Prepectoral Group Research Articles

Outcomes of ADM-Assisted Implant-based Breast Reconstructions According to Division Types of the Pectoralis Major Muscle.

In implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR), several surgical techniques are based on the implant insertion planes. Ideal location for breast implants has become a popular topic in IBRs because each technique has advantages and disadvantages. Herein, we report the outcomes of three different division types of the pectoralis muscle and suggest an algorithm for selecting the division types. Charts of patients who underwent IBRs between October 2017 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were classified into three groups (prepectoral, high subpectoral, and subpectoral) according to the division types of the pectoralis muscle. Aesthetic outcomes were assessed in terms of animation deformity, rippling deformity, and visibility of the upper implant border. Total 104 cases were included. 25, 38, and 41 were in the prepectoral, high-subpectoral, subpectoral IBR groups, respectively. Animation deformities frequently appeared in the subpectoral group. Nipple displacement was most prominent in the subpectoral group. Skin rippling at rest was mostly detected in the prepectoral group, whereas ripping during contraction was commonly observed in the subpectoral group. Visibility of upper border was more prominent in the prepectoral group than the other groups. We propose an algorithm for selecting the division types of the pectoralis muscle. If the pectoralis muscle is thick, prepectoral plane is most preferred to avoid the animation deformity. In cases with thin pectoralis muscle, thickness of the mastectomy flap is considered next. If it is thicker than 1cm, prepectoral plane is better than the subpectoral plane; otherwise, high-subpectoral plane is preferable for better aesthetic outcomes. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Abstract PO3-23-05: Capsular contracture after post-mastectomy radiotherapy in the patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction: impact of implant positioning and two-stage surgery

Abstract Background Capsular contracture is a significant concern in patients undergoing post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) following implant-based breast reconstruction. It negatively impacts cosmetic outcomes and can have a profound effect on the individual's quality of life. Our study aimed to explore whether the degree of capsular contracture varies based on the placement of the inserted implant and the type of operation (one- or two-staged). Patients and Methods This retrospective study was conducted at a single center, Ganganm Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. Our study included patients who underwent PMRT following total mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction surgery between January 2017 and September 2022. To assess the degree of capsular contracture, we evaluated the presence of capsular contracture, particularly severe capsular contracture classified as Baker grade 3 or higher, as well as implant migration. The implants were placed either in the pre-or sub-pectoral position, and the surgical approach employed was either direct-to-implant (DTI) or two-staged operation. Results A total of 195 patients were included in the study, with 83 (42.6%) patients in the pre-pectoral group and 112 (57.4%) patients in the sub-pectoral group. In addition, 116 underwent a two-stage operation, while 79 underwent DTI surgery. There was a significant difference in the occurrence of capsular contracture based on the implant placement, with 16 patients (19.3%) in the pre-pectoral group and 46 patients (41.1%) in the sub-pectoral group experiencing this complication (OR 4.142 [1.973-8.698]). Furthermore, the severity of capsular contracture differed significantly between the two groups, with 5 patients (6.0%) in the pre-pectoral group and 16 patients (14.3%) in the sub-pectoral group affected (OR 3.434 [1.153-10.227]). The incidence of capsular contracture was lower in the two-stage operation group compared to the DTI group (28 [23.9%] vs 34 [38.6%]; OR 3.064 [1.528-6.141]), and the severity of capsular contracture was also reduced (9 [7.7%] vs 12 [14.5%]; OR 2.854 [1.092-7.455]). There were no significant differences in other complications such as seroma and infection. In addition, sub-pectoral placement was identified as a significant risk factor for implant upward migration (OR 2.531 [95% CI, 1.263-5.071]). Conclusions Our findings suggest that pre-pectoral reconstruction and the two-stage operation are beneficial for patients who may undergo PMRT based on their initial nodal stage. These approaches can help reduce the incidence of capsular contracture and abnormal implant migration following radiation, leading to improved aesthetic outcomes and greater patient satisfaction. Citation Format: Sohyun Moon, Kyunghyun Min, Jung Hwan Eom, Yoonwon Kook, Seung Ho Baek, Junghyun Kim, Min Ji Kim, Seung Eun Lee, In Sik Yun, Tai Suk Roh, Soong June Bae, Joon Jeong, Young Seok Kim, Sung Gwe Ahn. Capsular contracture after post-mastectomy radiotherapy in the patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction: impact of implant positioning and two-stage surgery [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO3-23-05.

Evaluation of post-operative complications and adjuvant treatments following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix

BackgroundIn immediate breast reconstruction (IBR), it is unclear whether there is any difference in the complication rates between prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement without acellular dermal matrix (ADM). AimTo compare the rates of early post-operative complications and time to initiation of adjuvant treatment in patients undergoing IBR between prepectoral and subpectoral implant placement without ADM for the two surgical procedure. MethodsWe retrospectively retrieved data of patients who underwent IBR with prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022 in a large cancer center in France. ResultsWe included 192 patients: 119 in the prepectoral and 73 in the subpectoral group. Their clinical characteristics were similar. Thirty patients (15.6%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, among them 27 (14.1%) received it within 12 weeks, and there was no difference between the groups (p = 0.12). In the prepectoral group, 39 patients (32.8%) received adjuvant radiotherapy versus 5 (6.8%) in the subpectoral group (p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in time to treatment commencement. Overall, 35 patients (29.4%) in the prepectoral group and 17 (23.3%) in the subpectoral group experienced post-operative complications (p = 0.44). Using multivariable analysis, the only factor associated with post-operative complications was determined to be mastectomy weight (odds ratio 1.98 (1.10–3.59) for weight ≥500 g; p = 0.02). ConclusionPrepectoral implant placement without ADM can be proposed to patients undergoing IBR with an indication for adjuvant treatment. However, in our study, the reoperation rate with this technique was slightly higher (p = 0.008). This is partly due to the learning curve for surgeons using this new technique.

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

To evaluate early complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction. 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. 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). 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.

Impact of Varying Chest Wall Target Volume Delineation on Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients with Implant-Based Reconstruction

Background: The target volume for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in breast cancer patients with reconstruction has been a subject of debate. Traditionally, the RT chest wall (CW) volume encompasses the entire implant. For patients with retropectoral implants, the deep lymphatic plexus dorsal part of the implant is no longer considered high risk and can be omitted. This study aimed to assess the radiation dose distribution and treatment outcomes associated with different CW delineation according to ESTRO ACROP guideline for patients who have undergone implant-based reconstruction. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of breast cancer patients who underwent a mastectomy followed by two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) between 2007 and 2022. The expanders/implants were positioned retropectorally. The chest wall target volumes were categorized into two groups: the prepectoral group, which excluded the deep lymphatic plexus, and the whole expander group. Results: The study included 26 patients, with 15 in the prepectoral group and 11 in the whole expander group. No significant differences were observed in normal organ exposure between the two groups. There was a trend toward a lower ipsilateral lung mean dose in the prepectoral group (10.2 vs. 11.1 Gy, p = 0.06). Both groups exhibited limited instances of reconstruction failure and local recurrence. Conclusions: For patients undergoing two-stage expander/implant retropectoral breast reconstruction and PMRT, our data provided comparable outcomes and normal organ exposure for those omitting the deep lymphatic plexus.

Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of 694 Two-Stage Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstructions.

Opinion regarding the optimal plane for prosthetic device placement in breast reconstruction patients has evolved. The purpose of this study was to assess the differences in complication rates and patient satisfaction between patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent two-stage IBR at their institution from 2018 to 2019. Surgical and patient-reported outcomes were compared between patients who received a prepectoral versus a subpectoral tissue expander. A total of 694 reconstructions in 481 patients were identified (83% prepectoral, 17% subpectoral). The mean body mass index was higher in the prepectoral group (27 versus 25 kg/m 2 , P = 0.001), whereas postoperative radiotherapy was more common in the subpectoral group (26% versus 14%, P = 0.001). The overall complication rate was very similar, with 29.3% in the prepectoral and 28.9% in the subpectoral group ( P = 0.887). Rates of individual complications were also similar between the two groups. A multiple-frailty model showed that device location was not associated with overall complications, infection, major complications, or device explantation. Mean scores for Satisfaction with the Breast, Psychosocial Well-Being, and Sexual Well-Being were similar between the two groups. Median time to permanent implant exchange was significantly longer in the subpectoral group (200 versus 150 days, P < 0.001). Prepectoral breast reconstruction results in similar surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction compared with subpectoral IBR. Therapeutic, III.

Comparison of Complication Rates Between Subpectoral Vs Prepectoral Techniques in Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.

The location of tissue expanders in implant-based breast reconstruction remains controversial, due to variation in surgical techniques and devices. This study aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of early and late complication rates between prepectoral and subpectoral placement of tissue expanders. A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all adult female patients who had two-staged implant-based breast reconstruction from 2013 to 2019 in our institution. Early complication was defined as complications that occurred within 30 days after surgery. Time-to-event analyses were performed and Cox proportional hazard models were used to adjust for confounders. 854 patients were included with 76% of patients underwent a subpectoral tissue expander placement. After the first stage procedure, the early complication rate was 34%, and the late complication rate was 36.4%. After the second stage procedure, the early complication rate was 16.3%, and the late complication rate was 16.1%. Location of the tissue expander did not predict either overall early or late complication rates, regardless of the stages of reconstruction, after adjusting for confounders. Tissue expanders placed in prepectoral plane were associated with a higher hazard ratio (HR) for developing early and late infection after the first stage of reconstruction (HR 2.1, HR 2.4, respectively) as well as late infection after the second stage of reconstruction (HR 5.3, all p<0.05). Location of tissue expanders did not predict risk of complication. However, the prepectoral group was associated with an increased risk of developing infection.

Postoperative Complications Following Prepectoral Versus Partial Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

There is a paucity of evidence comparing the safety of prepectoral and partial subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADM). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the postoperative complications of the two approaches. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The rates of the complications were, respectively, pooled, and relative risk (RR) was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the incidence between the two cohorts. Ten articles reporting on 2667 breast reconstructions were eligible. The hematoma rate was lower in the prepectoral group (RR = 0.590, 95% CI 0.351-0.992). No significant difference was observed in terms of seroma (RR = 1.079, 95% CI 0.489-2.381), skin flap necrosis (RR = 0.936, 95% CI 0.587-1.493), infection (RR = 0.985, 95% CI 0.706-1.375), tissue expander/implant explantation (RR = 0.741, 95% CI 0.506-1.085), wound dehiscence (RR = 1.272, 95% CI 0.605-2.673), capsular contracture (RR = 0.939, 95% CI 0.678-1.300) and rippling (RR = 2.485, 95% CI 0.986-6.261). The RR of animation deformity for the prepectoral group compared with the subpectoral group was 0.040 (95% CI, 0.002-0.853). This systematic review suggested that with appropriate patient selection, prepectoral breast reconstruction could avoid animation deformity without incurring higher risk of early wound complications, capsular contracture or rippling than partial subpectoral breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should complete a comprehensive assessment of the patients before choosing appropriate surgical approaches in clinical practice. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Long-Term Outcomes in Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

Implant-based breast reconstruction remains the most often used method following mastectomy, but data are lacking regarding differences in complications and long-term patient-reported outcomes for two-stage subpectoral versus prepectoral reconstruction. This study sought to better understand the risks and impact of these reconstructive approaches on overall satisfaction. Patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy and two-stage implant-based reconstruction from 2014 to 2019 were identified from the electronic medical records and contacted via email to complete the BREAST-Q survey. Overall satisfaction was measured by the question, "How happy are you with the outcome of your breast reconstruction?" using a six-point Likert scale. Patients were grouped into subpectoral or prepectoral cohorts. Complications were evaluated retrospectively. Only patients who were at least 6 months from their final reconstruction were included in the analysis. Of the 582 patients contacted, 206 (35%) responded. The subpectoral ( n = 114) and prepectoral ( n = 38) groups did not differ significantly by demographic or treatment characteristics. BREAST-Q scores were also comparable. Complication rates were similar, but prepectoral patients had a significantly higher rate of capsular contracture (16% versus 4%, P < 0.05). Bivariate ordered logistic regression identified prepectoral implant placement, having any postoperative complication, and capsular contracture as predictors of less overall happiness. The authors' study suggests that prepectoral patients may have slightly higher complication rates but are as satisfied as subpectoral patients after at least a year of follow-up. Further studies should investigate risk factors for capsular contracture, how the risk changes over time, and how the risk affects patient satisfaction.

A prospective comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral methods for immediate breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: the cogwheel-shaped anterior wrapping method

Background Prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently gained wide recognition for its advantages, such as rapid recovery and less pain. This study compared the effectiveness of and differences between the prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction techniques.Methods Eighty-three patients (90 breasts) who underwent prepectoral or subpectoral breast reconstruction surgery between January 2019 and December 2020 were prospectively recruited. Patient demographics, comorbidities, oncological treatment, and intraoperative and postoperative data were evaluated to investigate the validity and stability of each surgical technique. The follow-up period was a minimum of 18 months.Results The surgical cohorts (22 prepectoral and 68 subpectoral) had comparable demographics. No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the two groups. The prepectoral group showed shorter operation times than the subpectoral group (mean: 97.27 and 127.63 minutes, respectively; P&lt;0.001). Fewer days elapsed until drain removal and the total amount of drainage was less in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (mean: postoperative day [POD] 8.95 and 10.06, respectively; P=0.048) and (501.72 mL and 671.19 mL, respectively; P=0.009). The numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) scores at POD 7 were significantly lower in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (mean: 0.41 and 1.82, respectively; P=0.029). There were no statistically significant differences in the NPRS scores at POD 1 or the BREAST-Q questionnaire scores at 3 months.Conclusions Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix can feasibly replace the conventional subpectoral breast reconstruction technique and has the advantages of reducing operation time, length of hospitalization, and long-term postoperative pain.

Subpectoral versus prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction: A propensity score-matched analysis of 30-day morbidity and long-term outcomes

Approximately 80% of patients undergoing total mastectomy in the US opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). A two-stage reconstruction with tissue expander (TE) remains the most common technique. Since the implementation of ADMs, a prepectoral approach has gained popularity and is becoming the standard of care. Herein, we compared the surgical and postoperative outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage IBBR. A retrospective chart review was performed between January 2011 and December 2020. We included female patients undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR. The primary outcomes of this study were to compare the 30-day morbidity and the overall rate of complications during the first and second stages of reconstruction, and to compare the time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Propensity score matching was implemented. After matching, 154 reconstructions were analyzed, 77 in each group. The two matched groups exhibited comparable (p>0.05) characteristics for all analyzed demographic and intraoperative independent variables. Reconstructions in the prepectoral group had a shortened median time for drain removal (13-days vs. 15-days, p=0.001). The intraoperative expansion volumes were higher in the prepectoral group (300ml versus 200ml, p=0.025). The 30-day morbidity and first- and second-stage complication rates were not significantly different between groups. The time to start postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) was not significantly different between groups (134-days versus 126.5-days, p=0.58). Prepectoral and subpectoral TE placement had comparable complication rates during the first and second stages of IBBR. Timing for TE-to-Implant exchange and initiation of PMRT were comparable between the two approaches.

A Comparative Study of Secondary Procedures after Subpectoral and Prepectoral Single-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most commonly used procedure to reconstruct the breast after mastectomy. The advantages and disadvantages of subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement remain a matter of debate. This study compares the need for secondary aesthetic procedures between prepectoral and subpectoral IBR. This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent subpectoral or prepectoral IBR between 2015 and 2018 under a single surgeon at a tertiary breast unit. The primary endpoint was the number of secondary procedures performed to improve the aesthetic outcome. Secondary endpoints included the number of secondary procedures during the first year. A total of 271 one-stage IBRs were performed (subpectoral, n = 128 in 74 patients; prepectoral, n = 143 in 84 patients). Overall, more patients required secondary procedures in the subpectoral group (36.5% versus 19%; P = 0.014), although through longer follow-up. The most common procedures were pocket revision and implant exchange [11.7% versus 3.5% ( P = 0.010); 11.7% versus 4.2% ( P = 0.021)], whereas fat grafting was similar between the two groups (46% versus 40.5%; P = 0.777). When adjusted for follow-up time, there was no significant difference in the number of secondary procedures undertaken in the subpectoral versus the prepectoral group (21% versus 16%, respectively; P = 0.288) at 1 year. The requirement for secondary procedures at 1 year was not different between groups. The need for fat grafting was not increased following prepectoral IBR. Therapeutic, III.

Prepectoral vs. Submuscular Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Our Early Experience.

Background: Conservative mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) is an oncologically accepted technique that offers improved esthetic results and patient quality of life. Traditionally, implants have been placed in a submuscular (SM) plane beneath the pectoralis major muscle (PMM). Recently, prepectoral (PP) placement of the prosthesis has been increasingly used in order to avoid morbidities related to manipulation of the PMM. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of SM vs. PP IPBR after conservative mastectomy in patients with histologically proven breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed two cohorts of patients that underwent mastectomy with IPBR after NAC in our institution from January 2018 to December 2021. Conservative mastectomy was performed in 146 of the 400 patients that underwent NAC during the study period. Patients were divided into two groups based on the positioning of implants: 56 SM versus 90 PP. Results: The two cohorts were similar for age (mean age 42 and 44 years in the SM and PP group respectively) and follow-up (33 and 20 months, respectively). Mean operative time was 56 min shorter in the PP group (300 and 244 min in the SM and PP group). No significant differences were observed in overall major complication rates. Implant loss was observed in 1.78% of patients (1/56) in the SM group and 1.11% of patients (1/90) in PP group. No differences were observed between the two groups in local or regional recurrence. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience, which represents one of the largest series of patients undergoing PP-IPBR after NAC at a single institution documented in the literature, seems to confirm that PP-IPBR after NAC is a safe, reliable and effective alternative to traditional SM-IPBR with excellent esthetic and oncological outcomes; it is easy to perform, reduces operative time and minimizes complications related to manipulation of PPM. However, this promising results need to be confirmed in prospective trials with longer follow-up.

Evaluation of Breast Animation Deformity following Pre- and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background The incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) is reported to be substantial after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with subpectoral implant placement. It has, however, never been examined if BAD can occur following prepectoral implant placement. Our primary aim was to compare the incidence and degree of BAD after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement. Secondary aim of this study was to assess and compare the level of pain between sub- and prepectoral reconstructed women. Methods In this randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to reconstruction by either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines. The degree of BAD was assessed by the “Nipple, Surrounding skin, Entire breast (NSE)” grading scale 12 months after surgery. The level of postoperative pain was assessed on a numerical pain rating scale. Results We found a significant difference in the degree of BAD favoring patients in the prepectoral group (23.8 vs. 100%, p < 0.0001; mean NSE grading scale score: 0.4 vs. 3.6, p < 0.0001). The subpectoral reconstructed group reported higher levels of pain on the three subsequent days after surgery. No significant difference in pain levels could be found at 3 months postoperatively. Conclusion The incidence and degree of BAD was significantly lower in women reconstructed by prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Unexpectedly, we found mild degrees of BAD in the prepectoral group. When assessing BAD, distortion can be challenging to discern from rippling.

Picking the Right Plane: A Comparison of Total Submuscular, Dual-Plane, and Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved, with a recent resurgence of prepectoral techniques. Comparative reconstructive outcomes and complications have not been elucidated fully among the total submuscular, dual-plane, and prepectoral planes of implant placement. All immediate implant-based breast reconstructions from March of 2017 through August of 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Cases were divided into total submuscular, dual-plane, and prepectoral cohorts. Demographics, operative techniques, and reconstructive outcomes and complications were compared among groups. A total of 826 cases (510 patients) were identified and divided into total submuscular ( n = 392), dual-plane ( n = 358), and prepectoral ( n = 76) cohorts. Average follow-up for all patients was 27 months. The prepectoral cohort had a higher average body mass index and rate of previous reduction or mastopexy. Overall complications were lowest in the total submuscular group, although this difference was not statistically significant. Major infection occurred more frequently in the dual-plane group compared with the total submuscular cohort. The prepectoral cohort had a significantly increased incidence of wound dehiscence than the total submuscular group; both the dual-plane and prepectoral groups had higher rates of seroma formation and explantation compared with the total submuscular group. Overall reconstructive complication rates were comparable among the cohorts. Compared with those undergoing total submuscular reconstruction, the dual-plane cohort was more likely to develop a major infection or require explantation, whereas the prepectoral group had significantly higher rates of isolated dehiscence, seroma formation, and explantation. This suggests that the absence of overlying vascularized muscle may lead to an inherent inability to tolerate wound-healing complications, although further research is needed to clarify these observations. . Therapeutic, III.

Mastectomy and immediate prepectoral versus submuscular breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Our early experience.

e12618 Background: Conservative mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) is an oncologically accepted technique that allows to improve aesthetic results and patient quality of life. Traditionally, implants have been placed in a submuscolar (SM) plane beneath the pectoralis major muscle (PMM). Recently, prepectoral (PP) placement of prosthesis is increasingly used in order to avoid morbidities related to manipulation of PMM. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of SM vs PP IPBR after conservative mastectomy in patients with histologically proven breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: In this retrospective observational study we analyzed two cohorts of patients that underwent mastectomy with IPBR after NAC in our Istitution from January 2018 to December 2021. Conservative mastectomy was performed in 155 of the 400 patients that underwent NAC during the study period. Patients were divided in 2 groups based on the positioning of implants: 60 SM versus 95 PP. Results: The two cohorts were similar for age (mean age 45 and 42 years in the SM and PP group respectively) and follow‐up (32 and 21 months, respectively). Mean operative time was 55 minutes shorter in the PP group (298 and 243 minutes in the SM and PP group). No significant differences were observed in overall major complication rates. Implant loss occurred was observed in 1.6% of patients (1/60) in the SM group and 1,05% of patients (1/95) in PP group. No differences were observed among the two groups in local or regional recurrence. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience, that represents one of the largest series of PP-IPBR after NAC at a single Institution documented in the Literature, seems to confirm that PP - IPBR after NAC is a safe, reliable and effective alternative to traditional SM - IPBR with excellent aesthetic and oncological outcomes; it is easy to perfom, reduces operative time and minimizes complications related to manipolation of PPM. However this promising results need to be confirmed in prospective trials with longer follow-up.

Symmetry of Nipple Position After Bilateral Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Implant-Based Reconstruction: The Impact of Reconstructive Method.

Asymmetry of nipple position is common in the female population. There are scant data on the impact of bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and immediate implant-based reconstruction on nipple asymmetry. A retrospective review was performed of an institutional review board approved prospective database of NSM and immediate implant-based reconstruction was performed. BCCT.core software was used to examine preoperative and postoperative nipple asymmetry. It directly calculates the quantitative differences in nipple position between the breasts expressed as breast retraction assessment (BRA). Nipple to sternal notch (N-SN) asymmetry was calculated from the collected data. Sixty-eight patients undergoing bilateral NSM and implant reconstruction were reviewed. Reconstructive methods were tissue expander (TE) 39 (57.4%) and direct to implant (DTI) (prepectoral 13, submuscular 16) 29 (42.6%). The TE group had greater body mass index (BMI) (23.5 vs 22.1, P = 0.02), mastectomy weight (390.7 vs 243.8, P = 0.001) and higher preoperative N-SN asymmetry (TE 0.89 vs DTI 0.59, P = 0.02). Ten patients received radiation (TE group 4, DTI group 6). The TE group had larger implant size (479.1 vs 375.0, P = 0.0001). Overall, TE reconstruction resulted in an increase in nipple asymmetry (mean BRA: preoperative, 1.50 vs postoperative, 1.65), which was not significant. Direct to implant reconstruction increased nipple asymmetry: mean N-SN asymmetry preoperative 0.59 versus postoperative 0.97 (P = 0.04) and mean BRA scores 1.40 and 1.82 (P = 0.06). Both implant locations in the DTI group resulted in an increase in postoperative asymmetry but was significant for the prepectoral group: mean BRA preoperative 1.19 versus postoperative 1.85, P = 0.02 and mean N-SN asymmetry preoperative 0.48 vs postoperative 0.94, P = 0.04. Radiation impacted the final mean BRA score: radiation 2.24 versus no radiation 1.63 (P = 0.05). Patients who underwent TE reconstruction had significantly larger breasts and greater preoperative N-SN asymmetry than the DTI group. Despite this, the TE group resulted in mild increase in nipple asymmetry. Both implant locations in DTI reconstruction resulted in increased postoperative asymmetry but was significant for the prepectoral group. Radiation therapy has a significant impact of nipple asymmetry.

Comparing post-surgical outcomes of pre-pectoral versus dual-plane direct-to-implant breast reconstruction without increasing the use of acellular dermal matrix

Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction when performed using the dual-plane technique can be associated with increased postoperative pain, longer recovery, functional impairment, and animation deformity. These issues can be avoided by using the pre-pectoral technique that traditionally uses larger pieces of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and results in increased costs. It is unclear how these two methods compare when the technique is modified to avoid the use of additional ADM. A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction using a dual-plane or pre-pectoral technique between January 2014 and December 2019. Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction was performed using a partial anterior coverage technique, and therefore no additional ADM was used per case as compared to the dual-plane technique. Rates of post-surgical complications were compared between the two groups. Of 77 patients, 48 (86 breasts) underwent dual-plane reconstruction, whereas 29 (48 breasts) underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction. Mean follow-up time for the dual-plane and pre-pectoral groups was 23.3 and 8.7 months, respectively (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in the rates of any of the short-term post-surgical outcomes between the two groups: seroma (14% vs 6.3%, p=0.175); hematoma (2.3% vs 4.2%, p=0.617); skin/nipple necrosis (7% vs 10.4%, p=0.522); wound skin infection (2.3% vs 2.1%, p=1.0); wound dehiscence (4.7% vs 2.1, p=0.654); and implant loss (1.2% vs 8.3%, p=0.055). Pre-pectoral reconstruction using a partial anterior coverage technique appears to be a safe alternative to dual-plane reconstruction when considering short-term post-surgical complications.

Tissue Expansion after Non-Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: A Comparative Study of Expansion Courses of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement with Acellular Dermal Matrix

Although skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy has been popular in the treatment of breast cancer, the radical excision of breast tissue is unavoidable in certain circumstances. However, the ability of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to expand remains questionable, and this situation may further hinder tissue expansion. From October 2017 to January 2020, patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expander placement using ADM whose initial fill volume was less than 50 mL were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcomes were the number of visits and number of days required to complete the expansion, and the secondary outcomes were the amount of postoperative expansions, expander fill ratio and expander volume. Between the prepectoral group (n = 26) and subpectoral group (n = 39), the mean number of days (81.46 days versus 88.64 days, p = 0.365) and mean number of visits (5.08 versus 5.69, p = 0.91) required to complete expansion exhibited no significant differences. Additionally, there were no significant differences in the mean amount of postoperative expansion (314.23 mL versus 315.38 mL, p = 0.950), the mean final volume (353.08 mL versus 339.62 mL, p = 0.481) or the mean final volume ratio (0.89 versus 0.86, p = 0.35) between the two groups. Therefore, we suggest that prepectoral tissue expander placement after conventional mastectomy can be a valid option.

Short- to Medium-term Outcome of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Direct-to-implant Reconstruction using Acellular Dermal Matrix.

Background:Subpectoral implant reconstruction (SIR) is associated with animation deformity and increased postoperative pain. The aim of our study was to compare the short- to medium-term outcome of prepectoral implant reconstruction (PIR) and SIR with acellular dermal matrix.Methods:A review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent PIR and SIR using biological mesh by a single surgeon between Nov 2016 and Nov 2020 was done. Presentation, smoking history, BMI, bra size, radiology size, pathology data, mastectomy weight, implant volume, radiation treatment, and outcomes were analyzed. For intergroup comparisons, the data were analyzed using Pearson chi-square test and the Student t-test. P values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.Results:Eighty-two patients had 109 implant reconstructions (85 PIR and 24 SIR). Median follow-up was 27 months (4–53). Twenty-five of PIR and six of SIR were risk reduction surgeries. Two groups were comparable except for significantly higher percentage of node positive (13/18, 72% versus 20/60, 33%; P = 0.003), Her 2-positive disease (7/18, 39% versus 9/60, 15%; P = 0.027), and radiotherapy (15/24, 63% versus 21/85, 25%; P = 0.001) in SIR. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to hematoma, wound infection, red reaction, seroma needing aspiration, wound necrosis, and implant loss. Significantly more patients in the prepectoral group had rippling needing fat grafting (n = 13, 15% versus 0; P = 0.041) and significantly more patients in the subpectoral group had fat grafting for contour deformity (n = 6, 25% versus n = 6, 7%; P = 0.025).Conclusion:PIR is comparable to conventional SIR with regard to most of the complications.