Loss of silicone implants after subcutaneous mastectomy and reconstruction

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.

Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of 694 Two-Stage Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstructions

BACKGROUND

Opinion regarding the optimal plane for prosthetic device placement in breast reconstruction patients has evolved. The purpose of this study was to assess the differences in complication rates and patient satisfaction between patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR).

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent two-stage IBR at their institution from 2018 to 2019. Surgical and patient-reported outcomes were compared between patients who received a prepectoral versus a subpectoral tissue expander.

RESULTS

A total of 694 reconstructions in 481 patients were identified (83% prepectoral, 17% subpectoral). The mean body mass index was higher in the prepectoral group (27 versus 25 kg/m 2 , P = 0.001), whereas postoperative radiotherapy was more common in the subpectoral group (26% versus 14%, P = 0.001). The overall complication rate was very similar, with 29.3% in the prepectoral and 28.9% in the subpectoral group ( P = 0.887). Rates of individual complications were also similar between the two groups. A multiple-frailty model showed that device location was not associated with overall complications, infection, major complications, or device explantation. Mean scores for Satisfaction with the Breast, Psychosocial Well-Being, and Sexual Well-Being were similar between the two groups. Median time to permanent implant exchange was significantly longer in the subpectoral group (200 versus 150 days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Prepectoral breast reconstruction results in similar surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction compared with subpectoral IBR.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

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.

Impact of Obesity on Outcomes of Prepectoral vs Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The impact of obesity on outcomes of prepectoral vs subpectoral implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is not well-established.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to assess the surgical and patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral vs subpectoral IBR. The authors hypothesized that obese patients would have similar outcomes regardless of device plane.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of obese patients who underwent 2-stage IBR from January 2017 to December 2019. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of any breast-related complication; the secondary endpoint was device explantation.

RESULTS

The authors identified a total of 284 reconstructions (184 prepectoral, 100 subpectoral) in 209 patients. Subpectoral reconstruction demonstrated higher rates of overall complications (50% vs 37%, P = .047) and device explantation (25% vs 12.5%, P = .008) than prepectoral reconstruction. In multivariable regression, subpectoral reconstruction was associated with higher risk of infection (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65; P = .022) and device explantation (HR, 1.97; P = .034). Subgroup analyses demonstrated significantly higher rates of complications and explantation in the subpectoral group in those with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35 and BMI ≥40. The authors found no significant differences in mean scores for satisfaction with the breast (41.57 ± 13.19 vs 45.50 ± 11.91, P = .469), psychosocial well-being (39.43 ± 11.23 vs 39.30 ± 12.49, P = .915), and sexual well-being (17.17 ± 7.83 vs 17.0 ± 9.03, P = .931) between subpectoral and prepectoral reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly decreased overall complications, infections, and device explantation in obese patients compared with subpectoral reconstruction. Prepectoral reconstruction provides superior outcomes to subpectoral reconstruction with comparable patient-reported outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

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 .

A systematic review and meta-analysis of postmastectomy radiation therapy on prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction

Background

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has once again appealed, which attributes to the introduction of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), meanwhile, is crucial in the whole course of treatment for breast cancer patients with lymph node-positive. The impact of PMRT on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction has not been clearly defined to date. This study aimed to compare the impact of PMRT on outcomes after prepectoral vs. subpectoral breast reconstruction.

Methods

A comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature pertaining to prepectoral breast reconstruction from database inception to October 2021. All included studies evaluated the impact of PMRT on outcomes after breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral breast reconstruction were included. Data were analyzed using RevMan version 5.2.

Results

A total of 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 394 breasts. In the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy, 164 breasts were reconstructed with a prepectoral approach, whereas the remaining 230 breasts underwent subpectoral reconstruction. Overall, outcomes between PBR and SBR was no statistical significance in the overall complications (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.35-4.85), infection (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 0.90-2.91), seroma (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 0.48-5.27), skin flap necrosis (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.17-3.45), hematoma (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.10-1.41), wound dehiscence (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.36-1.85). But, included studies lacked data about the patient quality of life and satisfaction with the outcome of the reconstructed breast.

Conclusions

In the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy, prepectoral breast reconstruction is a safe and effective option.

The influence of synthetic and biologic matrices on the choice of the implant plane during breast reconstruction. The modern state of the problem

Immediately after silicone implants were described, the technique of prepectoral implant placement dominated in breast reconstructive surgery. However, this plane soon had to be abandoned due to the high frequency of complications, such as infection, capsular contracture, explantation. For these reasons, surgeons soon had to switch to the subpectoral plane. Several decades later, thanks to the discovery of synthetic and biological meshes, surgeons returned to the prepectoral plane, but at a technically new level.

The purpose of this review was to analyze the role of biological and synthetic matrices as factors influencing the choice of the implant plane in one-stage breast reconstruction.

Comparison of Outcomes Following Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implants for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy helps to restore quality of life while aiming at providing optimal cosmetic outcomes. Both prepectoral (PP) and subpectoral (SP) breast implants are widely used to fulfill these objectives. It is, however, unclear which approach offers stronger postoperative benefits. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature through PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ResearchGate, following the PRISMA guidelines. Quantitative analysis for postoperative pain as the primary outcome was conducted. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and postoperative complications such as seroma, implant loss, skin necrosis, wound infection, and hematoma. (3) Results: Nine articles involving 1119 patients were retrieved. Our results suggested increased postoperative pain after SP implants and significantly higher rates of seroma following PP implants (p < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was found to be similar between the two groups; however, the heterogeneity of measurement tools did not allow us to pool these results. The rates of implant loss, skin necrosis, wound infection, and hematoma showed no significant differences between the two cohorts. (4) Conclusion: Our data suggest that both implant placements are safe and effective methods for breast reconstruction following mastectomy. However, homogeneity in outcome measurements would allow one to provide stronger statistical results.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction with complete anterior implant coverage using a single, large, square-shaped acellular dermal matrix

BACKGROUND

Several studies have discussed various methods of prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction using an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) prosthesis to achieve full coverage. However, methods for anterior coverage have rarely been reported. In this study, prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction with complete anterior implant coverage was performed using a square piece of ADM. This study aimed to introduce our prepectoral DTI technique and determine its functional and cosmetic outcomes as well as compare them with those of existing subpectoral DTI techniques.

METHODS

This prospective comparative study focused on 29 patients (35 breasts) and 34 patients (35 breasts) who underwent breast reconstruction via subpectoral implant insertion (control group) and anterior coverage prepectoral implant insertion (anterior coverage group), respectively. Postoperative complications were noted, and breast symmetry was evaluated using the Vectra H2 three-dimensional scanner. The modified Kyungpook National University Hospital Breast-Q (KNUH Breast-Q) scale was used to assess the patient's subjective satisfaction with the reconstruction and postoperative quality of life.

RESULTS

No remarkable differences in terms of complications (seroma, skin necrosis, nipple-areola complex necrosis, hematoma, capsular contracture, and infection) were noted in both groups. Compared with controls, considerably better results were observed among those in the anterior coverage group in terms of the mean drain removal period. Furthermore, those in the anterior coverage group showed greater symmetry on three-dimensional scans than the controls; however, this was not statistically significant. Subjective satisfaction and postoperative quality of life measured using the KNUH Breast-Q scale were not significantly different between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering its stability, faster recovery time, and cosmetic benefit, prepectoral breast reconstruction with anterior implant coverage using a single, large ADM is a good choice to perform breast reconstruction with implant insertion in patients who have undergone mastectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Complication Profile of Total Submuscular Versus Prepectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare the safety profile of prepectoral breast reconstruction with total submuscular tissue expander reconstruction, previously our standard. Primary outcomes of interest in this retrospective cohort study were incidence of infection, hematoma, seroma, mastectomy flap necrosis, and reconstruction loss.

METHODS

Total submuscular and prepectoral with acellular dermal matrix reconstructions consecutively performed by a single surgeon (P.D.S.) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, were compared. Demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as complications and complication types, were extracted for all patients. A t test was used to assess differences in continuous variables. Multivariate logistics regression was used to assess the association between type of reconstruction and complication rate. The statistical significance was set at 0.05 for all comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients (234 breasts) were included. There was a significantly greater incidence of infection (16.5% vs 5.5%, P < 0.01) in the prepectoral/acellular dermal matrix cohort. However, reconstructive loss was low in both cohorts (2.5% and 3.0%, P = 0.83). Adjusted odds ratio for complications in the prepectoral cohort was 2.26, but this was not statistically significant (adjusted P = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral breast reconstruction shares an overall complication profile that is not greater than that of total submuscular reconstruction. It is associated with a greater risk of infection; however, the ability to salvage the reconstruction with early, aggressive intervention results in low rates of reconstructive loss, comparable with those of total submuscular reconstruction.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction is safe in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

Many breast reconstruction patients undergo post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), which is well known to increase the risk of complications. There is limited data on outcomes and safety of prepectoral breast reconstruction in this setting. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage breast reconstruction in patients undergoing PMRT.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of two-stage breast reconstructions performed at our institution during a 22-month period. Patients who received PMRT were identified, and two cohorts were created: those who underwent prepectoral versus subpectoral reconstruction. We collected data including patient characteristics, operative variables, and clinical outcomes. Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted.

RESULTS

We captured 313 patients (492 breasts) that had undergone two-stage reconstruction. A total of 69 breasts received PMRT; 28 were reconstructed prepectorally, and 41 breasts subpectorally. The two cohorts were well matched. We detected no differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups after a median follow-up time of 24 months. There, however, were differences in perioperative variables. Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with a shorter operative time, shorter length of hospital stay, higher cost, and shorter time to final reconstruction. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that prepectoral reconstruction is not an independent predictor of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Although radiation is a known risk factor for many complications following breast reconstruction, prepectoral device placement is safe in this high-risk population. Although the rate of capsular contracture is reported to be higher in the general prepectoral population, this was not found in our radiated prepectoral population.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh reopened the possibility for the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction (PBR). The complications of single-stage breast reconstruction after PRB are controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction. Our aim was to evaluate the different postoperative complications between patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) on single-stage breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature evaluating the effect of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2020. All included studies were evaluated the complications after single-stage breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1724 patients. In general, compared with SBR group, the PBR significantly reduced the risk of total complications (including seroma, hematoma, necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, capsular contraction, implant loss/remove, and rippling) after single-stage breast reconstruction (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.67, p < 0.001). Compared with the SBR group, the PBR had remarkably decreased capsular contracture (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58, p < 0.001) and postoperative infection (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.95, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

The PBR is a safe single-stage breast reconstruction with fewer postoperative complications. It is an alternative surgical method for SBR.

Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently experienced a resurgence in popularity because of its lower levels of postoperative pain and animation deformity. BREAST-Q, a well-validated patient-reported outcomes tool, was used to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life. The goal of this study was to assess patient-reported outcomes at 6-month and 1-year follow-up after direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Sixty-nine consented adult patients undergoing a total of 110 direct-to-implant, prepectoral, postmastectomy breast reconstructions completed BREAST-Q questionnaires immediately preoperatively, and at 6 and 12 months thereafter.

RESULTS

Mean breast satisfaction decreased nonsignificantly from 61.3 preoperatively to 58.6 at 12 months after reconstruction (p = 0.32). Psychosocial well-being improved nonsignificantly from 67.1 preoperatively to 71.1 at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.26). Physical well-being of the chest was insignificantly different, from 74.4 to 73.3 at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.62). Finally, sexual well-being similarly remained nonsignificantly changed from 60.2 preoperatively, to 59.1 at 12 months (p = 0.80). The use of acellular dermal matrix and postmastectomy radiotherapy did not have any significant effects on patient-reported outcomes. Through regression analysis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, increased age, and incidence of rippling were found to negatively influence BREAST-Q results.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction demonstrated an overall satisfaction with their outcomes. As prepectoral breast reconstruction continues to advance and grow in popularity, patient-reported outcomes such as those presented in this study become of paramount importance in practice.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

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.

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.

Review of Outcomes in Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction with and without Surgical Mesh Assistance

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, surgeons have increasingly advocated for a return to prepectoral breast reconstruction with claims that surgical mesh (including acellular dermal matrix) can reduce complication rates. However, numerous surgical and implant advancements have occurred in the decades since the initial prepectoral studies, and it is unclear whether mesh is solely responsible for the touted benefits.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic review of all English language articles reporting original data for prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Articles presenting duplicate data were excluded. Complications were recorded and calculated on a per-breast basis and separated as mesh-assisted, no-mesh prior to 2006, and no-mesh after 2006 (date of first silicone gel-filled breast implant approval). Capsular contracture comparisons were adjusted for duration of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 58 articles were included encompassing 3120 patients from 1966 to 2019. The majority of the included studies were retrospective case series. Reported complication outcomes were variable, with no significant difference between groups in hematoma, infection, or explantation rates. Capsular contracture rates were higher in historical no-mesh cohorts, whereas seroma rates were higher in contemporary no-mesh cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited data exist to understand the benefits of surgical mesh devices in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Level I studies with an appropriate control group are needed to better understand the specific role of mesh for these procedures. Existing data are inconclusive but suggest that prepectoral breast reconstruction can be safely performed without surgical mesh.

Two-Stage, Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Standardized Technique and Outcomes Analysis During First Stage to Reduce Complications and Ensure Reliability

GOALS

Prepectoral breast reconstruction is seeing a resurgence in popularity as advances in breast oncology and breast reconstruction continue to occur. This study seeks to describe a simple, reproducible method for prepectoral breast reconstruction and analyzes patient demographics and outcomes after the first stage of prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval was obtained, a retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients who underwent 2-stage prepectoral reconstruction by the senior author from January 2019 to February 2020. Patient demographics including body mass index, nicotine use, diabetes mellitus, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and adjuvant radiation were analyzed. Type of mastectomy (nipple vs skin sparing), unilateral versus bilateral reconstruction, and use of intraoperative angiography were also assessed. Complications including excision of ischemic skin, delayed mastectomy flap ischemia, seroma, hematoma, axillary cellulitis, expander infection, and reconstructive failure were analyzed. χ2 Analysis was used to identify any association between the above demographics and infection, and P values were generated with a statistical significance being denoted by a P < 0.05.

RESULTS

One hundred five breast reconstructions were included in this study. A statistically significant association was found between nicotine use, diabetes mellitus, excision of ischemic skin, and expander infection. No significant association was found between other demographics and infection risk. Expander infection occurred in 2.86% of all reconstructions with an overall reconstructive failure rate of 2.86%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that our technique is reproducible and can be used for all types of mastectomies and incisions. Our data analysis demonstrates that this is a reliable method of breast reconstruction if performed correctly in the properly selected patient. Future studies will assess outcomes following the second stage of reconstruction.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct to Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction is currently the most common postmastectomy breast reconstruction modality with over 86,000 procedures performed in 2017. Although various methods for reconstruction techniques have been described, partial subpectoral implant placement with or without acellular dermal matrix coverage remains the most popular approach. Recently, prepectoral implant placement has gained increased recognition as a method that avoids some of the potential morbidities of submuscular implant placement. Currently, few studies have examined the outcomes of performing this approach. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral direct to implant (DTI) immediate breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Data from a prospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing prepectoral DTI immediate breast reconstructions at our institution from February 2016 to November 2017 were collected. The incidence of complications such as mastectomy skin flap necrosis, seroma, hematoma, infection, implant loss, and unexpected reoperation were recorded and compared with a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent subpectoral DTI immediate breast reconstruction from May 2014 to July 2015.

RESULTS

One hundred twelve prepectoral DTI immediate breast reconstructions were performed on 62 patients. Four breasts (4.4%) were diagnosed with infection. There were 8 breasts (7.1%) that suffered from mastectomy skin flap necrosis (5 partial thickness necrosis, 3 full thickness necrosis). There was 1 implant loss related to full thickness necrosis that required salvage with autologous tissue reconstruction. Prepectoral breast reconstruction had less esthetic revisions and comparable complications when compared with the historical subpectoral cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with the subpectoral DTI approach, prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction grants favorable complication rates and improved esthetic outcomes. Prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction is a safe modality that should be considered in any patient who is a candidate for immediate breast reconstruction.

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.

Direct to Implant Breast Reconstruction With Prepectoral Micropolyurethane Foam-Coated Implant: Analysis of Patient Satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Immediate implant reconstruction after mastectomy with submuscular implant placement is widely used in order to avoid implant exposure, capsular contracture and poor aesthetic result. Postoperative complications can be reduced by maintain mastectomy flap thickness and asses flap vascularity with near infrared imaging. The prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane implants has been utilized with encouraging results. Postoperative patient satisfaction was assessed with the BREAST-Q scores in patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane implants. Additionally the impact of mastectomy flap thickness on breast reconstruction was investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Breast Q-scores of satisfaction with the breast, the postoperative outcome and physical well-being of the chest in 70 patients underwent immediate implant breast reconstructions with prepectoral polyurethane implant were retrospectively reviewed. The correlation between mastectomy flap thickness and satisfaction with breast was analyzed.

RESULTS

At 12-month follow-up the mean Q-score for satisfaction with breast was 71.73 (standard deviation: 13.31), and for physical well-being chest was 70.73 (standard deviation: 7.94). A positive linear correlation between mastectomy flap thickness and satisfaction with the breast was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative Q-scores are encouraging in the use of polyurethane prepectoral implants in immediate breast reconstruction, especially in patients with "thick" mastectomy flaps.

The relationship of human acellular dermal matrix thickness on complication rate and patient-reported outcomes in implant-based immediate breast reconstruction

Background

As it can be said that prosthetic breast reconstruction has been increased by the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs), ADMs are widely used in implant reconstruction. A large variety types of ADMs are now produced, but there is a paucity of data comparing the ADM products directly. We evaluated the effects of ADM thickness on complication rates and patient satisfaction after dual-plane subpectoral ADM-assisted implant breast reconstruction.

Methods

A retrospective study of patients who underwent immediate implant breast reconstruction using ADM was performed. We compared clinical course and postoperative outcomes for two ADM groups with different thicknesses [thin ADMs, 0.6-1.5 mm (group 1) vs. thick ADMs, 1.5-3.0 mm (group 2)] based on the incidence of complications and the duration of drainage. Patient satisfaction was also evaluated using the Breast Questionnaire (BREAST-Q), 6 months after surgery.

Results

A total of 51 patients were included in the study (group 1, n=21; group 2, n=30). Patient demographics were similar between the two groups, and no difference in postoperative complication rate (P>0.05) and Jackson-Pratt (JP) drainage durations (P>0.05). On regression analysis, ADM thickness was not an independent factor for any complication subtype. There were also no significant differences in BREAST-Q results, across all metrics, between the study groups.

Conclusions

In dual plane subpectoral implant placement breast reconstruction with an inferior ADM-sling, the thickness of ADM was not a factor in determining postoperative complications and patient satisfaction. Therefore, it is possible to select the thickness according to the surgeon's preference.

Utility of Postoperative Prophylactic Antibiotics in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Single-Surgeon Experience

BACKGROUND

Immediate tissue expander placement remains a preferred method for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. The use of prophylactic postoperative antibiotic administration is thought to reduce rates of surgical site infection and reconstructive failure, but has not been studied in patients undergoing reconstruction in the prepectoral plane.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified all patients undergoing immediate prepectoral tissue expander placement after mastectomy by a single plastic surgeon from 2015 to 2018. We identified 2 cohorts of patients: one group that received prophylactic antibiotics at the time of discharge and one group that did not. We collected treatment and outcomes data to compare rates of postoperative complications between cohorts.

RESULTS

We identified 69 patients with 115 breasts who received discharge antibiotics and 63 patients with 106 breasts who did not. The antibiotic cohort had significantly lower rates of tissue expander loss (4.3% vs 17.0%, P = 0.003), unplanned operation (10.4% vs 24.5%, P = 0.007), and infection (7.0% vs 24.5, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of prophylactic postoperative antibiotics in prepectoral breast reconstruction is associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative complications. Further randomized controlled studies are warranted to explore the effect of antibiotic therapy on outcomes and to determine what the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy may be.

What Are the Long-Term Aesthetic Issues in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction?

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral placement of prosthetic devices is rapidly becoming the preferred method of breast reconstruction.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to review long-term surgical and aesthetic outcomes following prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The study included 90 patients (139 breasts). Follow-up for all patients ranged from at least 1 year up to a maximum of 4.3 years. Parameters analyzed included preoperative and postoperative breast symmetry, rippling, edge visibility, and capsular contracture, as well as secondary procedures such as fat grafting, implant exchange, contralateral procedures, and autologous flap conversion.

RESULTS

The incidence of breast symmetry, which was noted preoperatively in 84.4% of patients, gradually declined to 68.9% after 1 to 2 years and to 56.7% after 2 to 5 years. Rippling and edge visibility were noted in 19.4% and 12.9% of patients, respectively. Explantation without replacement of the device was performed in 12 breasts (8.6%). Secondary procedures included autologous fat grafting (23.7%), implant replacement (7.2%), conversion to an autologous flap (12.2%), and a contralateral breast procedure in 15 of 41 patients (36.6%). Capsular contracture (grade 3-4) was demonstrated in 14 of 139 breasts (10.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral breast reconstruction can provide good to excellent short-term (1-2 years) and longer-term (2-4.3 years) benefits; however, over time, the quality of prepectoral breast reconstruction as well as breast symmetry can change due to various factors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Current Trends in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Survey of American Society of Plastic Surgeons Members

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has recently gained increasing popularity, but there are limited data regarding national trends in the use of this technique. Our aim was to determine practice patterns related to prepectoral breast reconstruction among plastic surgeons, as well as to identify perceived advantages and disadvantages of this technique.

Methods

A 16-question electronic survey tool was distributed to 2535 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Survey items focused on surgeon practices related to prepectoral reconstruction, in addition to their motivations for and concerns with performing the procedure.

Results

A total of 274 responses were received (10.8% response rate). Nearly half of respondents (48.4%) reported using prepectoral techniques in all or most of their procedures. Decreased animation deformity was identified as the most significant advantage by 76.3% of respondents. Increased rippling and potential wound healing complications were identified as the most significant disadvantages to the procedure by 49.1% and 40.4% of respondents, respectively. The majority of surgeons reported using acellular dermal matrices in their procedures, with most surgeons demonstrating preferences for cohesive and shaped devices.

Conclusions

Prepectoral breast reconstruction is being widely adopted by plastic surgeons, with the majority of surgeons in our sample using prepectoral techniques in their practices. Responses demonstrate that this technique offers several perceived advantages, most notably the avoidance of animation deformity. However, our data also highlight that there are still many unanswered questions in the community about the complication profile and technical aspects of prepectoral techniques that warrant further investigation.

The Prepectoral, Hybrid Breast Reconstruction: The Synergy of Lipofilling and Breast Implants

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Breast reconstruction modalities are based on autologous tissue transfer, implants, or a combination of both. The aim of an allogeneic breast reconstruction is to minimize the impact of the implant on surrounding tissues to achieve an aesthetically pleasing result. Accurate tissue coverage, proper implant selection, and implant location are the absolute concerns in planning an implant-based reconstruction.

Direct-to-Implant, Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Single-Surgeon Experience with 201 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

The resurgence of prepectoral breast reconstruction has brought strict patient inclusion and exclusion criteria by numerous authors. This article provides an overview of a single surgeon's experience with 201 patients, 313 breasts using immediate, direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction. The article compares surgical outcomes of different patient cohorts to elucidate risk factors that may predispose patients toward developing complications.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed, identifying all patients who underwent prepectoral, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction from June of 2016 to June of 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients representing 313 breasts were included. A midlateral incision was used in 157 breasts (50.2 percent), followed by a skin-reducing, Wise-pattern in 90 breasts (28.8 percent). Acellular dermal matrix was used in 243 breasts (77.6 percent), free nipple grafts were used in 39 breasts (12.5 percent), and postmastectomy radiation therapy was used in 58 breasts (18.5 percent). Complications requiring operative intervention occurred in 24 breasts (7.7 percent), and minor complications occurred in 23 breasts (7.3 percent). There were no significant differences in complication rates for (1) acellular dermal matrix use versus non-acellular dermal matrix use, (2) Wise-pattern versus other incision, or (3) postmastectomy radiotherapy (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This represents the largest single-surgeon, direct-to-implant prepectoral cohort in the literature. Surgical complications did not differ with acellular dermal matrix use, incision selection, and the use of postmastectomy radiation therapy. There may be an association between acellular dermal matrix use and major complications and radiotherapy with minor complications.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Surgical Outcomes in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Background:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Considerations for patient selection: Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

Background

In recent years, breast implants have been frequently placed in the subcutaneous pocket, in the so-called prepectoral approach. We report our technique of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR), as well as its surgical and aesthetic outcomes, in comparison with subpectoral IBR. We also discuss relevant considerations and pitfalls in prepectoral IBR and suggest an algorithm for the selection of patients for IBR based on our experiences.

Methods

We performed 79 immediate breast reconstructions with a breast implant and an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) sling, of which 47 were subpectoral IBRs and 32 were prepectoral IBRs. Two-stage IBR was performed in 36 cases (20 subpectoral, 16 prepectoral), and direct-to-implant IBR in 43 cases (27 prepectoral, 16 subpectoral). The ADM sling supplemented the inferolateral side of the breast prosthesis in the subpectoral group and covered the entire anterior surface of the breast prosthesis in the prepectoral group.

Results

The postoperative pain score was much lower in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (1.78 vs. 7.17). The incidence of seroma was higher in the prepectoral group (31.3% vs. 6.4%). Other postoperative complications, such as surgical site infection, flap necrosis, implant failure, and wound dehiscence, occurred at similar rates in both groups. Animation deformities developed in 8.5% of patients in the subpectoral group and rippling deformities were more common in the prepectoral group (21.9% vs. 12.8%).

Conclusions

The indications for prepectoral IBR include moderately-sized breasts with a thick well-vascularized mastectomy flap and concomitant bilateral breast reconstruction with prophylactic mastectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most commonly used reconstruction technique after mastectomy. This is because skin-sparing mastectomy has become possible with advancements in oncology. In addition, the development of breast implants and the advent of acellular dermal matrices have reduced postoperative complications and resulted in superior cosmetic results. The most frequently performed surgical breast reconstruction procedure for the past 20 years was the insertion of an implant under the pectoralis major muscle by means of the dual plane approach. However, some patients suffered from pain and animation deformity caused by muscle manipulation. Recently, a prepectoral approach has been used to solve the above problems in select patients, and the results are similar to subpectoral results. However, this technique is not always chosen due to the number of considerations for successful surgery. In this article, we will discuss the emergence of prepectoral breast reconstruction, indications and contraindications, surgical procedures, and outcomes.

The bioengineered prosthetic breast reconstruction: advancements, evidence, and outcomes

Recent advancements in prosthetic breast reconstruction have provided the foundation for the bioengineered breast. These advancements include improved mastectomy techniques, autologous fat grafting, acellular dermal matrices (ADMs), and improved devices. Device-based breast reconstruction has evolved from subcutaneous, partial or total subpectoral, and now to prepectoral placement of devices. The evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the bioengineered breast continues to increase. This manuscript will review the fundamental components of the bioengineered breast and provide an update of the current evidence.

Periprosthetic Capsule Formation and Contracture in a Rodent Model of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction With Delayed Radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Capsular contracture (CC) is the most common complication of breast implantation, with an incidence of nearly 50% in patients undergoing breast reconstruction with subsequent radiotherapy. Although the move toward submuscular (SM) device placement led to a decreased incidence of CC, subcutaneous (SQ) implantation has seen a resurgence. The purpose of this study was to use a rodent model of breast reconstruction with smooth silicone implants and delayed radiotherapy to assess the occurrence of CC in SQ versus SM implantation.

METHODS

Custom 2 mL smooth round silicone implants were placed bilaterally into 12 female Sprague Dawley rats that were randomized into 4 groups of 3, with each group differing by implantation plane (SQ vs SM) and irradiation status (irradiated vs nonirradiated). Rats from the SQ group received implants bilaterally underlying the skin on the flank. Rats in the SM groups received implants bilaterally under the latissimus dorsi muscle. Irradiated rats received 20 Gy localized to each implant on postoperative day 10. One rat from each group was imaged with a micro-computed tomography scanner at baseline and at explant 3 months later, whereupon capsules from all rats were examined histologically.

RESULTS

Rats in the SQ group showed evidence of contracture on gross examination and greater evidence of morphologic disruption per micro-computed tomography scan. There was no evidence of contracture or morphologic disruption in either SM group. Mean ± SD capsule thickness was 39.0 ± 9.0 μm in the SQ versus 37.6 ± 9.8 μm in the SM nonirradiated groups and 43.9 ± 14.9 μm in the SQ versus 34.3 ± 8.3 μm in the SM irradiated groups (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In a rodent model of smooth silicone breast implantation and delayed radiotherapy, although there did not appear to be differences in capsule thickness regardless of device placement plane, SQ implants demonstrated gross evidence of CC. These data indicate that capsule thickness is only part of a larger pathogenetic picture, which should take into consideration the contribution from all peri-implant tissue.

The use of acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction: evolution of techniques over 2 decades

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are biotechnologically derived tissues that have become a cornerstone of implant-based breast reconstruction over the last 2 decades. Their use in both dual-plane and prepectoral approaches have provided greater soft tissue coverage and implant support with good cosmetic outcomes and low rates of complication. This review describes the evolution of notable ADM-assisted surgical techniques that have advanced the field and broadened implant-based reconstructive options.

Single stage, direct to implant pre-pectoral breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Given the current trends in skin preservation during mastectomy, improved biofilm reduction algorithms, and advancements in tissue bioengineering and perfusion assessment, acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-reinforced single stage, direct to implant insertion in the pre-pectoral space has become a viable alternative to two-stage expander-based, sub-pectoral reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of their pre-pectoral cases evaluating outcomes for all single stage, direct to implant procedures. Outcomes reviewed included hematoma, seroma, infection, device loss or change, animation deformity and revisional procedures such as fat grafting. The anterior tenting surgical technique is also reviewed.

RESULTS

The authors have carried out 305 direct to implant pre-pectoral breast reconstructions using an anterior tenting technique with low complication rates and superior clinical and functional outcomes. The benefits of this technique include less patient discomfort, no need for postoperative expansion, virtually no subjective negative impact on upper extremity function and elimination of animation deformity. Longer-term follow-up demonstrates maintenance of the integrity and quality of the reconstructions over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors consider single stage, pre-pectoral direct to implant breast reconstruction to be a state-of-the-art breast reconstruction technique and have found it to be safe and reproducible. This technique is their primary choice for immediate implant-based reconstruction following mastectomy.

Breast Reconstruction Actualized in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-implant, Prepectoral Polyurethane Positioning: Early Experience and Preliminary Results

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy has been the most common breast reconstruction procedure performed, for both breast cancer treatment and prophylactically. Subpectoral implant placement with partial detachment of the pectoralis major muscle has been the procedure of choice for staged reconstruction and direct-to-implantation. Prepectoral implant placement has recently increased in popularity among plastic surgeons owing to the high rates of animation deformity, loss of muscle function, and chronic pain observed with submuscular implant placement. Acellular dermal matrices or synthetic meshes have been used for implant coverage and support to avoid capsular contracture and implant visibility. In the present study, we have introduced breast reconstruction actualized in nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant with prepectoral polyurethane positioning (BRAND4P).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 34 nipple-sparing mastectomies and immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstructions with prepectoral polyurethane-coated implant placement were performed in 21 patients (13 bilateral and 8 unilateral). The implant was placed subcutaneously in the exact place of the excised breast parenchyma with no further coverage.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 4 months, no major complications had been observed. No patient presented with animation deformity or grade III-IV capsular contracture. Patient satisfaction, assessed using the BREAST-Q, was excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

The BRAND4P method represents a novel prepectoral approach and a feasible alternative to subpectoral implant placement among the available implant-based breast reconstruction techniques.

The Evolution from Subcutaneous to Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

Prosthetic breast reconstruction is the most common method of reconstruction offered to women following mastectomy. Prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently reemerged as an alternative technique to the partial and total muscle coverage methods. Though this technique has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in the recent published literature, many surgeons have been hesitant to adopt it out of fear of incurring the same complications associated with subcutaneous reconstructions of the past. However, recent advancements in plastic surgery including the use of acellular dermal matrices, autologous fat grafting, and improved breast implants and improved mastectomy techniques have enabled plastic surgeons to revisit the prepectoral space. In this review, the authors describe the evolution of prosthetic-based breast reconstruction from subcutaneous to prepectoral and review outcomes.

The Economics of Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

The world of breast reconstruction over the last several years has seen a dramatic shift in focus to discussion and the application of placing tissue expanders and implants back into the prepectoral space. Although this technique failed during the early advent of breast reconstruction, newer technologies such as advances in fat grafting, improved acellular dermal matrices, better methods of assessing breast flap viability, and enhanced implants appear to have set the stage for the resurgence and positive early results seen with this technique. The main benefits of a switch to prepectoral breast reconstruction clinically appears to be less associated pain, lower incidence of animation deformities, and its associated symptoms as well as presumably better aesthetics. Early data suggest that the results are extremely promising and early adopters have attempted to define the ideal patients for prepectoral breast reconstruction. As with any new operative procedure, an assessment of finances and costs are crucial to its successful implementation. Although current data are minimal, this article attempts to build the fundamentals of an economic model that exhibits and displays potential savings through the use of prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Oncologic and reconstructive advancements in the management of patients with breast cancer and at high risk for breast cancer have led to improved outcomes and decreased patient morbidity. Traditional methods for prosthetic breast reconstructions have utilized total or partial muscle coverage of prosthetic devices. Although effective, placement of devices under the pectoralis major muscle can be associated with increased pain due to muscle spasm and animation deformities. Prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction has gained popularity in the plastic surgery community, and long-term outcomes have become available. This article will review the indications, technique, and current literature surrounding prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction.