underwent unilateral DTI, with SBR 114 (68.3%) and PBR 53 (31.7%). Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of seroma, infection (requiring intravenous antibiotics), hematoma, and skin necrosis. Implant loss rates in the SBR 6.1% (n = 7) and PBR 9.4% (n = 5) were also not statistically significant (p = 0.99). The hemovac duration period was significantly longer in the SBR (14.93 ± 5.57 days) group than in the PBR group (11.09 ± 4.82 days) (p < 0.01). However, post-operative pain scores are similar between two groups, although it is not clear whether this was due to the effect of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia. Conclusions: A SBR is a commonly used procedure with various advantages, but there are many problems due to damage to the normal pectoralis major muscle. According to the results of our study, the PBR group had a shorter hemovac duration period compared to the SBR group, although there was no significant difference in complication rate. A PBR is a simple and safe technique allowing early discharge without increasing the incidence of long-term complications.

Prepectoral implant pocket conversion in breast reconstruction

Introduction

While many authors have reported their experience in immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction (BR), implant pocket conversion from a submuscular to a prepectoral plane is less well described. The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive review on plane conversion in implant-based BR, including the indications, surgical techniques, functional, and esthetic results.

Materials and Methods

A literature search via PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed using the following MeSH terms: “prepectoral pocket conversion”, “subcutaneous pocket conversion”, “prepectoral plane conversion”, “subcutaneous plane conversion”, and “prepectoral breast reconstruction”.

Results

Ten articles in which 504 breasts were studied were deemed eligible for inclusion. The indications to perform plane conversion were animation deformity (AD), chronic pain, and implant malposition. Seven studies described complete or partial capsulectomy. The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) was reported in all cases except for three studies. The mean follow-up was 10.64 months. There was resolution of AD in 100% of cases. Three studies reported complete resolution of chronic pain. The overall complication rate was 12.102% and capsular contracture (CC) was the most frequent complication. Cosmetic revisions were reported in six studies (9.52%). The use of ADMs and fat grafting appeared to decrease the rate of subsequent CC formation and cosmetic revisions.

Conclusions

The current article represents the first review about implant pocket conversion from a submuscular to a prepectoral plane, delineating its indications, surgical technique, postoperative complications, and functional and esthetic outcomes.

Prospective Study of Saline versus Silicone Gel Implants for Subpectoral Breast Augmentation

Background

Silicone gel implants are regarded as esthetically superior to saline implants, offering a more natural consistency. They are also considered less susceptible to rippling. However, objective measurements and patient-reported outcome studies are lacking. Similarly, minimal data are available quantitating animation deformity.

Methods

A 3-year prospective study was undertaken among 223 women undergoing primary subpectoral breast augmentation using either saline (n = 145) or silicone gel (n = 78) implants. Photographs obtained included frontal views with the patient flexing the pectoral muscles. Images were matched, and vertical differences in nipple position were measured. Breast implants were evaluated using high-resolution ultrasound to detect any ripples or folds at least 3 months after surgery. Outcome surveys were administered. Statistical analysis included the χ² test, point-biserial correlations, and a power analysis.

Results

Respondents reported visible rippling in 18% of women and palpable rippling in 32% of patients, with no significant difference between women treated with saline and silicone gel implants. Ripples were detected on ultrasound scans in 24% of women with saline implants and in 27% of women with silicone gel implants (difference not significant). Ripples were more common in women with lower body mass indices. Fifty percent of patients demonstrated nipple displacement <1 cm on animation. Nipple displacement occurred either up or down with equal frequency and a mean overall nipple displacement of zero.

Conclusions

Saline and silicone breast implants produce similar degrees of rippling, as determined on outcome surveys and ultrasound examination. Animation deformities tend to be minor and well-tolerated.

Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using Meshed ADM

Prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction has been widely reassessed in recent years and is taking on an increasingly important role in the field of immediate breast reconstruction. We report here a case series of 32 patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast carcinoma and prepectoral breast reconstruction involving an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) treated by means of a skin-graft mesher in our hospital from January 2015 to March 2016. The indications for this type of reconstruction were body mass index (BMI) less than 30 kg/m²; no history of radiotherapy; no active smokers; moderate grade breast; and good viability of mastectomy flap: normal skin colour, active bleeding at the fresh cut edges, and thicker than 1 cm mastectomy flaps; the viability of lower thicknesses was ascertained by the fluorescent dye indocyanine green xenon-based imaging technology (4 patients). The mean age of the patients was 56.4 years (range: 39-77 years). Their mean BMI was 27.4 kg/m². Until the end of follow-up (mean: 17 months), major complications requiring reoperation occurred in 9% of patients and minor complications in 22% of patients. The mean of the 3 pain visual analogue scale scores taken in the first 24 hours after surgery was 1.8. Mean duration of hospital stay has been 2.2 days. Our complication rate was similar to those reported in other studies on prepectoral breast reconstruction featuring total ADM coverage of the implant.

Does Implant Surface Texture Affect the Risk of Capsular Contracture in Subglandular Breast Augmentation and Breast Augmentation-Mastopexy?

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported decreased rates of capsular contracture associated with the use of textured surface breast implants placed in the subglandular plane during breast augmentation. However, since the publication of these studies, our understanding of the pathophysiology of capsular contracture, as well as the surgical techniques utilized to minimize bacterial contamination of the implant, have advanced considerably.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate the relation between implant surface texturization and capsular contracture rates for breast implants placed in the subglandular plane during primary breast augmentation.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed of all primary subglandular breast augmentation procedures involving the use of either smooth or textured round silicone gel implants, with or without simultaneous mastopexy. The primary outcome measures included clinically significant capsular contracture (Baker grade III/IV) and revision surgery for capsular contracture.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2017, 526 patients underwent primary subglandular breast augmentation with either smooth (n = 212) or textured (n = 314) round silicone gel implants; 248 patients underwent breast augmentation, whereas 278 underwent breast augmentation-mastopexy. Average follow-up was 756 days in the textured group and 461 days in the smooth group. Five cases of capsular contracture were observed in the textured group, and 7 cases of capsular contracture were observed in the smooth group (P = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Smooth surface implants placed in the subglandular plane were not at a significantly increased risk of capsular contracture compared with textured surface implants. We suggest that adherence to a surgical technique focused on minimizing bacterial contamination of the implant is of greater clinical significance than implant surface characteristics when discussing capsular contracture.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Direct-to-Implant Extracellular Matrix Hammock-based Breast Reconstruction; Prepectoral or Subpectoral?

BACKGROUND

Skin-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate implant-based breast reconstruction is a commonly used treatment for breast cancer. However, when placing the implant in a subpectoral pocket, a high incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) has been reported. Besides the nuisance that BAD can cause, lifting of the pectoralis major muscle (PMM) can result in a more extended postoperative recovery period. When placing the implant solely prepectorally leaving the PMM undisturbed, the incidence and severity of BAD might be mitigated. However, new challenges may occur because of thinner skin cover.

METHODS/DESIGN

A prospective, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial will be carried out with the primary aim of assessing and comparing the incidence and degree of BAD in women having a direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with either a prepectorally or a subpectorally placed implant. The secondary outcomes are shoulder and arm function, quality of life, aesthetic evaluation, length of stay, complications, need for surgical corrections, and development of capsular contracture. A total of 70 included patients will be followed under admittance and at clinical check-ups 3 months and 1 year after surgery.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this trial is the first randomised controlled trial evaluating and comparing subpectoral and prepectoral implant placement when performing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction following skin-sparing mastectomy. The results will hopefully provide us with a broader knowledge of the outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction, making better preoperative planning possible in the future by providing our patients with a more objective information.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03143335. Prospectively registered on 8 May 2017.

Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction in Suboptimal Patients Using an Air-filled Spacer

Introduction

Immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction offers excellent aesthetic results with less pain and elimination of animation deformity due to avoidance of pectoralis dissection and subpectoral implant placement. Concerns about the effects of prostheses on flap perfusion have limited use of the technique to highly selected patients. We present a series of "suboptimal" patients that have undergone immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction utilizing an air-filled "spacer" implant.

Methods

A single surgeon's experience with immediate, single-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction using a Spectrum implant was retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, adjuvant therapies, risk factors for threatened flaps, and complications, including those that required subsequent intervention, were evaluated.

Results

Twenty-five patients (39 breasts) underwent immediate prepectoral reconstruction with a Spectrum implant. Ten patients had minor complications, 6 of whom required intervention with successful correction. There was a single case of implant loss in the series; this patient had prior radiation.

Conclusions

Utilizing the spacer concept, immediate single-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction is a viable alternative to subpectoral implant placement or delay procedures. The technique delivers aesthetic results with less postoperative pain, quicker operative times, and avoidance of animation deformity. It can be considered for any patient, including high-risk patients such as those with radiation exposure, thin/threatened skin flaps, significant ptosis, and obesity.

A simple clinical assessment of breast animation deformity following direct-to-implant breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

A high incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) has been reported following immediate breast reconstruction with subpectorally placed implants. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the incidence of BAD in women who underwent either subpectoral or prepectoral immediate breast reconstruction. Therefore, we developed a grading tool and tested its reproducibility in a clinical setting.

METHODS

Video recordings of 37 women who had undergone unilateral or bilateral immediate breast reconstruction were evaluated by two consultant plastic surgeons. The degree of BAD was assessed by our grading tool, named the Nipple, Surrounding Skin, Entire Breast (NSE) grading scale, which evaluates the degree of tissue distortion in three areas of the breast. Blinded assessments were performed twice by each observer.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were reconstructed with subpectoral implant placement and 19 with prepectoral implant placement. Using the NSE grading scale, we found a significant difference in the degree of BAD between the groups, in favor of patients who underwent prepectoral immediate breast reconstruction (0.2 vs. 4, P=0.000). Inter- and intraobserver agreement was moderate (74%) to strong (88%).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence and severity of BAD was significantly lower in women reconstructed with a prepectorally placed implant than in those who underwent subpectoral immediate breast reconstruction. All patients reconstructed using the subpectoral technique had some degree of BAD. The inter- and intraobserver agreements were high when using the NSE grading scale, suggesting it is an easy-to-use, reproducible scale for assessing BAD in women who undergo immediate breast reconstruction.

The Relationship between Animation Deformity and Patient-Reported Outcomes: Application of the BREAST-Q to a Quantitative Stratification of Animation Severity

BACKGROUND

Animation deformity can occur following subpectoral breast reconstruction and is an oft-touted rationale for prepectoral reconstruction. Despite increasing recognition, there is a paucity of patient-reported outcome studies in women with animation deformity.

METHODS

Women presenting after subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction were evaluated for animation deformity. Video analysis and quantitative deformity assessment were performed in conjunction with BREAST-Q surveys. BREAST-Q data were compared to our quantitative animation grading scale to assess the relationship between animation severity and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-one subpectoral breast reconstructions met inclusion criteria. Average scores were 67.8 ± 17.9 of 100 for satisfaction with breasts and 78.3 ± 14.1 of 100 for physical well-being. Animation deformity severity did not correlate with satisfaction with breasts (p = 0.44). Physical well-being, particularly pain-related questions, increased with increasing animation (p = 0.01); specifically, patients reported significantly less pulling, nagging, and aching in the breast (p = 0.01, p = 0.001, and p = 0.004, respectively). Patients with the least and most severe animation deformity had significantly higher numbers of revision procedures (0.89 and 1.03 procedures, respectively) compared with patients with intermediate deformity (0.49 procedures; p = 0.01 and p = 0.009, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although pectoralis release creates a more mobile-and more animating-reconstruction, this same release may lead to less pain because muscle is no longer contracting against a fixed space. This may lead to two distinct origins of subpectoral revision: (1) patients in pain (but low animation) and (2) patients with visibly distorted animation (but low pain).

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, II.