Expander-implant Reconstruction Research Articles

A Decade of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Lessons Learned in 3035 Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstructions.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is commonly performed for breast cancer treatment or prevention. The authors present one of the largest breast reconstruction series in the literature. A single-institution retrospective review was conducted from 2007 to 2019. The authors' query identified 3035 implant-based breast reconstructions after nipple-sparing mastectomy, including 2043 direct-to-implant and 992 tissue expander-to-implant reconstructions. The overall major complication rate was 9.15%, and the nipple necrosis rate was 1.20%. Therapeutic mastectomy was associated with higher overall complications and explantations compared with prophylactic mastectomy ( P < 0.01). In comparisons of unilateral and bilateral procedures, bilateral mastectomy had an increased risk for complications (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.997 to 2.145; P = 0.05). Tissue-expander reconstructions had higher rates of nipple necrosis (1.9% versus 0.88%; P = 0.015), infection (4.2% versus 2.8%; P = 0.04), and explantation (5.1% versus 3.5%; P = 0.04) compared with direct-to-implant reconstruction. When assessing plane of reconstruction, the authors found similar rates of complications between subpectoral dual-plane and prepectoral reconstruction. There was no difference in complications between reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix or mesh compared with total or partial muscle coverage without acellular dermal matrix/mesh (OR, 0.749; 95% CI, 0.404 to 1.391; P = 0.361). Multivariable regression analysis revealed preoperative radiotherapy (OR, 2.465; 95% CI, 1.579 to 3.848; P < 0.001), smoking (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.581 to 4.054; P < 0.001), and a periareolar incision (OR, 3.657; 95% CI, 2.276 to 5.875; P < 0.001) to be the strongest predictors of complications and nipple necrosis ( P < 0.05). Nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction has a low rate of complications. In this series, radiation therapy, smoking, and incision choice predicted overall complications and nipple necrosis, whereas direct-to-implant reconstruction and acellular dermal matrix or mesh did not increase risk. Therapeutic, III.

Abstract PD15-09: PD15-09 Impact of procedure type on the long-term patient-reported outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction: The UK Brighter Study

Abstract Introduction: Women considering immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy for breast cancer require high-quality information about the short and long-term outcomes of different procedure types to allow them to make informed decisions about their surgical options. Long-term multicentre patient-reported outcomes (PROs) comparing the patients’ perspectives of different techniques is currently lacking. The UK Brighter study aimed to compare the long-term patient-reported outcomes of different types of IBR to support informed decision-making. Methods: Women who underwent unilateral mastectomy and/or breast reconstruction for invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in England between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2009 were identified from National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), and current contact information for the surviving cohort were provided by the NHS Personal Demographic Service. Women were sent a letter inviting them to complete three validated patient report questionnaires, the BREAST Q, EQ-5D5L and ICECAP-A, electronically or by post at a minimum of 12 years following their index surgery. Questionnaires were scored according to developers’ instructions and results compared by type of IBR procedure performed. Results: 11,977 women were invited to participate of whom 4,207 (35.1%) completed the questionnaires. Of these, 1,236 (29.4%) received IBR with 343 (27.8%) expander/implant (EI) reconstructions, 629 (50.9%) latissimus dorsi (LD) procedures with or without an implant, and 264 (21.4%) abdominal flap (AF) reconstructions. The mean age at index surgery was 52.1 years, standard deviation (SD) 9.5. The majority of respondents were white (n=1,179, 97.4%) and predominantly from areas of the lowest socioeconomic deprivation. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 24.6 (SD 3.9). 141 (11.6%) women actively smoked at the time of surgery and 227 (19.0%) had a complication requiring further surgery. Women undergoing AFs reported significantly higher ‘Satisfaction with Breasts’ (mean 67.7, SD 20.4) than those undergoing LD (mean 58.9, SD 21.1), or EI reconstructions (mean 54.7, SD 19.2), (p&amp;lt; 0.001). ‘Satisfaction with Breasts’ was also greater in women undergoing index surgery over 50 years of age (p=0.02) and in those who did not smoke (p=0.03) whereas experiencing post-operative complications was strongly associated with poorer ‘Satisfaction with Breasts’ in the multivariable analysis (p=0.001). Women receiving AF also reported better ‘Physical Well-being’ (mean 87.8, SD 16.04) than women undergoing LD flap (mean 79.5, SD 20.5) or EI procedures (mean 82.1, SD 18.2), (p&amp;lt; 0.001). Overall, women undergoing AFs were more likely to rate the outcome of their surgery as ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ (189/256, 73.8%) compared with those receiving other reconstruction types (LD - 386/610, 63.3%; EI - 175/331, 52.9%, p&amp;lt; 0.001). Conclusion: Women undergoing abdominal flap reconstruction report significantly better outcomes 12 years following IBR than women receiving other reconstruction types. These findings should be shared with women considering breast reconstruction to help them make informed decisions about their surgical options. Citation Format: Leigh Johnson, Paul White, Ranjeet Jeevan, John Browne, Carmel Gulliver-Clarke, Joe O’Donoghue, Syed Mohiuddin, William Hollingworth, Patricia Fairbrother, Mairead MacKenzie, Chris Holcombe, Shelley Potter. PD15-09 Impact of procedure type on the long-term patient-reported outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction: The UK Brighter Study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD15-09.

Reconstructive outcome analysis of the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on immediate breast reconstruction: a retrospective cross-sectional study

BackgroundNeoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) was initially applied to locally advanced breast cancer to convert advanced lesions to an operable status. Currently, its application has been expanded to enhance overall oncological results, especially in patients with triple-negative or HER-2-positive breast cancer. With more NACT being applied, the role and impact of this approach on breast reconstruction needs to be determined. This study aimed to perform a complete reconstructive outcome analysis of patients receiving NACT who underwent immediate breast reconstruction.MethodsA retrospective review of a single reconstructive surgeon’s immediate breast reconstructions performed from July 2008 to December 2018 was undertaken. The results were stratified by the use of NACT. Patient demographics, delivery of NACT, adjuvant treatment, incidence of surgical complications, and postoperative photographs were analyzed.ResultsA total of 269 patients were included. The mean follow-up was 46.3 months. Forty-six out of 269 patients received NACT and were included in the NACT group. The other patients were included in the non-NACT group. When implant-based reconstruction was planned, the NACT group had a higher rate of two-stage tissue expander-implant reconstruction than direct-to-implant reconstruction (p < 0.001). The requirement for postmastectomy radiotherapy was higher in the NACT group (p < 0.001). The surgical complication rates were similar between groups after adjusting for confounding factors. The objective aesthetic outcomes assessed by 6 plastic surgeons were also similar between groups.ConclusionsImmediate breast reconstruction is a safe and reliable procedure, with an acceptable reconstructive complication rate and satisfactory aesthetic outcomes, for patients treated with NACT.

The Impact of Post-Mastectomy Radiotherapy on Delayed Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction - Experience of One Center.

Nowadays, breast cancer treatment spans from simple lesion excision to complex management including surgery (mastectomy with or without axillary lym-phadenectomy) and adjuvant treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy and im-munotherapy). Lately, breast reconstruction has become part of the breast cancer approach, but, while its physical and emotional benefits are undisputed, it comes with its own set of risks and complications, especially when delayed breast reconstruction after radiotherapy is performed. This paper aims to present our experience on the effects of radiotherapy in conjunction with de-layed alloplastic breast reconstruction. We conducted a retrospective study on 16 patients with mastec-tomy for breast cancer, for whom delayed breast reconstruction was chosen. Depending on the existence of postmastectomy radiotherapy, patients were assigned to one of two groups: group 1 consisted of eight patients that received adjuvant radiotherapy and group 2 of eight patients that did not. We collected a series of data (sociodemographic, type of reconstructive intervention, adjuvant therapies, etc.) and afterwards we analyzed the cases in which complications occurred. Results: The number and severity of complications after breast reconstruction was higher in the adjuvant radiotherapy patient group. Seven patients had complications, three of those were major: one TRAM flap partial necrosis, one expander extrusion and one chest wall cellulitis. The therapeutic approach was surgical debridement and secondary reconstruction with latissimus dorsi flap. We noted only one major complication (expander extrusion) in the no-radiotherapy group. Conclusions: Despite the vast array of reconstructive surgical techniques at our disposal, there is still no clear protocol regarding breast reconstruction in patients receiving radiation thera-py. The majority of patients tend to opt for the simplest intervention, i.e. expander-implant recon-struction, which is usually accompanied by complications when combined with radiotherapy. Comprehensive and open communication between oncologist, radiotherapist, plastic surgeon and patient ensures optimal results.

Immediate-implant-based-breast-reconstruction with two-stage expander-implant reconstruction versus one-stage-reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: analysis of patients' satisfaction.

Background.The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the patient-reported outcome after immediate ADM-assisted implant- based breast reconstruction.Material and Methods:Patients underwent breast reconstruction from 2015 to 2019 have been retrospectively divided into group A (partial subpectoral implant and ADM and group B (expander/implant). For each patient we evaluated retrospectively postoperative complications and patients’ satisfaction.Results:26 patients from the case group and 40 from the control group completed the BREAST-Q. The incidence of complications in the cases was 18.4%, while in the control group was 20.4%. We found no statistical difference in most of the domains and in the mean score of the questionnaire (mean score cases=69.0±14.4 vs controls=68.4±15.7; p=0.888). A significant difference results only in the domains Q2a and Q2b, sensation of rippling.Conclusions:The use of ADM in one-stage reconstruction allows to perform breast reconstruction in only one surgery, with similar complication rates and patient satisfaction. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Development of an evidence-based approach to the use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander-implant-based breast reconstruction

Although acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is widely used in expander-implant-based breast reconstructions, previous analyses have been unable to demonstrate improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with this approach over non-ADM procedures. This study aims to develop a more selective, evidence-based approach to the use of ADM in expander-implant-based breast reconstruction by identifying patient subgroups in which ADM improved clinical outcomes and PROs. The Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study prospectively evaluated immediate expander-implant reconstructions at 11 centers from 2012 to 2015. Complications (any/overall and major), and PROs (satisfaction, physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being) were assessed two years postoperatively using medical records and the BREAST-Q, respectively. Using mixed-models accounting for centers and with interaction terms, we analyzed for differential ADM effects across various clinical subgroups, including age, body mass index, radiation timing, and chemotherapy. Expander-implant-based breast reconstruction was performed in 1451 patients, 738 with and 713 without ADM. Major complication risk was higher in ADM users vs. nonusers (22.9% vs. 16.4% and p = 0.04). Major complication risk with ADM increased with higher BMI (BMI=30, OR=1.70; BMI=35, OR=2.29, interaction p = 0.02). No significant ADM effects were observed for breast satisfaction, psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being within any subgroups. In immediate expander-implant-based breast reconstruction, ADM was associated with a greater risk of major complications, particularly in high-BMI patients. We were unable to identify patient subgroups where ADM was associated with significant improvements in PROs. Given these findings and the financial costs of ADM, a more critical approach to the use of ADM in expander-implant reconstruction may be warranted.

Long-term impact of lipofilling in hybrid breast reconstruction: retrospective analysis of two cohorts

Lipofilling has recently gained popularity as a tool in primary treatment of breast cancer, and its association with two-stage implant breast reconstruction is considered as standard treatment in many centers. However, no data are available about the long-term results of the association of lipofilling in combination with expander-implant reconstruction. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients treated between January 2010 and December 2014. Two groups were compared. Group 1 had a standard expander-implant two-stage reconstruction. Group 2 underwent hybrid breast reconstruction (HBR). Patient characteristics, hospitalization, outcomes, reoperation details, outpatient visits, and evaluation questionnaires were taken into consideration. Intergroup comparison was performed using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test and Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. Two hundred fourteen patients were evaluated: 130 patients in group 1 and 84 patients in group 2. Group 2 showed significant benefits over group 1 in terms of capsular contracture rate, breast pain, and displacement/rotation of the implant (p = 0.005). The HBR protocol is associated with lower rate of capsular contracture, less breast pain at long follow-up times, and lower overall rates of revision surgery compared to standard expander-implant reconstruction. A specific cost analysis will help further clarify the advantages of this protocol over a standard procedure.Level of Evidence: Level III, risk/prognostic, therapeutic study.

Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on Permanent Implants or Tissue Expanders: Which is Better?

This study evaluates complications and reconstructive failure rates in implant-based reconstruction with radiotherapy. Postmastectomy radiotherapy may adversely affect breast reconstructive outcomes. However, the comparative effect of radiotherapy on direct-to-implant versus tissue expander-implant reconstruction has not been examined. Single institution retrospective review was performed and patients were followed 2 to 10 years. Of 1566 patients, 265 patients received radiation (149 immediate implants and 116 tissue expanders). Demographics were similar except more smokers in the expander group (7.7% vs 1.3%; P = 0.012). Patients who received radiation with an expander in place had overall more complications (32.8% vs 11.4%; P < 0.001), skin necrosis (10.3% vs 4.0%; P = 0.043), wound breakdown (9.5% vs 2.7%; P = 0.029), and infections (16.4% vs 4.03%; P = 0.001) leading to a higher rate of explantation (16.4% vs 4.0%; P < 0.001). A radiation boost likewise predicted complications [odds ratio (OR) 2.199, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.154-4.188, P = 0.017]. When comparing reconstructive outcomes, radiated expanders had a higher failure rate (21.6% vs 11.4%; P = 0.025). Revision for capsular contracture was similar between the 2 cohorts (11.4% vs 11.2%; P = 0.959) as were revision rates for contour asymmetry and breast asymmetry. In our multivariable logistic regression analysis, radiation to the expander had a higher risk of reconstruction failure than radiation to the permanent implant (OR 2.020, 95% CI 1.010-4.037, P = 0.047). Most patients had successful implant-based reconstructions after mastectomy and radiotherapy. Our study showed radiotherapy after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction had a lower rate of complications and reconstructive failure compared to tissue expander-implant reconstruction.

Short-term cost-effectiveness of one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage expander-implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

BackgroundImplant‐based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure and its economic impact is significant. This study aimed to analyse whether a direct one‐stage IBBR with use of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is more cost‐effective than two‐stage (expander‐implant) breast reconstruction.MethodsThe BRIOS (Breast Reconstruction In One Stage) study was an open‐label multicentre RCT in which women scheduled for skin‐sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR were randomized between one‐stage IBBR with ADM or two‐stage IBBR. Duration of surgery and hospital stay, and visits for the primary surgery, unplanned and cosmetic procedures were recorded. Costs were estimated at an institutional level. Health status was assessed by means of the EuroQol Five Dimensions 5L questionnaire.ResultsFifty‐nine patients (91 breasts) underwent one‐stage IBBR with ADM and 62 patients (92 breasts) two‐stage IBBR. The mean(s.d.) duration of surgery in the one‐stage group was significantly longer than that for two‐stage IBBR for unilateral (2·52(0·55) versus 2·02(0·35) h; P < 0·001) and bilateral (4·03(1·00) versus 3·25(0·58) h; P = 0·017) reconstructions. Costs were higher for one‐stage compared with two‐stage IBBR for both unilateral (€12 448 (95 per cent c.i. 10 722 to 14 387) versus €9871 (9373 to 10 445) respectively; P = 0·025) and bilateral (€16 939 (14 887 to 19 360) versus €13 383 (12 414 to 14 669); P = 0·002) reconstructions. This was partly related to the use of relatively expensive ADM. There was no difference in postoperative health status between the groups.ConclusionOne‐stage IBBR with ADM was associated with higher costs, but similar health status, compared with conventional two‐stage IBBR. Registration number: NTR5446 ( http://www.trialregister.nl).

Comparative study of immediate implant and expander-implant reconstruction

Comparative study of immediate implant and expander-implant reconstruction

Technique of Breast Reconstruction with Expander Implants after Mastectomy

The reconstruction of the female breast after mastectomy is an integral part of the surgical treatment of breast cancer nowadays. If it is necessary for oncologic reasons and if there are contraindications for breast conserving therapy, methods of breast reconstruction can contribute significantly to the restoration of physical integrity, including an improvement of life quality for the affected women. Besides an improvement or restoration of the physical image and of the self-esteem, breast reconstruction leads to a processing of an oncologically necessary mastectomy from a psychooncological and rehabilitative point of view. Alloplastic methods of breast reconstruction are the most common methods of reconstructing the female breast after mastectomy. In order to obtain optimal results from reconstruction, the use of textured, anatomically shaped expander-implant systems are recommended. After modified radical mastectomy a combined expander implant reconstruction can be indicated to reconstruct a smaller, non-ptotic breast after preforming stretching of the skin. This combined expander-implant reconstruction can be performed primarily during mastectomy as well as secondarily. If adjuvant therapy is necessary, especially in the case of radiation therapy, an implant or expander-implant reconstruction is relatively contraindicated because of an insufficiently high rate of complication. The patients need to be informed about the very often necessity of adapting mastopexy or reduction mastopexy of the contralateral breast and about possible autologous methods of reconstruction. In our opinion, adjuvant radiation therapy is a contraindication for alloplastic reconstruction because of an inacceptable complication rate, especially if compared to autologous reconstruction. Therefore, primary alloplastic reconstruction should be indicated very critically. When planning alloplastic or, of course, autologous breast reconstruction the overall oncological situation of the patient needs to be considered. To avoid prognostic or aesthetic disadvantages, the differential indication for the methods of breast reconstruction should ideally take place in specialized breast centres with experience in all methods of reconstruction.

Abstract: Effects of Radiation on Risks and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Expander-Implant Reconstruction: Is There a “Best” Time to Radiate?

INTRODUCTION: The oncologic benefit of radiation therapy for node positive breast cancer is well-known. However, studies have also shown poorer aesthetic outcomes, lower satisfaction, and higher complication rates in patients undergoing breast reconstruction with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), compared to non-radiated patients.1,2 The timing of radiation treatment in two-staged, expander-implant reconstruction, whether to radiate before or after expander-implant exchange, has been a subject of contention. Previous research attempting to answer this question has been limited by small sample sizes and single center designs. In the current study, we evaluated the effects of radiation timing on patient reported outcomes (PROs) and complications in patients undergoing immediate expander-implant reconstruction. METHODS: Patients receiving immediate expander-implant reconstruction and PMRT at 11 Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium (MROC) study sites were assessed preoperatively and two years following expander placement. Demographic and clinical data (age, BMI, diabetes, race, laterality, mastectomy type, extent of disease, acellular dermal matrix use, and chemotherapy) were collected. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed with BREAST-Q, PROMIS, and EORTC QLQ-BR23 surveys. Complications and reconstructive failures within two years were also recorded, with complications requiring reoperation or rehospitalization designated as “major”. Survey scores and complication rates were compared across cohorts using multivariate regressions, controlling for demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: Of the 3120 patients recruited in the MROC study, 317 met inclusion criteria. Of those, 237 patients received radiation treatment before expander-implant exchange (TE-XRT), and 80 received radiation treatment after exchange (Implant-XRT). Controlling for covariates, radiation timing had no significant effects on PRO subscale scores at two years postoperatively. Compared with preoperative assessments, two year PRO scores were significantly lower in both cohorts for satisfaction with breast, physical well-being, and sexual well-being subscales of BREAST-Q (p < 0.05). In addition, for the TE-XRT cohort, the two year PRO scores were significantly lower in the body image subscale of EORTC as well (p < 0.05). Finally, timing of radiation had no significant effects on odds of overall complications, major complications or reconstructive failure. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter, prospective analysis, the timing of radiation (before or after exchange) appeared to have no significant effects on either PROs or complication risks in immediate expander-implant reconstruction. Regardless of radiation timing, two year measures of satisfaction and other PROs did not appear to return to preoperative levels among women undergoing immediate expander-implant reconstruction in conjunction with PMRT. These findings provide patients and providers with additional evidence for treatment decision-making.

Complications After Total Skin-Sparing Mastectomy and Expander-Implant Reconstruction: Effects of Radiation Therapy on the Stages of Reconstruction.

Many patients undergoing total-skin sparing mastectomy (TSSM) and 2-staged expander-implant (TE-I) reconstruction require postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). Additionally, many patients undergoing TSSM for recurrent cancer have a history of lumpectomy and radiation therapy (XRT). Few studies have looked at the impact of XRT on the stages of TE-I reconstruction. Patients undergoing TSSM and immediate TE-I reconstruction between 2006 and 2013 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Rates of TE-I loss and severe infection requiring intravenous antibiotics were compared in patients with prior XRT (85 cases) and PMRT (133 cases). Complications were divided by stage of reconstruction: first stage (TSSM and TE placement) and second stage (TE-I exchange). Mean follow-up time was 2.5 years. Patients with prior XRT had more complications after the first stage of reconstruction than the second (TE-I loss: 15% vs 5%, P = 0.03; infection: 20% vs 8%, P = 0.04). Patients receiving PMRT had low complication rates after the first stage, when they had not yet received radiation (TE-I loss: 2%; infection: 5%). However, complication rates after TE-I exchange (TE-I loss, 18%; infection, 31%) were significantly higher, and nearly 4-fold higher than patients with prior XRT. Patients with prior XRT are at high risk for complications after the first stage of TE-I reconstruction after TSSM; however, the risk of complications at the second stage is comparable to patients without radiation exposure and significantly lower than patients receiving PMRT. Patients receiving radiation therapy should be given appropriate preoperative counseling regarding their risks.

The Effect of Implant Type on Nipple Position Geometry and Aesthetics Following Tissue Expander Reconstruction After Nipple Sparing Mastectomy.

While recent studies have reported modest to no difference in breast aesthetics for shaped and round implant types in breast augmentations, the anatomy and biomechanics in the setting of breast reconstruction is different. Accordingly, we endeavored to evaluate whether two implant types impacted nipple position and aesthetic features in prosthetic breast reconstruction. A retrospective chart review was carried out on patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction. Patients were divided into two cohorts: smooth round implants and textured shaped implants. Postoperative photographs were evaluated to assess nipple displacement vis-à-vis a vector of maximal projection and aesthetic outcome for features of breast shape. Of 102 breasts meeting the inclusion criteria, 41 had tissue expander-implant reconstruction with anatomical shaped implants, and 61 had reconstruction with smooth round implants. The shaped implant cohort had less nipple deviation from the point of maximal projection (3.69 ± 6.24 vs 7.52 ± 10.50; P < 0.0001). Graded semi-quantitative aesthetic scores were also higher (4.04 ± 0.67 vs 3.72 ± 0.93; P = 0.0044) in the shaped implants than in the round cohort. Unlike breast augmentation, there is a paucity of overlying breast tissue and larger dissected spaces in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Our analysis suggests that in this setting, textured anatomic implants result in less nipple deviation from the point of maximum projection and improved aesthetic outcomes compared to round implants. When considering implant choice in NSM reconstruction, the manifold risks of shaped textured implants must thus be informed by potential aesthetic benefits with respect to shape and enhanced nipple sensation.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction.

Breast reconstruction following mastectomy has evolved to preserve the native skin and nipple of the breast and create a natural-appearing reconstruction in 1 or 2 surgeries. Nipple-sparing procedures appear to be oncologically safe with low risks of cancer recurrence. In our series of 2,182 nipple-sparing mastectomies, there was no development or recurrence of cancer in the nipple. Direct-to-implant single-stage surgery offers the patient a complete reconstruction at the time of mastectomy. Patient selection centers on preoperative breast anatomy combined with postoperative goals for size and uplift of the breast. The best candidates for nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction include those with grade I-II breast ptosis and those desiring to stay approximately the same breast size. The choice of incision and width of the implant play key roles in nipple centralization. Partial muscle coverage with acellular dermal matrix remains the most common technique to support the implant and offers the advantage of more soft-tissue coverage in the upper pole. With experience, complications and revisions are similar in this approach compared with more traditional 2-stage tissue expander-implant reconstruction. Thus, nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is emerging as a preferred method of breast reconstruction when the breast skin envelope is sufficiently perfused.

Optimizing Nipple Position following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

Background:The best treatment for nipple malposition following nipple-sparing mastectomy is prevention. This article reviews basic elements for success in nipple-sparing mastectomy and offers an option to patients with grade 2–3 breast ptosis who strongly desire to preserve the nipple.Methods:Retrospective review identified patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction.Results:Patient selection centered on realistic goals for postoperative breast size, nipple position, and when not to save the nipple. The choice of device considered projection and nipple centralization as equal components and led to wider, lower profile devices selectively for the first stage of reconstruction. In severe grade 2–3 nipple ptosis, an inferior vertical incision or wedge excision was used to enhance nipple position postoperatively. Eighteen consecutive patients underwent 32 implant-based breast reconstructions following nipple-sparing mastectomy with the vertical incision. The average age was 45 years old, and the average body mass index was 26.7. Direct-to-implant reconstruction was performed in 25%, whereas 75% had tissue expander-implant reconstruction. Overall complications included infection (3%) and nipple necrosis (3%) leading to explant in 1 reconstruction.Conclusions:The final nipple position following nipple-sparing mastectomy can be optimized with preoperative planning. The vertical incision, combined with proper patient selection and choice of device, may increase eligibility for nipple-sparing procedures in patients with grade 2–3 ptosis who desire nipple preservation.

One-stage muscle-sparing breast reconstruction in elderly patients: A new tool for retaining excellent quality of life.

More than 50% of breast cancer care occurs in elderly but women aged 65 and over generally have lower breast reconstruction (BR) rates. In medical literature, few papers focused on BR in elderly patients and usually the reported techniques are multisteps such as expander-implant reconstruction, local, and free flaps. We present a one-stage reconstruction technique employed in elderly patients: muscle-sparing immediate BR with subcutaneous implant and Braxon acellular dermal matrix. We prove the feasibility and safety of the technique and believe that this new procedure could represent a potential benefit in elderly BR.

Estimating Implant Volume and Mastectomy-Specimen Volume by Measuring Breast Volume With a 3-Dimensional Scanner.

Conventional 2-stage expander-implant breast reconstruction is frequently performed. However, direct to implant reconstruction should be considered if indicated and if circumstances allow. One difficulty in breast reconstruction postmastectomy is selection of the appropriate implant size prior to surgery. The ability to estimate implant volume and mastectomy-specimen volume from the preoperative breast volume using a 3-dimensional (3D) scanner would greatly facilitate reconstruction. We investigated the relation between preoperative breast volume, mastectomy-specimen volume, and implant volume. Forty-eight women who underwent 2-stage expander-implant reconstruction between April 2014 and September 2015 were included in this study. A 3D scanner (Kinect V1; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Wash) was used for measuring preoperative breast volume. We evaluated the relation of the measured preoperative breast volume, the mastectomy-specimen volume, and the implant volume using the Pearson correlation coefficient. A strong correlation existed between preoperative breast volume, mastectomy-specimen volume, and implant volume. The following formulae were calculated:Mastectomy-specimen volume (mL) = 1.01 × preoperative breast volume (mL) + 9.91Implant volume (mL) = 0.90 × preoperative breast volume (mL) + 65.42Implant volume (mL) = 0.68 × mastectomy-specimen volume (mL) + 68.26This study shows that preoperative breast volume, as measured by a 3D Kinect scanner, can provide useful assistance in the preoperative choice of implant size.

Objective assessment of reconstructed breast hardness using a durometer.

Whether a durometer was suitable for objectively measuring reconstructed breast hardness was evaluated. Subjects were 81 women who underwent expander-implant reconstructions following breast cancer ablation. Capsular contracture was evaluated with Baker grading. Capsular thickness was measured with T1-weighted MRI at the upper areola area. The durometer was placed on the upper areola. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to compare variables. On Baker grading, 17 breasts were Baker grade I, 52 breasts were Baker grade II, 11 breasts were Baker grade III, and 1 breast was Baker grade IV. Mean capsular thickness on MRI was 1.1 (SD 0.4) mm with Baker grade I, 1.2 (SD 0.3) mm with Baker grade II, 1.4 (SD 0.4) mm with Baker grade III, and 1.9mm with Baker grade IV. Mean durometer value was 0 with Baker grade I, 0.2 (SD 0.5) with Baker grade II, 2.0 (SD 1.7), with Baker grade III, and 8 with Baker grade IV. Baker grade IV was excluded from analysis because there was only one case. When Baker grade III was defined as positive for hardness, multiple logistic regression analysis showed that durometer value was associated with Baker grade III (p=0.0005), but capsular thickness was not. On receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the durometer value for Baker grade III, the optimal cutoff value was 0.5 (sensitivity 0.92, 1-specificity 0.17, area under the curve 0.92). The durometer offers an objective index of hardness that might replace the subjective Baker grading. Further studies are needed to confirm the utility of this index.

Analysis of factors influencing drain amount, time to drain removal, and seroma formation in patients undergoing immediate expander-implant breast reconstruction

Background: Placement of a closed suction drain is a common cause of patient complaints, such as postoperative pain or discomfort following immediate expander-implant breast reconstruction. This study aims to identify factors that affect drainage volume, time to drain removal, and seroma formation.Methods: A retrospective chart review of prospectively collected data was conducted on patients who underwent immediate expander-implant breast reconstructions following nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy without skin excision (nipple areolar complex excision only) between February 2010 and April 2015. Daily drainage volume was measured until the drain was removed. Eight independent variables, including acellular dermal matrix (ADM) usage and inflation ratio (the rate of initial inflation volume to mastectomy weight) were analysed by univariable and multivariable analyses.Results: A total of 162 breasts in 148 patients were included in this study. The inflation ratio did not influence the drain amount or days to drain removal. Although the use of ADM was significantly associated with increased drainage during the first 5 postoperative days (p = 0.015), it was not significant when adjusted for time. Old age, larger expander size, and larger drain amount on the first postoperative day were predictors for longer days to drain removal (p < 0.001). Old age had a trend toward higher risk of seroma formation that approached statistical significance (p = 0.057).Conclusions: The use of ADM and initial inflation ratio do not influence days to drain removal or seroma formation. A longer period of drain placement is expected when a larger expander is used or in elderly patients.