Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Direct, Anatomic, Gel-Cohesive, Extra-Projection Prosthesis: 400 Cases:

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe indications and patient factors relevant to performing prepectoral breast reconstruction. 2. Understand the effects of different types of implants and implant support in prepectoral breast reconstruction. 3. Describe techniques for surgical revision to improve outcomes in prepectoral breast reconstruction. 4. Understand the current literature surrounding clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

SUMMARY

This article goes beyond a general review of prepectoral breast reconstruction, providing a working framework and important considerations for any surgeon utilizing prepectoral breast reconstruction techniques. This article also addresses current controversies, provides practice tips and technical pearls, and addresses gaps in knowledge with both opinion and a review of the most current literature.

The role of tranexamic acid in breast and body contouring surgery: a review of the literature

Background: Postoperative seroma and haematoma are two of the most common complications follow-ing large surface area surgeries. A review of the literature was performed to evaluate evidence for the use of tranexamic acid in reducing postoperative seroma and haematoma formation in breast surgery and body contouring surgery. Methods A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Ef-fect (DARE) and PubMed in English from 1 Jan 1990–30 Mar 2020. The search terms ‘TXA’, ‘breast reduction’, ‘mammaplasty’, ‘breast implants’, ‘breast implantation’, ‘breast reconstruction’, ‘mastectomy’, ‘tissue ex-pansion’, ‘body contouring’, ‘breast’ and ‘abdominoplasty’ were used alone and in combination. Results: A total of six articles were found including three randomised controlled trials, two cohort studies and one retrospective study. Two ongoing trials were found on The Cochrane Central Register of Con-trolled Trials (CENTRAL). No systematic reviews were found. Conclusion: Literature surrounding the use of TXA in breast and body contouring surgery is sparse com-pared to what is available in other surgical sub-specialties. The literature available shows promising results with the use of TXA in controlling haematoma, drain output and seroma formation in breast surgery and body contouring surgery with minimal morbidity in these patient groups.

The Failed Breast Implant in Postmastectomy Reconstruction: A Systematic Literature Review of Complications of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most diagnosed malignant neoplasia of female patients worldwide in 2019. Survival has increased making it necessary to offer breast reconstructive procedures to improve quality of life and self-esteem. Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common approach, making it necessary to quantify the associated complications.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was performed. A total of 9608 citations were identified, and 44 studies met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Studies included reported the incidence of complications either per patient or per breast leading consequently to 2 complication rates depending on the type of reporting. A total of 14.3% of patient-related and 28.8% of breast-related complications while undergoing implant-based reconstruction were reported.Among total complications reported, 72.6% of patient-related and 48.5% of breast-related complications were classified as major complications.A total of 37.6% of patients respectively 15.1% of breasts required prosthesis explantation due to severe complications. Depending on reporting, 9.7% of patients and 4% of breasts required autologous flap reconstruction due to reconstructive failure.

CONCLUSIONS

High complication and failure rates are associated with implant-based breast reconstruction. Lacking randomized controlled trials, the choice between implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction has to be made individually for each patient.

A controlled cost and outcomes analysis of acellular dermal matrix and implant-based reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for breast reconstruction continues to change in both single- and two-stage reconstruction. Determining optimal outcomes clinically, aesthetically, financially as well as for the patient's quality of life has become a priority.

METHODS

A retrospective review of implant-based reconstructions was performed at a single center from 2010 to 2016, with patients blindly matched 1:1:1 into three cohorts based on reconstruction type: 1) single stage direct to implant with ADM, 2) two-stage tissue expander to implant (TE/I) without ADM, and 3) two-stage TE/I with ADM. Relative cost between groups, esthetic outcomes, and quality of life within each group was analyzed.

RESULTS

Group 1 was more likely to be older and use intraoperative angiography, but with fewer overall surgeries and postoperative visits (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in reconstructive success among all three groups (p = 0.85). Cost was significantly higher for group 3 relative to groups 1 and 2. Overall appearance was higher in groups 1 and 3 relative to group 2, with radiation therapy the only independent factor. Group 1 had higher scores using Breast-Q for the physical well-being domain (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to incorporate clinical outcomes, esthetic visual grading, and patient-reported quality within the same cohort of individuals, considering both use of ADM and staging. Despite the added ADM cost, it is proven safe, eliminates time and cost associated with tissue expanders, decreases post-operative visits and can lead to equally as functional and aesthetically pleasing outcomes in single- and two-stage breast reconstructions.

Factors Associated With Complications in Immediate Breast Reconstruction in 1 Stage With Completely Submuscular Implants

BACKGROUND

Immediate breast reconstruction in 1 stage using permanent implants is gaining popularity and can be performed with or without the use of acellular dermal matrices. This study aimed to investigate the results of breast implants placed submuscularly without acellular dermal matrix and assess the factors affecting surgical complications.

METHODS

From November 2009 to March 2018, 138 patients underwent immediate breast reconstruction with permanent submuscular implants after concomitant skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomies in a single institution. All implants were covered with sufficient soft tissue under a submuscular pocket.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight patients were enrolled, and a total of 196 breasts were operated. The average age and body mass index (BMI) of the patients were 44.9 ± 8.8 years and 23.7 ± 3.6 kg/m, respectively. The majority of the mastectomies were therapeutic (81%). The average volume of implants was 389 ± 89 mL, and the mean follow-up was 33 months. The overall complication rate was 17% (n = 23), with skin necrosis being the most common complication followed by infections. Having a BMI equal to or greater than 25 kg/m was found to be a statistically significant predictor for overall complications (P = 0.002), whereas smoking history, age, and implant volume were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate breast reconstruction in 1 stage using permanent implants can be performed with acceptable complication rates and cosmetic outcomes. Our study demonstrated that high BMI is a risk factor for overall complications. With proper patient selection and surgical technique, implants could be completely covered under a submuscular pocket.

Submuscular and Pre-Pectoral ADM Assisted Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Literature Review

Background and objectives: Breast cancer treatment has deeply changed in the last fifty years. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) were introduced for breast reconstruction, with encouraging results, but with conflicting reports too. The present paper aims to summarize the current data on breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the literature regarding the use of ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction. Results: The main techniques were analyzed and described. Conclusions: Several authors have recently reported positive results. Nevertheless, an increased complications' rate has been reported by other authors. Higher cost compared to not-ADM-assisted breast reconstruction is another concern.

Immediate breast reconstruction in high-risk cases using an anatomically shaped permanent expandable implant

BACKGROUND

Anatomically shaped permanent expandable implants are dual-chambered devices, which allow their postoperative expansion for the adjustment of volume. Their use is optional when 1-stage immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) direct to permanent implant is not feasible. The aim of this study is to present one center's long-term experience with the anatomical Becker expandable implant in a large series of patients who underwent either IBR or a salvage procedure for IBR with the device.

METHODS

The records of 141 patients (a total of 161 breasts) who underwent IBR with the Becker implant were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Indications for this procedure included reduced skin envelopes, compromised skin flaps, salvage procedures, and single-stage procedures in patients with major comorbidities.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-three devices (76%) involved IBR and 38 devices (24%) were salvage cases after direct-to-implant IBR. The device was used in a previously radiated breast in 36 cases (22%). Long-term follow-up demonstrated that 99 devices (61.5%) had been exchanged or removed and that only 62 devices (38.5%) remained as permanent implants. Removal of the device was associated with prior breast radiation and advanced age.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Becker device in high-risk IBR cases had a low retention rate as a permanent implant. Favorable indications for the use of this device in IBR cases include contralateral breast augmentation and patients with major comorbidities, which demonstrated a higher retention rate. Other indications for high-risk IBR cases could probably benefit using a 2-stage tissue-expander and implant technique.

One-Stage Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Concise Review

BACKGROUND

One-stage direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is performed simultaneously with breast cancer resection. We explored indications, techniques, and outcomes of IBR to determine its feasibility, safety, and effectiveness.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed the available literature on one-stage direct-to-implant IBR, with or without acellular dermal matrix (ADM), synthetic mesh, or autologous fat grafting. We analyzed the indications, preoperative work-up, surgical technique, postoperative care, outcomes, and complications.

RESULTS

IBR is indicated for small-to-medium nonptotic breasts and contraindicated in patients who require or have undergone radiotherapy, due to unacceptably high complications rates. Only patients with thick, well-vascularized mastectomy flaps are IBR candidates. Expandable implants should be used for ptotic breasts, while anatomical shaped implants should be used to reconstruct small-to-medium nonptotic breasts. ADMs can be used to cover the implant during IBR and avoid muscle elevation, thereby minimizing postoperative pain. Flap necrosis, reoperation, and implant loss are more common with IBR than conventional two-staged reconstruction, but IBR has advantages such as lack of secondary surgery, faster recovery, and better quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

IBR has good outcomes and patient-satisfaction rates. With ADM use, a shift from conventional reconstruction to IBR has occurred. Drawbacks of IBR can be overcome by careful patient selection.

Tissue expansion for breast reconstruction: Methods and techniques

OBJECTIVE

In this work, the authors review recent data on the different methods and techniques of TE/implant-based reconstruction to determine the complication profiles and the advantages and disadvantages of the different techniques. This information will be valuable for surgeons performing breast reconstructions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A thorough literature review was conducted by the authors concerning the current strategy of tissue expander (TE)/implant-based breast reconstruction following breast cancer surgery.

RESULTS

Loss of the breast can strongly affect a woman's personal and social life while breast reconstruction reduces the sense of mutilation felt by women after a mastectomy, and provides psychosocial as well as aesthetic benefits. TE/implant-based reconstruction is the most common breast reconstructive strategy, constituting almost 65% of all breast reconstructions in the US. Although numerous studies have been published on various aspects of alloplastic breast reconstructions, most studies are single-center observations. No evidence-based guidelines are available as yet. Conventional TE/implant-based reconstruction can be performed as a two-stage procedure either in the immediate or delayed setting. Moreover, the adjunctive use of acellular dermal matrix further broadened the alloplastic breast reconstruction indication and also enhanced aesthetic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

TE/implant-based reconstruction has proved to be a safe, cost-effective, and reliable technique that can be performed in women with various comorbidities. Short operative time, fast recovery, and absence of donor site morbidity are other advantages over autologous breast reconstruction.

Surveillance and Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Breast Oncologic Surgery with Immediate Reconstruction

Surgical site infection (SSI) after immediate breast reconstruction is much more common than would be expected after a clean surgical procedure. Although the SSI rates reported in individual studies are quite variable, there are no obvious explanations for the variation in infection rates between institutions. The microbiology of these SSIs is unusual, with higher proportions of infections caused by atypical Myobacterium species and Gram-negative bacilli than would be expected for this anatomic site. In an effort to prevent SSIs, many surgeons use a variety of different practices including irrigation and soaking of implants with antibiotic solutions and prolonged duration of prophylactic antibiotics, although the literature to support these practices is very sparse. In particular, prolonged use of antibiotics post-discharge is concerning due to the potential for harm, including increased risk of Clostridium difficile infection, development of antibiotic resistant organisms, and drug-related allergic reactions. With higher rates of mastectomy and breast implant reconstruction in women with early-stage breast cancer, including greater utilization of reconstruction in higher-risk individuals, the number of women suffering from infection after oncologic reconstruction will likely continue to increase. It is imperative that more research be done to identify modifiable factors associated with increased risk of infection. It is also essential that larger studies with rigorous study designs be performed to identify optimal strategies to decrease the risk of SSI in this vulnerable population.

Role of Macrotextured Shaped Extra Full Projection Cohesive Gel Implants in Primary Aesthetic Breast Augmentation

Background

Extra full projection implants are used in a select group of aesthetic breast surgery patients. Their use is selective enough that they have not been included in long term manufacturer studies and the indications for their use have attracted much debate. Only a handful of studies have reported the outcomes from implantation of these devices.

Objectives

We review our experience of using extra full projection anatomically shaped macrotextured silicone gel implants discussing our rationale, indications, and results.

Methods

All patients undergoing primary aesthetic breast surgery with extra full projection anatomical implants by the first author (P.M.) over a seven-year period (January 2009 to December 2015) were included.

Results

Three hundred and ten female patients had 620 macrotextured extra full projection anatomically shaped cohesive silicone gel breast implants of mean volume 338 cc (range, 195-615 cc) placed over the seven-year period. All of them had at least a 6-months follow up. There were 39 complications (12.6%) at an average follow up of 12.3 months, including implant malposition/rotation (5.4%), capsular contracture (2.6%), and bottoming out (1.6%). A total of 41 patients (13.2%) were reoperated, of which 30 (9.7%) were due to a complication and 11 (3.5%) because of patient choice. Most of the complications were in the initial part of the case series.

Conclusions

The outcomes following the use of extra full projection implants in a carefully selected group of patients are comparable in the short term to those reported for other shaped implants and complications appear to decrease with experience.

Level of Evidence

4.

One stage placement of permanent implant compared to two stage tissue expander reconstruction

With the advent of the skin sparing mastectomy, immediate breast reconstruction with placement of the definitive prosthesis at the time of mastectomy is possible. The question remains: does single-stage prosthetic reconstruction result in greater numbers of complications or rates of re-operation, compared to two-stage tissue expander reconstruction? A retrospective cohort study of a single centre?s experience with these techniques was carried out. From 2004 to 2012, 54 cases of immediate breast reconstruction with implant were identified, and 108 cases of immediate breast reconstruction using a tissue expander were identified. Gathered preoperative data included tumour, prior exposure to radiation, preoperative chemotherapy, smoking, and comorbidities. Complication rates, as well as the rate of secondary operations, were examined. There were no significant increased risks in the rate of post-operative complications (p = .910, odds ratio = 0.9) nor in the rate of re-operation (p = 0.421, odds ratio = 1.4) associated with the insertion of a definitive prosthesis at the time of skin sparing mastectomy. However, previously radiated breasts experienced a 100% rate of wound complications in our subset of 9 breasts that underwent one stage breast reconstruction with immediate final prosthesis placement. Our study suggests that patients with early stage disease can undergo single stage breast reconstruction without increased risk of complications nor need for secondary operations. While the mean time to completion of the reconstructive process is shortened by 5 months with the single stage technique, implant based breast reconstruction requires careful counseling and patient selection in radiated patients.

Natrelle 410 Extra-Full Projection Silicone Breast Implants: 2-Year Results from Two Prospective Studies

Background:

The safety and effectiveness of the Natrelle Style 410 highly cohesive silicone gel breast implant (Allergan, Inc., Irvine, Calif.) in full or moderate height and projection have been shown in a 10-year study. Extra-full projection implants may be an appropriate option for some women undergoing breast reconstruction.

Methods:

A total of 2795 women received at least one Natrelle 410 extra-full projection implant (X-style) for breast reconstruction in two similarly designed, prospective, multicenter studies. Data collected for 2 years after implantation in these studies were pooled to evaluate complication rates and subject and physician satisfaction.

Results:

Most subjects (76.0 percent) underwent bilateral reconstruction; a total of 4912 devices were implanted. Complication rates at 2 years were low. The most common complications were asymmetry (4.8 percent) and capsular contracture (3.3 percent). The cumulative risk of reoperation was 21.6 percent by subject and 16.6 percent by device; the most common reasons for reoperation were scarring (n = 97), asymmetry (n = 89), implant malposition (n = 78), and infection (n = 71). Subject and physician satisfaction rates exceeded 90 percent. At 2 years, 97 percent of physicians reported that the shape of the breast reflected the shape of the implant, and that the breast implant had maintained its original position.

Conclusions:

The safety profile of the Natrelle 410 extra-full projection implant mirrors that of its moderate projection and full projection counterparts. Both physicians and subjects were highly satisfied with the implants 2 years after surgery.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Therapeutic, IV.

Comparison of the Explantation Rate of Poly Implant Prothèse, Allergan, and Pérouse Silicone Breast Implants within the First Four Years after Reconstructive Surgery before the Poly Implant Prothèse Alert by the French Regulatory Authority

Background. In March 2010, ANSM (Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Medicament), the French Medical Regulatory Authority, withdrew Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) breast implants from the market due to the use of non-medical-grade silicone gel. The aim of this study was to compare the removal rate (and reasons thereof) of breast implants produced by different manufacturers before the ANSM alert. Materials and Methods. From October 2006 to January 2010, 652 women received 944 implants after breast cancer surgery at the Gustave Roussy Comprehensive Cancer Center, Paris (France). The complications and removal rates of the different implant brands used (PIP, Allergan, and Pérouse) were evaluated and compared. Results. PIP implants represented 50.6% of the used implants, Allergan 33.4%, and Pérouse 16%. The main reasons for implant removal were patient dissatisfaction due to aesthetic problems (43.2%), infection (22.2%), and capsular contracture (13.6%). Two years after implantation, 82% of Pérouse implants, 79% of PIP, and 79% of Allergan were still in situ. There was no difference in removal rate among implant brands. Conclusion. Before the ANSM alert concerning the higher rupture rate of PIP breast implants, our implant removal rate did not predict PIP implant failure related to the use of nonapproved silicone gel.

Postmastectomy radiotherapy: indications and implications

BACKGROUND

Although breast conservation surgery, when combined with radiotherapy, has been shown to provide excellent locoregional control for breast cancer, approximately one third of women with breast cancer require mastectomy. Many of these women are offered immediate reconstruction. Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is indicated in some cases, but is associated with side-effects, including its impact on the reconstructed breast.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pertinent issues surrounding PMRT, including patient selection for radiotherapy and the effect of radiotherapy on reconstructive decisions.

METHODS

A literature review was performed using the Medline database.

CONCLUSIONS

PMRT is indicated in patients who are deemed to have a high risk of loco-regional recurrence. Although PMRT is strongly recommended for patients with four or more positive lymphnodes, other indications for PMRT remain controversial. Immediate reconstruction post mastectomy has been shown to have favorable outcomes. However, PMRT may increase the need for revision surgery post immediate reconstruction. There are few randomized trials looking at these key issues, and the evidence is largely derived from observational retrospective studies. Patients should be carefully counseled before a decision is made to proceed with immediate reconstruction, where there is a high chance that PMRT may be indicated.

Hematoma after mastectomy with immediate reconstruction: an analysis of risk factors in 883 patients

BACKGROUND

Mastectomy followed by breast reconstruction presents unique circumstances, such as 2 operating teams, that may affect the likelihood of postoperative bleeding. This study evaluates risk factors for hematoma formation in patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction.

METHODS

The charts of 883 patients (1199 breasts) who underwent mastectomy and immediate tissue expander reconstruction between April 1998 and August 2008 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic and operative factors and information on hematoma location were recorded. Fisher exact test, Student t test, and multiple linear regression were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There were no differences in preoperative, operative, and oncologic characteristics between hematoma (n = 28 breasts) and nonhematoma (n = 1171 breasts) groups. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed no independent risk factors for hematoma formation, except an individual mastectomy and reconstructive surgeon (odds ratio, 3.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-12.37; P = 0.03; odds ratio, 2.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-6.08; P = 0.03, respectively). Most hematomas were diagnosed on postoperative day 0 or 1 (23/28, 82.1%) and found to originate from the pectoralis muscle (14/28, 50.0%) or axillary region (6/28, 21.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of postoperative hematoma after mastectomy with immediate reconstruction is not affected by any measurable preoperative, operative, or oncologic factors. With no definitive risk factor for bleeding, surgeons should remain meticulous and vigilant throughout the operation. In particular, hemostasis should be focused on the chest wall musculature given its propensity for being the primary source of hematoma formation.

440 Consecutive immediate, implant-based, single-surgeon breast reconstructions in 281 patients: a comparison of early outcomes and costs between SurgiMend fetal bovine and AlloDerm human cadaveric acellular dermal matrices

BACKGROUND

A 2010 nationwide survey of plastic and reconstructive surgeons indicated that approximately 83 percent performed predominantly implant-based breast reconstruction, with acellular dermal matrix used by approximately half of those practitioners. Although the medical literature documents well over 2000 cases of breast reconstruction with matrices, relatively few cases using other than human cadaveric acellular dermal matrices have been reported. The author compared complications and costs using SurgiMend fetal bovine and AlloDerm human cadaveric acellular dermal matrices.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a single surgeon's 5-year experience was performed for consecutive, nonrandomized immediate breast reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix from 2005 to 2010.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-one patients had 440 implant-based reconstructions using SurgiMend [222 patients (79.0 percent)] or AlloDerm [59 patients (21.0 percent)]. No significant differences in complication rates were observed between SurgiMend and AlloDerm for hematoma, infection, major skin necrosis, or breast implant removal. Seroma was the most prevalent complication; the seroma rate for AlloDerm (15.7 percent) was significantly greater than that for SurgiMend (8.3 percent). Using recent product costs for equivalently sized AlloDerm and SurgiMend units, the cost of SurgiMend was $1024 less per breast than AlloDerm.

CONCLUSIONS

SurgiMend fetal bovine and AlloDerm human cadaveric acellular dermal matrices demonstrate similar rates of major early complications in breast reconstruction in this study. This similarity in complication rates between SurgiMend and AlloDerm and the cost savings seen with the use of SurgiMend are factors for the surgeon to consider in choosing a matrix for breast reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

: Therapeutic, III.

A systematic review of antibiotic use and infection in breast reconstruction: what is the evidence?

BACKGROUND

The literature reports overall complication rates in breast reconstruction to be as high as 60 percent. Infection rates can exceed 20 percent, much higher than anticipated in clean elective surgery. There is no consensus among surgeons regarding the necessary duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines suggest only 24 hours. This systematic review examines antibiotic regimens and associated infection rates in breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Systematic electronic searches were performed in the PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane databases using Medical Subject Headings terms for studies reporting antibiotic use and infection in all forms of breast reconstruction. Studies between 1970 and 2011 were reviewed. Included publications were required to report an antibiotic protocol and infection rate.

RESULTS

A total of 834 abstracts were identified, 81 of which met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The overall reported infection rates in the included studies varied between 0 and 29 percent (average, 5.8 percent). When comparing combined patient cohorts receiving no antibiotics, less than 24 hours, and greater than 24 hours, the average infection rates were 14.4, 5.8, and 5.8 percent, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no consensus on the necessary duration of antibiotic prophylaxis following breast reconstruction. No benefit was found in patients who received more than 24 hours of postoperative antibiotics. Standardized definitions for antibiotic regimens, unit of analysis reporting, and a new breast reconstruction surgical-site infection grading system are offered to improve standardized outcome documentation. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to best determine an optimal antibiotic regimen.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

The clinical course of immediate breast implant reconstruction after breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The number of women suitable for breast conserving treatment as well as immediate reconstruction after breast cancer has been increasing, and studies of complications hereafter are needed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The cohort was identified in the prospective database of the Danish Registry for Plastic Surgery of the Breast during the period 1999 to 2006; 167 women with 189 immediate breast reconstructions (40 one-stage and 149 two-stage procedures) after breast cancer without a history of radiation therapy. The women were followed for complications until November 2009. Cumulative incidence risks were computed for infection, hematoma, seroma, severe capsular contracture (modified Baker III and IV), extrusion of the implant, implant rupture, asymmetry/displacement of the implant, any complication, and reoperation. In addition, we compared the postoperative course of immediate two-stage procedures with delayed two-stage procedures.

RESULTS

The overall eight-year risk estimates for the immediate procedures were 76.4% for any complication, 5.3% for severe capsular contracture, 29.5% for displacement/asymmetry of the implant and 40.6% for reoperation. Significantly higher risk for reoperation was observed after immediate one-stage than after two-stage procedures. For immediate two-stage procedures acute complications such as infection, seroma and hematoma were higher in the expansion period than after the second planned surgery. Higher risks for acute complications were observed after immediate than after delayed two-stage procedures.

CONCLUSION

Immediate breast implant reconstruction was found to have substantial risks of complications in non-radiated women, which should be considered in the guidance of breast cancer patients before choosing reconstructive procedure.

The Changing Face of Mastectomy (from Mutilation to Aid to Breast Reconstruction)

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. Primary treatment is surgery, with mastectomy as the main treatment for most of the twentieth century. However, over that time, the extent of the procedure varied, and less extensive mastectomies are employed today compared to those used in the past, as excessively mutilating procedures did not improve survival. Today, many women receive breast-conserving surgery, usually with radiotherapy to the residual breast, instead of mastectomy, as it has been shown to be as effective as mastectomy in early disease. The relatively new skin-sparing mastectomy, often with immediate breast reconstruction, improves aesthetic outcomes and is oncologically safe. Nipple-sparing mastectomy is newer and used increasingly, with better acceptance by patients, and again appears to be oncologically safe. Breast reconstruction is an important adjunct to mastectomy, as it has a positive psychological impact on the patient, contributing to improved quality of life.