Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction Combined With Contralateral Breast Augmentation for Taiwanese Women With Small Breasts

The safety of simultaneous versus delayed contralateral breast symmetrization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While unilateral breast reconstruction often requires contralateral breast symmetrization procedures, the optimal timing of the matching procedure remains unclear. While the delayed approach may be traditionally perceived as safer, the immediate or simultaneous approach may reduce additional operations and avoid a period of breast asymmetry. This study investigates and compares the safety outcomes associated with simultaneous and delayed contralateral symmetrization.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were queried to identify studies reporting safety outcomes in breast reconstruction patients who had received simultaneous and/or delayed contralateral symmetrization. Meta-analyses estimated the pooled complication and reoperation rates of the simultaneous group and compared the complication and reoperation rates between the simultaneous and delayed groups.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with a total of 1263 patients were included, with 697 receiving simultaneous symmetrization and 566 receiving delayed symmetrization. Symmetrization procedures included reduction (36%), mastopexy (28%), augmentation (12%), augmentation-mastopexy (3%), reduction-mastopexy (2%), or unspecified (19%). The reconstruction types included autologous flap-based reconstruction (n = 1038) and implant-based reconstruction (n = 225). The pooled overall complication and reoperation rates of the simultaneous group were 17% and 28%, respectively. In studies comparing the simultaneous and delayed groups, there were no significant differences in overall complications, hematoma, necrosis, and reoperations (P-values > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous symmetrization had similar complication and reoperation rates compared to delayed symmetrization. This conclusion supports the relative safety of simultaneous symmetrization in breast reconstruction and gives the surgeon and patient additional data to consider in their shared decision-making process.

Safety of Augmenting Breast Volume in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction With Contralateral Breast Augmentation: Comparison With 2-Stage Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a standard method of implant-based reconstruction; however, the risk of skin necrosis and implant failure exists. During simultaneous contralateral augmentation, an implant larger than the resected tissue must be inserted to balance both sides, which may increase the risk of complications. This study examined the differences in the incidence of complications between the single-stage direct-to-implant reconstruction and 2-stage reconstruction when contralateral augmentation was performed simultaneously.

METHODS

This study included 99 patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction with contralateral augmentation between 2012 and 2020. A retrospective chart review was conducted and the patients were divided into 2 groups: the single-stage reconstruction (n = 61) and 2-stage reconstruction (TSR, n = 38) groups. Demographic data and surgical and oncological information were collected. Complications including skin necrosis and reconstruction failure were investigated as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Implant volume and contralateral implant volume were significantly greater in TSR group than in the single-stage reconstruction group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications and reconstruction failure rates between both groups. The nipple-sparing mastectomy was the risk factor for complications. Furthermore, the risk factors for mastectomy skin necrosis were implant volume and differences in the volume of both implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-stage reconstruction did not increase the risk of complications compared with TSR when implants that were larger than the resected tissue were inserted after mastectomy. Proper patient selection and selection of implants that are not excessively large could satisfy patients' cosmetic needs in a single operation.

Effect of contralateral augmentation on postoperative complications after the second stage of tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction

Background

Contralateral augmentation mammoplasty in implant-based reconstruction could potentially lead to deterioration of the thickness of the mastectomy skin flap and increase postoperative complications of the reconstructed breast. We compared the complication rates of the reconstructed breast in the augmentation and no-augmentation groups among patients undergoing tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction.

Methods

Patients who underwent mastectomy followed by tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction between February 2010 and April 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome measures were complications and the need for a revision operation. The augmentation and no-augmentation groups underwent propensity score-matched analysis and the matched cases underwent multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results

From the 234 patients in the augmentation group and 517 patients in the no-augmentation group, 200 propensity score-matched pairs were obtained. Analysis of the matched pairs revealed that the augmentation group as compared to the no-augmentation group showed a significantly higher overall complication rate (13.5 percent versus 6.5 percent; P=0.025) and revision operation rate (9.0 percent versus 3.0 percent; P=0.019). Multivariable conditional logistic regression analyses of the matched cases revealed that contralateral augmentation (odds ratio, 3.457; 95% confidence interval, 1.039-11.498; P=0.043) was associated with increased odds for a revision operation of the reconstructed breast.

Conclusions

This study investigated the postoperative complications of the reconstructed breast associated with contralateral augmentation mammoplasty in patients who underwent mastectomy followed by tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. The augmentation group had a higher revision operation rate than did the no-augmentation group. A clinical evaluation of the risks and benefits of contralateral augmentation and preoperative counseling may be indicated for patients who are undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction and are candidates for contralateral augmentation mammoplasty.

The influence of contralateral breast augmentation on the development of complications in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Simultaneous contralateral augmentation in direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction may increase the risk of skin flap necrosis on the reconstruction side due to increased tension on the skin flap when implants are larger than the original breast size. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the contralateral augmentation procedure affects complications in unilateral DTI breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients who underwent immediate unilateral DTI breast reconstruction from January 2013 to July 2017 were included in this study. Data were collected through retrospective review of individual medical records. The primary outcome variable was the development of perioperative complications including skin flap necrosis. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for complications.

RESULTS

A total of 121 patients who underwent unilateral immediate DTI breast reconstruction were included in this study. Twenty-one patients (17.4%) underwent simultaneous contralateral augmentation mammoplasty and 100 patients (82.6%) underwent DTI without contralateral augmentation. Overall complications were not different between the contralateral augmentation and no-augmentation groups (23.8% vs. 31%, respectively, p = 0.512). The frequency of skin flap necrosis in the augmentation group (14.3%) was not significantly different from that in the no-augmentation group (18.0%, p > 0.999). In multivariable analysis, mastectomy weight was the only predictor for complications (p = 0.053) and contralateral augmentation was not associated with development of complications.

CONCLUSION

Contralateral breast augmentation in DTI breast reconstruction is not a risk factor for complications and can be safely performed in selected patients.

Impact of Contralateral Symmetry Procedures on Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes following Unilateral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

 One aim of unilateral postmastectomy breast reconstruction (BR) is to restore symmetry with the contralateral breast. As such, unilateral prosthetic reconstruction often requires a contralateral symmetry procedure (CSP). There is sparse literature on the impact of CSPs on long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aims to describe PROs following CSPs, using a validated PRO tool, BREAST-Q. The hypothesis is that CSPs are associated with greater patient-reported satisfaction and HRQoL.

METHODS

 This study is a single institutional analysis of prospectively collected BREAST-Q scores of patients who underwent unilateral prosthetic BR during 2011 to 2015. Women 18 years and older with BREAST-Q scores measured ≥ 9months after BR with or without CSP(s) at the time of expander replacement were included. Patients were classified into four subcohorts: augmentation, mastopexy, reduction, and no symmetry procedure (controls). Sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and BREAST-Q scores were analyzed. Multivariable linear regression was performed.

RESULTS

 Of 553 patients, 67 (12%) underwent contralateral augmentation, 68 (12%) mastopexy, 93(17%) reduction, and 325 (59%) were controls. Mean follow-up time was 52 months. Satisfaction with breast and outcomes were higher in the augmentation compared with the control groups (p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, augmentation remained an independent predictor of satisfaction with breast (p = 0.04). Physical well-being scores were lower for contralateral mastopexy and reduction compared with the controls with a trend toward statistical significance on multivariable models. Psychological and sexual well-being was similar across groups.

CONCLUSION

 Prosthetic reconstruction with contralateral breast augmentation was associated with greater satisfaction with breast and reconstructive outcome. In contrast, breast reduction and mastopexy procedures demonstrated equivalent satisfaction with breasts compared with controls but may be associated with lower physical well-being. Such information can be used to improve the shared decision-making process for women who choose unilateral prosthetic BR.