Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Reduces Opioid Consumption and Pain After Mastectomy: A Head-to-Head Comparison With Submuscular Reconstruction

Two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most used approach for breast reconstruction following mastectomy. Prosthetic breast reconstruction helps achieve optimal results with reduced operation time, offering advantages over direct-to-implant and subpectoral reconstruction in selected patients. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed, and the search was conducted across the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases by adhering to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. The inclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials or randomized clinical trials related to completed two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction. Statistical analyses were conducted to synthesize the data and evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 48 articles were included for analysis, evaluating 4461 patients and 3894 breasts. The most commonly performed mastectomy type was skin-sparing mastectomy, followed by nipple-areola complex-sparing mastectomy. For the first surgical step, the mean tissue expander size was 423.64 cc, with a mean final expander fill of 349.10 cc. The mean time between the first and second surgery stages was 6.21 months, and the mean follow-up time was 17.10 months. A total of 21.27% of the patients experienced at least one complication. Specifically, seroma was identified in 11.19%, infection in 8.97%, skin flap necrosis in 8.48%, capsular contracture in 6.74%, rippling/wrinkling in 11.30%, expander or implant exposure in 2.38%, and implant removal in 8.62% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction is a viable surgical option for selected patients. The most frequent complication was seroma. Adjuvant radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of infection and implant removal.

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy improves the quality of life for many patients with breast cancer. There is uncertainty regarding eligibility criteria for reconstruction, timing (immediate or delayed-with or without radiotherapy), outcomes of nipple-sparing compared to skin-sparing mastectomy, selection criteria and surgical factors influencing outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy, prepectoral versus subpectoral implants, use of acellular dermal matrix, and use of autologous fat grafting. We conducted a systematic review of these topics to be used as the evidence base for an updated clinical practice guideline on breast reconstruction for Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42023409083. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched until August 2024, and 229 primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were retrospective non-randomized comparative studies; 5 randomized controlled trials were included. Results suggest nipple-sparing mastectomy is oncologically safe, provided there is no clinical, radiological, or pathological indication of nipple-areolar complex involvement. Surgical factors, including incision location, may affect rates of complications such as necrosis. Both immediate and delayed reconstruction have similar long-term outcomes; however, immediate reconstruction may result in better short to medium-term quality of life. Evidence on whether radiotherapy should modify the timing of initial reconstruction or expander-implant exchange was very limited; studies delayed reconstruction after radiotherapy by at least 3 months and, more commonly, at least 6 months to avoid the period of acute radiation injury. Radiation after immediate reconstruction is a reasonable option. Surgical complications are similar between prepectoral and dual-plane or subpectoral reconstruction; prepectoral placement may give a better quality of life due to lower rates of long-term complications such as pain and animation deformity. Autologous fat grafting was found to be oncologically safe; its use may improve quality of life and aesthetic results.

Cadaveric Biomechanical Comparison of Prepectoral and Submuscular Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Decreased postoperative pain and functional impact have been associated with prepectoral breast implant placement versus submuscular placement; yet no mechanical analyses have quantified this difference. Using 1 postmortem human subject, a 3-dimensional biomechanical tracking system was used to determine the impact of pocket placement on shoulder girdle dynamics for submuscular acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-assisted and prepectoral implants. Smooth silicone breast implants were placed bilaterally-one in the prepectoral plane with anterior ADM coverage and the other in the submuscular ADM-assisted plane. Using tracking nodes at the sternum, clavicles, scapulae, and humeri, each shoulder was tested through serial standardized trials of extension, flexion, lateral extension/flexion, oblique extension/flexion, and abduction using manual manipulations of the shoulder and a counter-weight apparatus before and after implant placement. Bone kinematics (bony displacement and rotation) and kinetics (joint force and moment) were recorded. To achieve equal shoulder extension and flexion maneuvers, submuscular placement was associated with increased scapular, humeral, and clavicular displacement as well as increased scapular and humeral rotation compared with preoperative measurements, whereas prepectoral placement showed no difference. Increased scapular and clavicular rotation with extension and decreased rotation with abduction were noted with both pockets. This cadaveric biomechanical model shows that submuscular implant placement is associated with compensatory increases in bony displacements and rotation required to complete standardized movements consistent with activities of daily living. Further replication of this protocol with varying cadaveric body types and implant sizes would generate predicted postoperative shoulder movement models for implant-based breast reconstruction in different pocket locations.

Real-world data of perioperative complications in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To analyze complications and potential risk factors associated with immediate prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction (DTIBR).

METHODS

295 patients (326 operated breasts) with DTIBR between March 2021 and December 2023 were included in this prospective study. Postoperative complications (postoperative bleeding, seroma, infection, necrosis, wound dehiscence, implant exchange/loss) were analyzed for potential risk factors by descriptive and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The implant was covered by TiLOOP® Bra Pocket in 227 breasts (69.6%), by "dual-plane" technique in 20 breasts (6.1%), by acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in 1 breast (0.3%). No additional support was used for 78 breasts (23.9%). The use of mesh did not increase the risk for complications. Major complications requiring surgical revision occurred due to postoperative bleeding in 22 (6.7%), seroma in 2 (0.6%), infection in 13 (4.0%), necrosis in 10 (3.1%), and wound dehiscence in 10 (3.1%) breasts. Thirteen (4.0%) implants were exchanged, and 5 (1.5%) were explanted without substitution. One patient had to switch to autologous reconstruction due to skin necrosis. The main reasons for the removal/exchange of implants were infections (11 breasts, 3.4%) and necrosis (4 breasts, 1.2%). The risk for necrosis, infection, and wound dehiscence was mainly associated with the type of incision, especially skin-reducing incisions, and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2.

CONCLUSION

Severe complications occurred primarily in patients with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and when skin-reducing surgical techniques were performed.

TRIAL REGISTRY

This study was retrospectively registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) on 20.06.2024.

DRKS-ID

DRKS00034493. https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00034493 .

Intraoperative methadone administration for total mastectomy: A single center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most frequent type of cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in women. Mastectomies remain a key component of the treatment of non-metastatic breast cancer, and strategies to treat acute postoperative pain, a complication affecting nearly all patients undergoing surgery, continues to be an important clinical challenge. This study aimed to determine the impact of intraoperative methadone administration compared to conventional short-acting opioids on pain-related perioperative outcomes in women undergoing a mastectomy.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included adult women undergoing total mastectomy. The primary outcome of this study was postoperative pain intensity on day 1 after surgery. Secondary outcomes included perioperative opioid consumption, perioperative non-opioid analgesics use, duration of surgery and anesthesia, time to extubation, pain intensity in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), anti-emetic use in PACU, and length of stay in hospital. We used the propensity score-based nearest matching with a 1:3 ratio to balance the patient baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

133 patients received methadone, and 2192 patients were treated with short-acting opioids. The analysis demonstrated that methadone was associated with significantly lower intraoperative and postoperative opioid consumption as measured by oral morphine equivalents and lower average pain intensity scores in the postanesthesia care unit. Moreover, methadone was also shown to reduce the use of non-opioid analgesia during surgery.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that the unique pharmacological properties of methadone, including a short onset of action when given intravenously, long-acting pharmacokinetics, and multimodal effects, are associated with better acute pain management after a total mastectomy.

Impact of the Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment Score on Expander-Based Reconstruction Success

Background/Objectives: The rising incidence of breast cancer has led to more mastectomies and increased demand for reconstruction. While retropectoral reconstruction with expanders is common, it has complications like postoperative pain and animation deformity. Prepectoral reconstruction, aided by advancements in biological and synthetic meshes, offers a promising alternative. Methods: This study prospectively evaluated the "Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment Score" on 20 patients undergoing mastectomy at Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, from July 2022 to February 2024. Patients with scores between 5 and 8 were included. The procedure involved the use of ADM (Acellular Dermal Matrix) or titanium-coated polypropylene mesh, followed by postoperative expansions and final implant placement after six months. Results: The mean age of patients was 51.85 years, with a mean BMI of 24.145 kg/m2. ADM was used in 15 cases and synthetic mesh in 5. Complications were one exposure of the expander, one superficial skin necrosis and one seroma. Statistical analysis showed a trend toward fewer complications with higher scores, though this was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.139). Conclusions: Prepectoral reconstruction with expanders is a viable option, offering benefits such as reduced operating time, better volume control, and a more natural breast contour compared to the retropectoral approach. Although the trend suggests fewer complications with higher assessment scores, further studies with larger samples are needed for confirmation.

A systematic review of morphine equivalent conversions in plastic surgery: Current methods and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Protocols surrounding opioid reduction have become commonplace in plastic surgery to improve peri-operative outcomes. Within such protocols, opioid requirement is a frequently analyzed outcome. Though often examined, there is no literature standard conversion for morphine milligram equivalents (MME) at present, leading to questionable external validity. We hypothesized significant heterogeneity in MME reporting would exist within plastic surgery literature.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, the authors conducted a systematic review of 16 journals. Clinical studies focused on opioid reduction within plastic surgery were identified. Primary outcomes included reporting of morphine equivalents (ME) delivery (IV/oral), operative ME, inpatient ME, outpatient ME, timeline, and method of calculation.

RESULTS

Among the 101 studies analyzed, 73% reported opioid requirements in the form of ME. Among those that used ME, 3% reported IV ME, 41% reported oral, 32% reported both, and 25% gave no indication of either. Operative ME were reported in 19% of studies. Furthermore, 54% of studies reported inpatient ME whereas 32% of studies reported outpatient ME. Only 19% reported the number of days opioids were consumed postoperatively. Moreover, 27% of the studies reported the actual method of ME conversion, with 17 unique methods described. Only 8 studies (8%) reported using the Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for ME conversion.

CONCLUSION

There is significant variability among the reported ME conversion methodology within plastic surgery literature. Highlighting these discrepancies is an essential step in creating and implementing a single, standard method to mitigate opioid morbidity in plastic surgery and to optimize enhanced recovery protocols.

An Interdisciplinary, Comprehensive Recovery Pathway Improves Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction Delivery

INTRODUCTION

Free-flap (autologous) breast reconstruction demonstrates superiority over alloplastic approaches but is offered infrequently. Enhanced recovery protocols can address postoperative challenges, but most literature is limited to inpatient interventions and outcomes. This study describes an adoptable, longitudinally comprehensive and multidisciplinary recovery pathway for autologous reconstruction which adds to the current guidelines. The authors aimed to allow perioperative outcomes comparable to alloplastic reconstructions.

METHODS

All autologous Comprehensive Recovery Pathway (CRP) subjects from a single surgeon were retrospectively included. A comparator group of equal size was randomly selected from institutional subpectoral and dual-plane tissue expander patients having Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guideline-directed care. All subjects in both cohorts received preoperative paravertebral regional blocks. Operative detail, inpatient recovery, longitudinal morphine equivalents (MEs) required, and complications were compared.

RESULTS

Each cohort included 71 cases (99 breasts). Despite longer operations, intraoperative MEs were fewer in autologous cases ( P = 0.02). Morphine equivalents during inpatient stay were similar between cohorts, with both being discharged on median day 2. Multivariate regression demonstrated a 0.8-day increased stay for autologous subjects with additional contribution from bilateral cases, body mass index, and age ( P < 0.05). Autologous subjects were regularly discharged postoperative day 1 (17%) and postoperative day 2 (39%), with trend toward earlier discharge ( P < 0.01). Outpatient MEs were significantly fewer in autologous subjects, corresponding to a 30- to 150-mg oxycodone difference ( P < 0.01). Major complication occurred in 12.7% of autologous and 22.5% of alloplastic subjects ( P = 0.11). Flap loss occurred in 1 autologous subject versus 11 alloplastic failures ( P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study details partnership between the plastic surgery service, regional and acute pain anesthesia services, and dedicated nursing with longitudinal optimizations allowing perioperative outcomes improved over current literature. Patients in the CRP used fewer opioids from operation through follow-up with comparable length of stay and significantly fewer reconstructive failures than alloplastic subjects. The pathway may be quickly adopted into academic practice patterns and mitigates traditional barriers, allowing extension of autologous reconstruction offerings.

Counselling Framework for Germline BRCA1/2 and PALB2 Carriers Considering Risk-Reducing Mastectomy

Female BRCA1/2 and PALB2 germline pathogenic variant carriers have an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer and may wish to consider risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) for surgical prevention. Quantifying the residual lifetime risk and absolute benefit from RRM requires careful consideration of a patient's age, pathogenic variant, and their personal history of breast or ovarian cancer. Historically, patients have been counselled that RRM does not necessarily prolong survival relative to high-risk surveillance, although recent studies suggest a possible survival benefit of RRM in BRCA1 carriers. The uptake of RRM has increased dramatically over the last several decades yet varies according to sociodemographic factors and geographic region. The increased adoption of nipple-sparing mastectomy techniques, ability to avoid axillary staging, and availability of reconstructive options for most germline pathogenic variant carriers has helped to minimize the morbidity of RRM. Preoperative discussions should include evidence regarding postmastectomy sensation, the potential for supplemental surgery, pregnancy-related chest wall changes, and the need for continued clinical surveillance. Approaches that include sensation preservation and robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy are an area of evolving research that may be more widely adopted in the future.

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.