1
|
Curiel DA, Bustos SS, Fahradyan V, Martinez-Jorge J, Vijayasekaran A. "Prepectoral tissue expanders without mesh as a bridge to delayed autologous breast reconstruction: Experience at a single academic center". Surg Oncol 2024; 57:102142. [PMID: 39326129 DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2024.102142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2024] [Revised: 09/06/2024] [Accepted: 09/18/2024] [Indexed: 09/28/2024]
Abstract
Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a useful adjunct in implant-based breast reconstruction. The benefits of using ADM with an expander as a temporary bridge to delayed autologous reconstruction are unknown. Placing prepectoral tissue expanders, without ADM, as a bridge to delayed autologous reconstruction could yield cost savings, shorten operating time and decrease complications. This investigation seeks to demonstrate the safety of placing prepectoral tissue expanders without ADM at the time of mastectomy as the first stage of autologous breast reconstruction. A retrospective, chart review was performed at our major academic institution between 2015 and 2020. Included were female patients, 18 years or older at the time of reconstruction, who underwent mastectomy with prepectoral tissue expander placement followed by autologous breast reconstruction at a delayed second stage. Excluded were patients of male gender, younger than 18, patients with lumpectomy only, subpectoral reconstruction, or immediate autologous reconstruction. Data on ADM, patient demographics, comorbidities, and cancer treatment were collected. There were 189 reconstructed breasts of which 56 (29.6 %) used ADM, 131 (69.3 %) did not use ADM, and 2 patients (1.1 %) of unknown ADM use. Expanders were in place for a mean time of 8.9±6.2 months. There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates between the ADM and no-ADM groups. Therefore, not wrapping prepectoral tissue expanders in ADM, at the time of mastectomy, has an equivalent rate of complications compared to ADM wrapping among patients who go on to have second stage autologous breast reconstruction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel A Curiel
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Samyd S Bustos
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Vahe Fahradyan
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Jorys Martinez-Jorge
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Aparna Vijayasekaran
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zhu M, Mao J, Fang J, Chen D. Risk factors for severe complications and salvage management in direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction: A retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2024; 103:e37365. [PMID: 38457600 PMCID: PMC10919468 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000037365] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2023] [Revised: 02/01/2024] [Accepted: 02/02/2024] [Indexed: 03/10/2024] Open
Abstract
Controversies regarding the risk factors affecting direct-to-implant (DTI) immediate breast reconstruction still exist. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors for severe complications in DTI breast reconstruction and explore potential salvage management strategies. We conducted a retrospective review of 238 patients (240 breasts) who underwent DTI immediate breast reconstruction between 2011 and 2020. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the risk factors predicting severe complications. Seventeen (7.08%) reconstructed breasts experienced severe complications, of which only 5 were successfully salvaged through surgical revision, while the others failed and resulted in implant removal. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that mesh use [odds ratio (OR) = 4.054, 95% confidence interval: 1.376-11.945, P = .011] and post-mastectomy radiotherapy (odds ratio = 4.383, 95% confidence interval 1.142-16.819, P = .031) were independent predictors of severe complications. Mesh use and post-mastectomy radiotherapy for breast reconstruction increase the risk of severe complications. Despite positive surgical treatment, the successful salvage rate was poor.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meizhen Zhu
- Department of Breast Surgery, The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China
| | - Jiefei Mao
- Department of Breast Surgery, The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China
| | - Jun Fang
- Department of Radiation Therapy, The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China
| | - Daobao Chen
- Department of Breast Surgery, The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vinsensia M, Schaub R, Meixner E, Hoegen P, Arians N, Forster T, Hoeltgen L, Köhler C, Uzun-Lang K, Batista V, König L, Zivanovic O, Hennigs A, Golatta M, Heil J, Debus J, Hörner-Rieber J. Incidence and Risk Assessment of Capsular Contracture in Breast Cancer Patients following Post-Mastectomy Radiotherapy and Implant-Based Reconstruction. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:265. [PMID: 38254756 PMCID: PMC10813520 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16020265] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2023] [Revised: 12/29/2023] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 01/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Our study aims to identify the risk factors and dosimetry characteristics associated with capsular contracture. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 118 women with breast cancer who underwent PMRT following an IBR between 2010 and 2022. Patients were treated with PMRT of 50.0-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions. Capsular contracture was categorized according to the Baker Classification for Reconstructed Breasts. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 22 months, the incidence of clinically relevant capsular contracture (Baker III-IV) was 22.9%. Overall, capsular contracture (Baker I-IV) occurred in 56 patients (47.5%) after a median of 9 months after PMRT. The rate of reconstruction failure/implant loss was 25.4%. In the univariate analysis, postoperative complications (prolonged pain, prolonged wound healing, seroma and swelling) and regional nodal involvement were associated with higher rates of capsular contracture (p = 0.017, OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.2-5.3 and p = 0.031, respectively). None of the analyzed dosimetric factors or the implant position were associated with a higher risk for capsular contracture. CONCLUSION Postoperative complications and regional nodal involvement were associated with an increased risk of capsular contracture following breast reconstruction and PMRT, while none of the analyzed dosimetric factors were linked to a higher incidence. Additional studies are needed to identify further potential risk factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Vinsensia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Riccarda Schaub
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eva Meixner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Philipp Hoegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Nathalie Arians
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Tobias Forster
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Line Hoeltgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Clara Köhler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Kristin Uzun-Lang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Vania Batista
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Laila König
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Oliver Zivanovic
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Brustzentrum Heidelberg Klinik St. Elisabeth, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Andre Hennigs
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Brustzentrum Heidelberg Klinik St. Elisabeth, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Michael Golatta
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Brustzentrum Heidelberg Klinik St. Elisabeth, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jörg Heil
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Brustzentrum Heidelberg Klinik St. Elisabeth, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Juliane Hörner-Rieber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Marquez JL, Sudduth JD, Kuo K, Patel AA, Eddington D, Agarwal JP, Kwok AC. A Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Immediate, Delayed Immediate, and Delayed Autologous Free Flap Breast Reconstruction: Analysis of 2010-2020 NSQIP Data. J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39:664-670. [PMID: 36928907 DOI: 10.1055/a-2056-0909] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND While many factors influence decisions related to the timing between mastectomy and flap-based breast reconstruction, there is limited literature comparing postoperative complications between immediate (IBR), delayed immediate (DIBR), and delayed (DBR) reconstruction modalities. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), we sought to compare postoperative complication rates of each timing modality. METHODS The NSQIP 2010-2020 database was queried for patients who underwent free flap breast reconstruction. Cases were categorized to include mastectomy performed concurrently with a free flap reconstruction, removal of a tissue expander with free flap reconstruction, and free flap reconstruction alone which are defined as IBR, DIBR, and DBR, respectively. The frequency of postoperative outcomes including surgical site infection (SSI), wound dehiscence, intraoperative transfusion, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and return to operating room (OR) was assessed. Overall complication rates, hospital length of stay (LOS), and operative time were analyzed. Multivariable regression analysis controlling for age, race, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, ASA class, and laterality was performed. RESULTS A total of 7,907 cases that underwent IBR, DIBR (n = 976), and DBR reconstruction (n = 6,713) were identified. No statistical difference in occurrence of SSIs, wound dehiscence, or DVT was identified. DIBR (9%) and DBR (11.9%) were associated with less occurrences of reoperation than IBR (13.2%, p < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that DIBR and DBR were associated with a lower odds of complications and shorter operation time versus IBR. No statistically significant differences between DIBR and DBR in surgical complications, LOS, and operative time were identified. CONCLUSION Awareness of overall complication rates associated with each reconstructive timing modality can be used to help guide physicians when discussing reconstructive options. Our data suggests that DIBR and DBR are associated with less overall complications than IBR. Physicians should continue to consider patients' unique circumstances when deciding upon which timing modality is appropriate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica L Marquez
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Jack D Sudduth
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Keith Kuo
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Ashraf A Patel
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Devin Eddington
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Jayant P Agarwal
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Alvin C Kwok
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
The Failed Breast Implant in Postmastectomy Reconstruction: A Systematic Literature Review of Complications of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2022; 88:695-703. [PMID: 35102018 DOI: 10.1097/sap.0000000000002980] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|