Abstract
IntroductionThe demand for prophylactic mastectomy has increased significantly over the last 10 years. This can be explained by a substantial gain of knowledge about the clinical risk and outcome of patients with high risk mutations such as BRCA1 and 2, the improved diagnostic possibilities for detecting the genetic predisposition for the development of breast cancer and the awareness for those mutations by health care professionals as well as patients. In addition to expander-to-implant reconstruction and microsurgical flap surgery, definitive immediate reconstruction with subpectoral insertion of breast implants is often preferred. The prosthesis is covered at its inferior pole by a synthetic mesh or acellular dermal matrix. In these cases, in addition to the silicone prosthesis, a further foreign body must be implanted. This can be exposed in the event of wound healing disorder or necrosis of the usually thin soft tissue covering after subcutaneous mastectomy, thus calling into question the reconstructive result. In this study, the coverage of the lower pole by a caudal deepithelialized dermis flap, which allows the implant to be completely covered with well vascularized tissue, is compared to coverage by a synthetic mesh or acellular dermal matrix.Patients and methodsFrom January 2014 to June 2020, 74 patients (106 breasts) underwent breast reconstruction following uni or bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Reconstruction was performed with autologous tissue (15 breasts), with tissue expander or implant without implant support (15 breasts), with implant and use of an acellular dermal matrix or synthetic mesh (39 breasts) and with implant and caudal dermis flap (37 breasts).In this study, we compared the patients with implant and dermal matrix/mesh to the group reconstructed with implant and dermal flap.ResultsIn the group with the caudal dermis flap, 4 patients developed skin necrosis, which all healed conservatively due to the sufficient blood supply through the dermis flap. In the group with the use of a synthetic mesh or acellular dermal matrix, skin necrosis was found in three cases. In one of these patients the implant was exposed and had to be removed.DiscussionFor patients with excess skin or macromastia, the caudal dermis flap is a reliable and less expensive option for complete coverage of an implant after prophylactic mastectomy. In particular, the vascularized dermis flap can protect the implant from the consequences of skin necrosis after prophylactic mastectomy.
Highlights
The demand for prophylactic mastectomy has increased significantly over the last 10 years
Even women without genetic modification increasingly want prophylactic mastectomy of the contralateral breast after breast cancer, close follow-up in these women is equivalent to surgery in terms of long-term survival
As long as no additional potential risk of disease is seen in their familial environment, these patients are not encouraged to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in accordance with the Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy (CPM) Consensus Statement of the American Society of Breast Surgeons [2,9]
Summary
The demand for prophylactic mastectomy has increased significantly over the last 10 years This can be explained by a substantial gain of knowledge about the clinical risk and outcome of patients with high risk mutations such as BRCA1 and 2, the improved diagnostic possibilities for detecting the genetic predisposition for the development of breast cancer and the awareness for those mutations by health care professionals as well as patients. Due to a substantial gain of knowledge about the clinical risk and outcome of patients with high risk mutations such as BRCA1 and 2, improved diagnostic possibilities for detecting the genetic predisposition for the development of breast cancer and the awareness for those mutations by health care professionals as well as patients, the demand for prophylactic mastectomy has increased significantly over the last 10 years. As long as no additional potential risk of disease is seen in their familial environment, these patients are not encouraged to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in accordance with the Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy (CPM) Consensus Statement of the American Society of Breast Surgeons [2,9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
