Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Research Articles

Complications After Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction in Patients Receiving Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Outcomes of immediate breast reconstructions can be influenced by postoperative radiotherapy. However, there is no clarity on the use of prepectoral or subpectoral breast reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). We reviewed evidence on the complication rates of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction in women undergoing PMRT. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were scanned for studies comparing complication rates of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction with PMRT. All complications were pooled in a random-effect meta-analysis to obtain odds ratio (OR). Eight observational studies were included. Meta-analysis showed no difference in the risk of infections (OR: 1.22 95% CI 0.79, 1.88 I2=0%), implant loss (OR: 0.86 95% CI 0.50, 1.50 I2=14%), seroma (OR: 1.01 95% CI 0.43, 2.34 I2=50%), hematoma (OR: 0.44 95% CI 0.12, 1.71 I2=0%), wound dehiscence (OR: 0.95 95% CI 0.42, 2.17 I2=0%), and skin necrosis (OR: 0.61 95% CI 0.21, 1.75 I2=36%), contracture (OR: 0.46 95% CI 0.15, 1.48 I2=54%) and the need for revision surgeries (OR: 0.85 95% CI 0.45, 1.60 I2=15%) between the prepectoral and subpectoral groups. Data from observational studies indicates that in appropriately selected patients there may not be any difference in the risk of early complications with prepectoral or subpectoral breast reconstruction with PMRT. Current evidence is limited by the small number of studies, short follow-up and selection bias. There is a need for randomized controlled trials comparing the two approaches to obtain robust evidence on long-term 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 Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Abstract PO3-23-04: Patient-reported outcomes and complication profiles of implant-based breast reconstruction in patients with postmastectomy radiation therapy

Abstract Objective: This study aims to investigate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications of distinct implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) modality for patients with postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on breast cancer patients with stage II-III disease who performed IBBR following with PMRT between September 2016 and April 2022. The patients were categorized into two matched groups: (1) patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) or subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) followed by PMRT; (2) patients undergoing PMRT with the tissue expander (PMRT-TE) or permanent implant (PMRT-PI) groups. PROs were measured with BREAST-Q questionnaire. Early and late complications were recorded and analysed. Results: A total of 55 eligible patients were recruited. For PROs, patients underwent PBR reported significantly higher Satisfaction with Breasts scores (P = 0.003) compared with SBR group, and PMRT-TE group presented higher Satisfaction with Breasts (P = 0.001) but lower Physical Well-being (P = 0.029) scores compared with PMRT-PI group. Moreover, Patients in SBR cohort had a higher risk of capsular contracture (Baker grade III or IV) (20.5% vs 6.3%) and implant dislocation (48.7% vs 12.5%) than patients in PBR cohort. Patients in PMRT-PI group had a slightly higher rate of capsular contracture (Baker grade III or IV) than PMRT-TE group (20.8% vs 12.9%). Conclusions: PBR was associated with lower rates of late complications, especially for implant dislocation, and higher Satisfaction with Breasts scores compared to SBR. In addition, compared to PMRT-TE with PMRT-PI, patients in PMRT-TE cohort reported superior patient-reported outcomes of Satisfaction with Breasts. Table 1. Patient and Tumor Characteristics of 55 Patients Stratified with Prepectoral/Subpectoral and PMRT-TE/PMRT-PI Reconstructive Procedure. XX- XX Table 2. Patient-Reported BREAST-Q Scores XX- XX Table 3. Association of Reconstruction Techniques with Late Complications. XX- XX Citation Format: Jian Liu, Cong Chen, Honggang Chen, Aizhai Xiang, Ruzhen Zheng, Shufang Hu, Jufeng Guo, Li Qu, Jun Zhou, Jiong Wu. Patient-reported outcomes and complication profiles of implant-based breast reconstruction in patients with postmastectomy radiation therapy [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 PO3-23-04.

Immediate Unilateral Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction does not Impair Pulmonary Functions: A Preliminary Prospective Study.

Implant-based breast reconstruction is one of the most common procedures among women with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy. Prosthetic devices may be positioned either beneath or above the pectoralis major muscle, which is considered an accessory muscle of ventilation. This preliminary prospective study aimed to investigate whether subpectoral unilateral implant-based breast reconstruction has any effect on patients' pulmonary functions. A prospective study of fourteen women who underwent immediate unilateral implant-based subpectoral breast reconstruction by a single surgeon over 10months was conducted. Spirometry and maximal voluntary ventilation tests were conducted 1day prior to surgery, and 1- and 3months following breast reconstruction. ANOVA or Friedman test were used to compare pulmonary function tests before and after surgery. Fourteen patients completed the study protocol. No statistically significant differences were found when comparing spirometry parameters in the three time points. Pectoralis muscle release does not impair pulmonary function among patients undergoing immediate unilateral implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy. 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 .

Reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: an improvement of conventional minimal access breast surgery.

Our center proposes a new technique that effectively provides space to broaden the surgical field of view and overcomes the limitations of endoscopy-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM) by changing the dissection sequence and combining it with air inflation. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the new technique designated "reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-E-NSM) with subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR)" and the conventional E-NSM (C-E-NSM) with SBR. All patients undergoing E-NSM with SBR at our breast center between April 2017 and December 2022 were included in this study. The cohort was divided into the C-E-NSM group and the R-E-NSM group. The operation time, anesthesia time, medical cost, complications, cosmetic outcomes, and oncological safety were compared. Twenty-six and seventy-nine consecutive patients were included in the C-E-NSM and R-E-NSM groups, with average ages of 36.9 ± 7.0 years and 39.7 ± 8.4 years (P=0.128). Patients in the R-E-NSM group had significantly shorter operation time (204.6 ± 59.2 vs. 318.9 ± 75.5 minutes, p<0.001) and anesthesia time (279.4 ± 83.9 vs. 408.9 ± 87.4 minutes, p<0.001) and decreased medical costs [5063.4 (4439.6-6532.3) vs. 6404.2 (5152.5-7981.5), USD, p=0.001] and increase SCAR-Q scores (77.2 ± 17.1 vs. 68.8 ± 8.7, P=0.002) compared to the C-E-NSM group. Although trends increased in both the excellent rate of Ueda scores (53.8% vs. 42.3%, P = 0.144), excellent rate of Harris scores (44.0% vs. 63.1%, P=0.102), and decreased surgical complications (7.6% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.135) were observed in the R-E-NSM group, the differences were not significant. There were no significant differences in oncological outcomes between the two groups. R-E-NSM improves cosmetic outcomes and efficiency of C-E-NSM, reduces medical costs, and has a trend of lower surgical complications while maintaining the safety of oncology. It is a safe and feasible option for oncological procedures that deserves to be promoted and widely adopted in practice.

Current Global Trends in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most frequently performed procedure for breast reconstruction following mastectomy, which involves the surgical placement of breast implants. The approach to breast reconstruction can be divided into two main categories, namely prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR), based on the implant plan and placement technique. In recent years, there has been a significant surge in the popularity of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction, where the implants are positioned above the chest muscle, as opposed to beneath it in the subpectoral approach. However, despite this growing preference, there is a lack of comprehensive data regarding the national trends in the utilization of this technique, thus necessitating further investigation. This narrative review aims to ascertain the current global patterns linked to prepectoral breast reconstruction and elucidate the considerations surrounding patient and implant selection, reconstructive techniques, the utilization of meshes in prepectoral reconstruction, the ensuing outcomes and complications, the ramifications of radiotherapy, and the potential advantages of integrating fat infiltration into the implementation of this technique in breast reconstruction with a focus on published papers in last five years. Conclusion: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has emerged as an appropriate surgical option for individuals seeking breast reconstruction. This development can be attributed to the recent progress made in implant technology, which has significantly enhanced the outcomes of this procedure. Additionally, advancements in mastectomy techniques, autologous fat grafting, and the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have also played a vital role in improving the aesthetic results of prepectoral breast reconstruction. As a result, the significance and effectiveness of this technique in the field of breast reconstruction have been firmly established, making it an essential component of the overall armamentarium available to plastic surgeons for breast reconstruction purposes.

Current status of pre- or subpectoral breast reconstruction in Japan.

Breast reconstruction using silicone breast implants (SBIs) has been performed for many patients in Japan under the initiative of the Japan Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Society (JOBSS) since SBIs were first covered by insurance in 2013. A change in the lineup of available SBIs owing to the Allergan crisis caused a decrease in the availability of SBIs appropriate to Japanese breast contours. Recently, the number of immediate implant-based breast reconstructions (IBRs) was approximately 4,000 in one year and was slightly decreasing. The SBI is generally placed under the pectoralis major muscle. Because the number of patients with one-stage, implant-based operative indications is small, an acellular dermal matrix is not available in Japan, and the complication rate in one-stage, IBR is high, most immediate, IBRs are performed in two stages. The prevalence of immediate, one-stage, IBRs is approximately 10%. Fat grafting by injection using Coleman's technique is performed in many hospitals under the JOBSS initiative as a surgery combined with SBI insertion. Complications after SBI placement may be less common in Japan than those in other countries. Japanese breast reconstructive surgeons undertake preventive measures to lessen these complications according to guidelines and experts' opinions, which may contribute to the low complication rate after SBI placement. The total reported number of patients with breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma is four, and no patients have died because of this disease. In Japan, procuring informed consent and diagnosing and treating this disease are performed according to the JOBSS guidelines.

Current status prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction in the USA.

Breast cancer remains the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States. In the setting of a mastectomy, implant-based reconstruction (IBR) remains the most common type of breast reconstruction performed. IBR is typically performed in two-stages (tissue expander - implant) or one stage [direct-to-implant (DTI)]. As a consequence of the limitations associated with submuscular placement of implants, prepectoral implant placement has been gaining more acceptance worldwide. The prepectoral plane eliminates the need for chest wall muscle dissection, disinsertion and manipulation avoiding the muscle related complications of the subpectoral approach such as increased pain, spasm and animation deformity. In addition, prepectoral placement shortens the recovery time and provides greater control of breast shape and contour. With the latest generation form-stable silicone implants coupled with the wide use and acceptance of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and other meshes to support the implant, this technique is becoming the mainstay of implant-based reconstruction, under these circumstances the subpectoral technique will continue to be the benchmark to which the prepectoral technique will be compared to. The authors sought to review the literature emanating from North America that pertains to this topic and provide an up-to-date assessment of the current practices of the prepectoral and submuscular technique.

Online Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment (BRA) Score Tool in Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction in a Case Series with Cutoff Determination

AbstractThe Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment (BRA) score is a tool for the prediction of the risk of complications in breast surgery, elaborated in 2014. This score assesses the risk of surgical complications related to each type of breast reconstruction technique. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of using the calculator on patients who underwent prosthetic breast reconstruction with submuscular tissue expander or prepectoral prosthesis. Our retrospective study analyzed 92 patients whose data was entered into the calculator. The predicted and observed 1-year rates of overall surgical complications were compared, separately for both cohorts. Subsequently, the accuracy, the applicability, and the discrimination ability of the BRA score were assessed using statistical analysis. In the two-stage subpectoral reconstruction group, Mann–Whitney U test showed a statistically significant difference in BRA-score values between the patients who developed complications compared to the patients who had no complications (p-value &lt; 0.02). Moreover, the score has an excellent discrimination ability (AUC = 0.9), and a cutoff of overall surgical complication rate was found to be between 17 and 18%. For the one-stage prepectoral prosthetic reconstruction group, the BRA score tool was unable to discriminate between patients with complications and patients without complication. Our results suggest that the BRA score can accurately identify patients with risk of complications following two-stage subpectoral breast reconstruction. Moreover, we believe it is possible to identify a risk rate cutoff of overall surgical complications that may potentially help physicians select the safest surgical strategy.

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

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

PC60. Impact of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy on Complications Following Prepectoral vs Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction

PC60. Impact of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy on Complications Following Prepectoral vs Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction

Prevention of Postoperative Complications by Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved over time. However, the effects of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) compared with those of subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) have not been clearly defined. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the occurrence of surgical complications between PBR and SBR to determine the procedure that is effective and relatively safe. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published until April of 2021 comparing PBR and SBR following mastectomy. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. General information on the studies and surgical outcomes were extracted. Among 857 studies, 34 and 29 were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed to clearly compare the results of patients who underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy. Pooled results showed that prevention of capsular contracture (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79) and infection control (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92) were better with PBR than with SBR. Rates of hematoma, implant loss, seroma, skin-flap necrosis, and wound dehiscence were not significantly different between PBR and SBR. PBR considerably improved postoperative pain, BREAST-Q score, and upper arm function compared with SBR. Among postmastectomy radiation therapy patients, the incidence rates of capsular contracture were significantly lower in the PBR group than in the SBR group (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.35). The results showed that PBR had fewer postoperative complications than SBR. The authors' meta-analysis suggests that PBR could be used as an alternative technique for breast reconstruction in appropriate patients.

Advances in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Breast reconstruction can be divided into prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR) according to the implant plane. The original prepectoral breast reconstruction was abandoned for a long time due to the frequent and severe complications. Now, advances in materials technology and improved methods of mastectomy have made safe prepectoral breast reconstruction possible. Moreover, a number of studies have gradually demonstrated the advantages of prepectoral breast reconstruction. As prepectoral breast reconstruction becomes more and more attractive, it is time to review the current advances in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

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 .

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q.

Over the years, plastic surgery has acquired a central role in the integrated treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using the prepectoral approach has emerged as an alternative to reconstruction using the subpectoral technique to overcome the complications arising from this type of surgery resulting as a consequence of muscle elevation. The satisfaction and quality of life of patients undergoing DTI breast reconstruction were evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire, comparing the prepectoral and the subpectoral technique. A single-center cross-sectional study on patients who underwent mastectomy and DTI breast reconstruction at our institution between 2013 and 2021 was conducted. Eighty-one patients were included and mainly divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: 52 patients undergoing a subpectoral breast reconstruction approach and 29 patients receiving a prepectoral breast reconstruction. In order to assess the quality of life, the postoperative BREAST-Q module was administered electronically to the enrolled patients. Higher scores in BREAST-Q domains were recorded from patients who underwent mastectomy and breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique: psychosocial well-being (P<0.0085), sexual well-being (P<0.0120), physical well-being: lymphoedema (P<0.0001) and satisfaction with information received (P<0.0045). There were further statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to postoperative complications (p<0.0465) and the need for reoperation (p<0.0275). Patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique were more satisfied in terms of psychosocial, sexual and also physical well-being. These patients also had statistically lower complications and reoperations compared to patients who received breast reconstruction with the subpectoral technique. This journal requires that authors 38 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 39 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 40 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 41 Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

A systematic review and meta-analysis of postmastectomy radiation therapy on prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has once again appealed, which attributes to the introduction of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), meanwhile, is crucial in the whole course of treatment for breast cancer patients with lymph node-positive. The impact of PMRT on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction has not been clearly defined to date. This study aimed to compare the impact of PMRT on outcomes after prepectoral vs. subpectoral breast reconstruction. A comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature pertaining to prepectoral breast reconstruction from database inception to October 2021. All included studies evaluated the impact of PMRT on outcomes after breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral breast reconstruction were included. Data were analyzed using RevMan version 5.2. A total of 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 394 breasts. In the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy, 164 breasts were reconstructed with a prepectoral approach, whereas the remaining 230 breasts underwent subpectoral reconstruction. Overall, outcomes between PBR and SBR was no statistical significance in the overall complications (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.35-4.85), infection (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 0.90-2.91), seroma (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 0.48-5.27), skin flap necrosis (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.17-3.45), hematoma (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.10-1.41), wound dehiscence (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.36-1.85). But, included studies lacked data about the patient quality of life and satisfaction with the outcome of the reconstructed breast. In the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy, prepectoral breast reconstruction is a safe and effective option.

Use of the serratus anterior fascia in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction

Using the serratus anterior fascia may be a safe and effective option to recreate the lateral breast profile during subpectoral breast reconstruction, with minimal functional impact on the donor site. However, the literature is scarce when it comes to studies on this fascia flap in implant-based reconstruction. This article aimed to review the use of the serratus anterior fascia in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction, searching the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, and SciELO. The search was carried out by combining the following keywords: ‘breast reconstruction’ and ‘serratus anterior fascia’. In the Pubmed and Embase databases, the search yielded a total of 12 and 15 articles, respectively, of which seven were selected according to the scope of this article. We found no studies on serratus anterior fascia and breast reconstruction in the Lilacs and SciELO databases. All works have results favorable for the use of the serratus anterior fascia flap and agree that this technique can be considered in the algorithm for the coverage of the inferolateral portion during subpectoral breast reconstruction.

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.

Cost analysis of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

With improvement in mastectomy skin flap viability and increasing recognition of animation deformity following sub-pectoral implant placement, there has been a transition toward pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. While studies have explored the cost effectiveness of implant-based breast reconstruction, few investigations have evaluated cost with respect to pre-pectoral versus sub-pectoral breast reconstruction. A retrospective review of 548 patients who underwent mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction was performed from 2017 to 2020. The demographic and surgical characteristics of the pre-pectoral and sub-pectoral cohorts were well matched, except for reconstructive staging, as patients who underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction were more likely to undergo single-stage instead of two-stage reconstruction. Comparison of institutional cost ratios by reconstructive technique revealed that the sub-pectoral approach was more costly (1.70 ± 0.44 vs 1.58 ± 0.31, p < 0.01). However, further stratification by laterality and reconstructive staging failed to demonstrate difference in cost by reconstructive technique. These results were confirmed by multivariable linear regression, which did not reveal reconstructive technique to be an independent variable for cost. This study suggests that pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is a cost-effective alternative to sub-pectoral breast reconstruction and may confer cost benefit, as it is more strongly associated with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Reduces Opioid Consumption and Pain After Mastectomy: A Head-to-Head Comparison With Submuscular Reconstruction.

Acute pain after mastectomy is increased with concurrent breast reconstruction. One postulated advantage of prepectoral breast reconstruction is less postoperative pain; however, no comparisons to partial submuscular reconstruction have been made to date. Here, we examined the postoperative pain experienced between patients with prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomy. We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from 2012 to 2019 by a single plastic surgeon. Patient demographics, surgical details, and anesthetic techniques were evaluated, and our primary outcome compared postoperative opioid usage between prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions. Our secondary outcome compared pain scores between techniques. A total of 211 subpectoral and 117 prepectoral reconstruction patients were included for analysis. Patients with subpectoral reconstructions had higher postoperative opioid usage (80.0 vs 45.0 oral morphine equivalents, P < 0.001). Subpectoral patients also recorded higher maximum pain scores compared with prepectoral reconstructions while admitted (7 of 10 vs 5 of 10, P < 0.004). Multivariable linear regression suggests that mastectomy type and subpectoral reconstruction were significant contributors to postoperative opioid use (P < 0.05). Prepectoral breast reconstruction was associated with less postoperative opioid consumption and lower postoperative pain scores as compared with subpectoral reconstruction, when controlling for other surgical and anesthesia factors. Future randomized controlled trials are warranted to study how postoperative pain and chronic pain are influenced by the location of prosthesis placement in implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

Capsule study - A comparison of capsule in patients undergoing subpectoral breast reconstruction with implant and porcine acellular dermal matrix

Background: Acellular dermal matrices (ADM), used in 60% of immediate implant-based breast reconstructions, are associated with reduced rates of capsular contracture, however the mechanism of this is unknown.