Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (OPBC-02/ PREPEC): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial

Current approaches to breast reconstruction: A scoping review of outcomes and factors influencing core outcome sets

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women worldwide. Surgery is part of the standard treatment for most new breast cancer patients. Surgical options include breast conserving surgery and mastectomy. Breast reconstruction is commonly offered to patients undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer. The aim of this review was to evaluate current approaches to breast reconstruction and factors influencing core outcome sets for breast reconstruction. This review focused to identify keywords pertaining to the review aim such as: "breast reconstruction" AND "breast cancer" AND "outcomes" through Medline. There were 49 relevant manuscripts identified between the July 2018 to July 2023. Additionally, we identified based on the literature review manuscripts on topics of oncological outcomes after breast reconstruction. Preference was given to the sources published in the last five years. Available research indicates that although general quality of life post-reconstruction is comparable across surgical methods, variations exist in postoperative satisfaction, complications, and recovery. Autologous reconstruction is often associated with higher patient satisfaction and well-being across physical, psychosocial, and aesthetic domains compared to implant-based reconstruction. Key risk factors for complications include diabetes, obesity, and smoking, which impact postoperative recovery and readmission rates. Additionally, postmastectomy radiation therapy to breast cancer management increases risks of infection, necrosis, and aesthetic dissatisfaction. However, autologous techniques are somewhat less affected of this risk than implant based techniques. The review underscores the need for enhanced patient education tools and precision-based approaches that address both aesthetic and oncological concerns, setting a foundation for more informed, data-supported decision-making in breast reconstruction.

Nipple Position and Clinical Outcomes Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: An Examination of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant-Based Reconstruction Utilizing 3D Imaging

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has become increasingly popular in recent years. However, the impact of prepectoral vs subpectoral implant reconstruction on nipple position, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after NSM remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that prepectoral reconstruction would lead to a more anatomic nipple position and improved clinical outcomes and PROs when compared to subpectoral reconstruction following NSM.

METHODS

Surgical characteristics, complications, and PROs in NSM patients with implant-based reconstruction from 2018 to 2021 were prospectively collected. Nipple displacement from baseline was analyzed with 3-dimensional (3D) surface imaging.

RESULTS

In total 216 patients underwent 391 NSMs, separated into subpectoral (n = 96) and prepectoral (n = 120) cohorts. There were no differences in demographics or comorbidities between cohorts. Prepectoral placement showed a greater incidence of short-term return to the operating room (21% vs 10%, P = .026). Three-dimensional analysis of 96 patients and 175 nipple positions was conducted. Compared to preoperative baseline, 3D imaging at 12 months postoperatively showed that the subpectoral cohort had greater straight-line distance between the nipples (23.1 mm vs 17.3 mm, P < .001) and more lateral nipple displacement (9.2 mm vs 6.1 mm, P < .001) when compared to the prepectoral cohort. Regression analysis found no relationship between incision pattern and nipple displacement. No postoperative differences were seen in PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

Subpectoral NSM reconstruction was found to have more lateralized nipple displacement when compared to prepectoral patients, regardless of the incision pattern employed. Nipple displacement after NSM can play a significant role in postoperative aesthetic appearance and should be considered when deciding implant plane.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 (THERAPEUTIC)

Video-assisted submuscular breast reconstruction: evaluating a novel technique in high-risk patients

Background

Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent oncological diseases worldwide, with mastectomy often necessary for treatment. Post-mastectomy breast reconstruction is essential for restoring physical integrity and improving patients' quality of life, especially in high-risk individuals with advanced age, obesity, diabetes, smoking habits, or a history of radiotherapy. Traditional submuscular reconstruction techniques are effective but often associated with higher rates of complications in this patient population. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel video-assisted procedure (VAP) for submuscular breast reconstruction, focusing on its ability to reduce complications and enhance outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective analysis compared 17 high-risk patients who underwent VAP with 127 patients treated using traditional non-video-assisted procedures (NVAP) between September 2022 and June 2024. Both groups were comparable in age, body mass index (BMI), and risk factors. Data on postoperative complications, including bleeding, wound dehiscence, and infections, were collected and analyzed. Statistical significance was determined using appropriate tests, with a P value <0.05 considered significant.

Results

The VAP group demonstrated significant reductions in complications compared to the NVAP group. No cases of postoperative bleeding were reported in the VAP group, while 8.66% of NVAP patients experienced bleeding. Wound dehiscence rates were also lower in the VAP group (5.88%) compared to the NVAP group (10.24%). The minimally invasive nature of VAP allowed for precise dissection and reduced tissue trauma without prolonging surgical times.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that VAP is a safer and more effective alternative for high-risk patients requiring submuscular breast reconstruction. By minimizing complications and enhancing both functional and aesthetic outcomes, VAP offers a promising innovation in reconstructive surgery. Larger, randomized trials are necessary to validate these results and establish VAP as a standard of care in diverse clinical settings.

Patient-reported outcomes 3 and 18 months after mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Prepectoral techniques are becoming standard of care for implant-based breast reconstruction due to reduced impact on chest wall function and improved patient satisfaction. Evidence to support these benefits, however, is lacking. Here, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) in the Pre-BRA cohort are reported.

METHODS

Women undergoing PPBR after mastectomy for breast cancer or risk reduction between July 2019 and December 2020 were recruited. Participants completed the BREAST-Q preoperatively and at 3 and 18 months following surgery together with a single item evaluating overall satisfaction at 18 months. Women completing at least one BREAST-Q scale at any timepoint were eligible for inclusion. Questionnaires were scored according to the developers' instructions and scores compared over time. Exploratory analysis, adjusting for baseline scores was performed to explore factors impacting PROs.

RESULTS

In total 338 of 343 (98.5%) women undergoing PPBR at 40 UK centres were included in the analysis. Compared with baseline scores, women reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful decreases in both 'Physical' and 'Sexual well-being' at 3 and 18 months. Adjusting for baseline, at 18 months, those experiencing implant loss or having surgery for malignancy reported lower scores in all BREAST-Q domains. Overall, two-thirds of women (167/251) rated the outcome of their reconstruction as 'excellent/very good', but experiencing major complications, implant loss, and being dissatisfied with wrinkling/rippling in the reconstructed breast were associated with reduced satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

PPBR impacts postoperative physical well-being and PROs are variable. These findings should be discussed with patients to support informed decision-making based on realistic expectations of outcome.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ISRCTN11898000.

Complications and patient-reported outcomes after radiotherapy in breast cancer patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction: a retrospective study from a large Chinese breast disease center

BACKGROUND

Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) can influence the outcome of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). This study aims to investigate the complications and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following PMRT between direct-to-implant (DTI) and tissue expander-to-implant (TEI) reconstruction.

METHODS

The retrospective study included breast cancer patients undergoing IBBR and PMRT. Patients were divided into a permanent implant group (PI-PMRT) and a tissue expander group (TE-PMRT). Complications, reconstruction failure, and reoperation were compared between the two groups. PROs were assessed using the BREAST-Q scale.

RESULTS

A total of 203 patients were included: 99 in the PI-PMRT group and 104 in the TE-PMRT group. The incidence of severe capsular contracture was significantly higher in the PI-PMRT group compared to the TE-PMRT group (37.4% vs. 24.0%, p = 0.039). The PI-PMRT group had a significantly lower rate of reconstruction failure (9.1% vs. 19.2%, p = 0.039) and reoperation (13.1% vs. 24.0%, p = 0.046). Multivariate analysis revealed that the absence of mesh (OR = 2.177, p = 0.040) and DTI reconstruction (OR = 1.922, p = 0.046) were independent predictors of severe capsular contracture; the absence of mesh (OR = 4.699, p = 0.015) and TEI reconstruction (OR = 2.429, p = 0.043) were independent predictors of reconstruction failure. BREAST-Q scores indicated greater breast satisfaction in the PI-PMRT group (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Although DTI reconstruction resulted in a higher risk of severe capsular contracture, the higher risk of reconstruction failure and reoperation in patients undergoing TEI reconstruction was even more concerning. Furthermore, patients were more likely to report greater breast satisfaction with DTI reconstruction. Therefore, DTI reconstruction may be a more appropriate option for patients anticipating PMRT.

Immediate prepectoral versus submuscular breast reconstruction in nipple-sparing mastectomy: a retrospective cohort analysis

Objective

To evaluate early complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study including 180 consecutive cases of nipple-sparing mastectomy, comparing immediate breast reconstruction with subpectoral to prepectoral mammary implants in 2012-2022. Clinical and demographic characteristics and complications in the first three months following surgery were compared between the two techniques.

Results

The prepectoral technique was used in 22 cases (12.2%) and the subpectoral in 158 (87.8%). Median age was higher in the prepectoral group (47 versus 43.8 years; p=0.038), as was body mass index (25.1 versus 23.8; p=0.002) and implant volume (447.5 versus 409 cc; p=0.001). The prepectoral technique was more associated with an inframammary fold (IMF) incision (19 cases, 86.4% versus 85, 53.8%) than with periareolar incisions (3 cases, 13.6% versus 73, 46.2%); (p=0.004). All cases in the prepectoral group underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction compared to 54 cases (34.2%) in the subpectoral group. Thirty-eight complications were recorded: 36 (22.8%) in the subpectoral group and 2 (9.1%) in the prepectoral group (p=0.24). Necrosis of the nipple-areola complex/skin flap occurred in 27 patients (17.1%) in the subpectoral group (prepectoral group: no cases; p=0.04). The groups were comparable regarding dehiscence, seroma, infection, and hematoma. Reconstruction failed in one case per group (p=0.230). In the multivariate analysis, IMF incision was associated with the prepectoral group (aOR: 34.72; 95%CI: 2.84-424.63).

Conclusion

The incidence of early complications was comparable between the two techniques and compatible with previous reports. The clinical and demographic characteristics differed between the techniques. Randomized clinical trials are required.

Comparing outcomes of prepectoral, partial muscle-splitting subpectoral, and dual-plane subpectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction: implant upward migration and the pectoralis muscle

Background

Although dual-plane subpectoral breast reconstruction has been widely implemented in implant-based breast reconstruction, animation deformities remain an issue. Recent advances in skin flap circulation detection have increased the use of prepectoral reconstruction. A partial muscle-splitting subpectoral plane was introduced to decrease the visibility of the implant edge. However, there is yet to be a direct comparison of these methods for optimal results, including changes in implant position after reconstruction. This study aims to compare the incidence of complications such as rippling, animation deformity, implant upward migration between the dual-plane, the partial muscle splitting subpectoral and the prepectoral reconstruction group. In addition, multivariate analysis was conducted to identify the risk factors of complications.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated 349 patients who underwent unilateral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction from January 2017 to October 2020. Implants were inserted into the dual-plane subpectoral (P2) or partial muscle-splitting subpectoral (P1, the muscle slightly covering the upper edge of the implant) or the prepectoral pocket (P0). Postoperative outcomes and at least 2 years of follow-up complications were compared.

Results

There was no significant difference in rippling (P=0.62) or visible implant edges on the upper pole (P=0.62) among the three groups. In contrast, the P0 group had a lower incidence of seroma (P=0.008), animation deformity (P<0.001), breast pain (P=0.002), and upward implant migration (P0: 1.09%, P1: 4.68%, P2: 38.37%, P<0.001). According to the multivariate analysis, P2 resulted in a greater risk of seroma (odds ratio: 4.223, P=0.002) and implant upward migration (odds ratio: 74.292, P<0.001) than did P0.

Conclusions

P0 and P1 showed better postoperative outcomes than P2. Additionally, P0 had less implant migration than P1. Even though P1 minimally dissects the muscle, the location of the implant may change. Considering that muscle contraction can deteriorate symmetry and aesthetic results, the P0 method may be the most favorable.

Is a soft tissue reinforcing mesh necessary in immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction for early breast cancer in patients with low-volume breast? A single-center, retrospective Chinese clinical study

It is controversial as to whether soft tissue reinforcement mesh should be used for immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy for low-volume breast early breast cancer (LVBEBC) in Chinese adult women. We collected data on 89 patients with LVBEBC who underwent such a surgery and divided them into two groups: 39 patients in the totally subpectoral prosthesis-only breast reconstruction group (simple group) and 50 patients in the prosthesis-combined titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TCPM) group (or the so-called "dual plane" or "mesh-assisted partially subpectoral breast reconstruction group") (combined group). The results demonstrated no difference in operative time, intraoperative bleeding, and postoperative complications between the two groups; however, total drainage volume and extubation time were less and shorter, respectively, in the combined group. The median follow-up time was 18.6 months without local recurrence or distant metastasis in both groups. At 24 months after surgery, the excellent and good rates of breast reconstruction were higher in the combined group. However, patients' BMI, breast morphology, and breast volume of 300 mL or more had an effect on the shape of the reconstructed breast; in addition, in patients with higher BMI, conical breast morphology, and breast volume over 300 mL, the shape of the breast was more perfect with the prosthesis combined with TCPM reconstruction.Trial registration: This retrospective study was "retrospectively registered" in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of South China University of Technology of China on March 15, 2022 (No. 2022018) and in the National Medical Research Registry filing system of China ( https://www.medicalresearch.org.cn ) (No. MR-44-22-003618).

MRI-Conditional Breast Tissue Expander: First In-Human Multi-Case Assessment of MRI-Related Complications and Image Quality

This study aims to assess potential complications and effects on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image quality of a new MRI-conditional breast tissue expander (Motiva Flora^®) in its first in-human multi-case application. Twenty-four patients with 36 expanders underwent non-contrast breast MRI with T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences on a 3 T unit before breast tissue expander exchange surgery, being monitored during and after MRI for potential complications. Three board-certified breast radiologists blindly and independently reviewed image quality using a four-level scale ("poor", "sufficient", "good", and "excellent"), with inter-reader reliability being assessed with Kendall's τ_b. The maximum diameters of RFID-related artifacts on T1-weighted and DWI sequences were compared with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. All 24 examinations were completed without patient-related or device-related complications. The T1-weighted and T2-weighted sequences of all the examinations had "excellent" image quality and a median 11 mm (IQR 9-12 mm) RFID artifact maximum diameter, significantly lower (p < 0.001) than on the DWI images (median 32.5 mm, IQR 28.5-34.5 mm). DWI quality was rated at least "good" in 63% of the examinations, with strong inter-reader reliability (Kendall's τ_b 0.837, 95% CI 0.687-0.952). This first in-human study confirms the MRI-conditional profile of this new expander, which does not affect the image quality of T1-weighted and T2-weighted sequences and moderately affects DWI quality.

Ptotic versus Nonptotic Breasts in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

In recent years, nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity due to improved cosmetic and psychological benefits. However, patients with ptotic breasts remain the main challenge for surgeons, owing to the potential risk of postoperative complications.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy and prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction between March 2017 and November 2021. Patient demographics, incidence of complications, and quality of life assessed using the BREAST-Q questionnaire were compared between the two different incisions [inverted-T for ptotic versus inframammary fold (IMF) for nonptotic breasts].

Results

A total of 98 patients were examined: 62 in the IMF cohort and 36 in the inverted-T cohort. The results demonstrated equivalence in the safety metrics between the two groups, including hematoma (p=0.367), seroma (p=0.552), infection (P = 1.00), skin necrosis (P = 1.00), local recurrence (P = 1.00), implant loss (P = 0.139), capsular contracture (P = 1.00), and nipple-areolar complex necrosis (P = 0.139). The BREAST-Q scores were equally high in both groups.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that inverted-T incision for ptotic breasts is a safe modality with similar complication rates and high aesthetic results compared with IMF incision for nonptotic breasts. A higher rate of nipple-areolar complex necrosis in the inverted-T group, although not significant, should be considered during careful preoperative planning and patient selection.

Salvage of Nipple-Areolar Complex Ischemia With Dimethyl Sulfoxide: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis is a known risk of breast surgery, particularly mastectomy. Disruption of the underlying blood supply to the NAC can lead to ischemia and subsequent necrosis. Nitroglycerin paste is currently used to combat NAC ischemia but has limited efficacy and an unfavorable side effect profile. Topical dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) has been shown to increase tissue perfusion in microsurgery and various skin flaps, but its role in the treatment and prevention of NAC ischemia has not been reported. Through a prospective case series, this study aims to introduce DMSO as a safe treatment for NAC ischemia after breast surgery.

METHODS

Patients treated by 2 breast surgeons and a single plastic surgeon who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy or breast reduction and developed NAC ischemia were identified via a prospectively maintained database. Ischemic changes were diagnosed, and treatment to the affected NAC with DMSO was initiated at the conclusion of the procedure, or postoperative day 1 in most cases, and continued 4 times daily until ischemic changes had resolved clinically. Collected demographic, surgical, and outcome variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Eleven patients with a mean age of 47.8 ± 9.5 years (range, 35-61 years) and mean body mass index of 26.0 ± 4.4 kg/m2 (range, 20.7-33.4 kg/m2) were identified. The mean duration of time between surgery and the clinical diagnosis of NAC ischemia was 1.3 ± 2.8 days (range, 0-7 days). The average length of time from DMSO initiation to clinical improvement or resolution of NAC ischemia was 7.5 ± 2.5 days (range, 5-12 days). All patients demonstrated significant improvement or complete resolution of NAC ischemia following serial topical DMSO application.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates DMSO is a safe treatment for threatened NACs. All patients in this series showed either dramatic improvement or resolution of NAC ischemia after DMSO application, and threatened NACs of all 11 patients were successfully salvaged. These promising results set the basis for ongoing randomized controlled studies to determine the efficacy of DMSO treatment for NAC ischemia.

Long-term outcomes of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without radiotherapy: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy (RT) is a risk factor for impaired outcomes after implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Large studies including long-term follow-up are relatively scarce. The purpose of this analysis was to assess long-term effects of RT in implant-based IBR, distinguishing between implant removal because of postoperative complications versus patient preference.

METHODS

This population-based cohort study included all patients with breast cancer who underwent implant-based IBR in Stockholm between 2005 and 2015. Data were collected through national registers and medical charts. The main endpoint was implant removal owing to postoperative complications (wound breakdown, infection, bleeding) or patient preference (dissatisfaction, pain, capsular contracture), with or without conversion to autologous reconstruction.

RESULTS

Some 1749 implant-based IBRs in 1687 women were included. Median follow-up was 72 (range 1-198) months. Reconstructions were divided according to receipt of RT: No RT (n = 856, 48.9 per cent), adjuvant RT (n = 749, 42.8 per cent), and previous RT (n = 144, 8.2 per cent). Implant removal occurred after 266 reconstructions (15.2 per cent); 68 (7.9 per cent) in the no RT, 158 (21.1 per cent) in the adjuvant RT, and 40 (27.8 per cent) in the previous RT group. Implant removal was because of postoperative complications in 152 instances (57.1 per cent) and was most common in the first 3 years. This was especially observed in the previous RT group, where 15 of 23 implant removals occurred during the first 6 months. Implant removal owing to patient preference (114 of 266, 42.9 per cent) became more common with increasing follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Implant removal after implant-based IBR is significantly associated with RT. The reason for implant removal shifts over time from postoperative complications to patient preference.

[Breast Reconstruction: Impact of the Procedure on Quality of Life]

English Breast cancer and the surgical procedures associated with it have a major impact on the quality of life of affected patients. Research shows that the loss of the breast and the associated change in body image have a major impact on the female self-image for many women. This has a strong negative impact on the quality of life of those affected. With modern clinical outcome research including treatment results from the patient's perspective in the form of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the satisfaction and quality of life of those affected can be measured, analysed and compared. This review examines the extent to which breast reconstruction improves the quality of life for many women and how the different reconstruction methods vary in their impact on quality of life and satisfaction. In addition, the review discusses the importance of standardised recording and analysis of PROMs in combination with objective clinical data and their integration into the treatment process, and it demonstrates implementation options. Such systematic recording of PROMs enables the creation of databases and registers, the evaluation of which provides information that can be used for scientific and clinical purposes. Based on these research results, prognostic models can be created and treatment results can be examined in comparative studies facilitating clinical decision-making and quality controls.

A Retrospective Study Assessing the Outcomes of Immediate Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant and Mesh-Based Breast Reconstruction

(1) Introduction: In response to patient concerns about breast cancer recurrence, increased use of breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing, and advancements in breast reconstruction techniques, mastectomy rates have been observed to rise over the last decade. The aim of the study is to compare the outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral implants and long-term, dual-stage resorbable mesh-based breast reconstructions in mutation carriers (prophylactic surgery) and breast cancer patients. (2) Patients and methods: This retrospective, two-center study included 170 consecutive patients after 232 procedures: Prepectoral surgery was performed in 156 cases and subpectoral was performed in 76. (3) Results: Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with more frequent minor late complications (p < 0.001), but not major ones (p = 0.101), while postoperative chemotherapy was related to more frequent serious (p = 0.005) postoperative complications. Postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of minor complications (31.03%) than no-radiotherapy (12.21%; p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression found complications to be significantly associated with an expander (OR = 4.43), skin-reducing mastectomy (OR = 9.97), therapeutic mastectomy vs. risk-reducing mastectomy (OR = 4.08), and postoperative chemotherapy (OR = 12.89). Patients in whom prepectoral surgeries were performed demonstrated significantly shorter median hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and lower minor complication rates (5.77% vs. 26.32% p < 0.001), but similar major late complication rates (p = 0.915). (4) Conclusions: Implant-based breast reconstruction with the use of long-term, dual-stage resorbable, synthetic mesh is a safe and effective method of breast restoration, associated with low morbidity and good cosmesis. Nevertheless, prospective, multicenter, and long-term outcome data studies are needed to further evaluate the benefits of such treatments.

Oncoplastic breast consortium recommendations for mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy

Aim

Demand for nipple- and skin- sparing mastectomy (NSM/SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (BR) has increased at the same time as indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) have broadened. The aim of the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium initiative was to address relevant questions arising with this clinically challenging scenario.

Methods

A large global panel of oncologic, oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists developed recommendations for clinical practice in an iterative process based on the principles of Delphi methodology.

Results

The panel agreed that surgical technique for NSM/SSM should not be formally modified when PMRT is planned with preference for autologous over implant-based BR due to lower risk of long-term complications and support for immediate and delayed-immediate reconstructive approaches. Nevertheless, it was strongly believed that PMRT is not an absolute contraindication for implant-based or other types of BR, but no specific recommendations regarding implant positioning, use of mesh or timing were made due to absence of high-quality evidence. The panel endorsed use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. It was acknowledged that the shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning and attention to details of PMRT techniques is important in determining aesthetic outcomes after immediate BR.

Conclusions

The panel endorsed the need for prospective, ideally randomised phase III studies and for surgical and radiation oncology teams to work together for determination of optimal sequencing and techniques for PMRT for each patient in the context of BR

•

Autologous breast reconstruction is increasingly preferred over implants in the setting of radiation therapy.

•

Use of patient-reported outcomes is endorsed.

•

Shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning.

•

There is a need for randomised phase III trials.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has recently been introduced to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic outcomes in women having implant-based procedures. High-quality evidence to support the practice of PPBR, however, is lacking. Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b study that aimed to establish the safety, effectiveness, and stability of PPBR before definitive evaluation in an RCT. The short-term safety endpoints at 3 months after surgery are reported here.

METHODS

Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating UK centres between July 2019 and December 2020 were invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology, and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss at 3 months. Other outcomes of interest included readmission, reoperation, and infection.

RESULTS

Some 347 women underwent 424 immediate implant-based reconstructions at 40 centres. Most were single-stage direct-to-implant (357, 84.2 per cent) biological mesh-assisted (341, 80.4 per cent) procedures. Conversion to subpectoral reconstruction was necessary in four patients (0.9 per cent) owing to poor skin-flap quality. Of the 343 women who underwent PPBR, 144 (42.0 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication. Implant loss occurred in 28 women (8.2 per cent), 67 (19.5 per cent) experienced an infection, 60 (17.5 per cent) were readmitted for a complication, and 55 (16.0 per cent) required reoperation within 3 months of reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates following PPBR are high and implant loss is comparable to that associated with subpectoral mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. These findings support the need for a well-designed RCT comparing prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.