Two-stage Breast Reconstruction Research Articles

Postoperative Complications of Direct-to-Implant and Two-Staged Breast Reconstruction: A Stratified Analysis

Postoperative Complications of Direct-to-Implant and Two-Staged Breast Reconstruction: A Stratified Analysis

Prevention of the development of diastasis of the wound edges during two-stage breast reconstruction

The main problem of breast reconstruction after a mastectomy is the complete destruction of all structural elements of the breast and the lack of integumentary tissues that do not allow carrying out one-stage breast reconstruction. To solve this problem, usually performing a two-stage reconstruction, which today is the most commonly used method of breast reconstruction. The peculiarity of this method is that after removal of the expander, during the second stage of reconstruction, some retraction of the skin and a decrease in the area of the prepared skin cover are observed. Thus, after installing a permanent implant and suturing the surgical wound, the skin sheath is tightened around the installed endoprosthesis, while the greater the retraction of the skin, the more pronounced the tension appears and, accordingly, the load on the sutured wound increases. As a result, the risks of developing diastasis of the wound edges with the exposure of the endoprosthesis increase, which leads to the need to remove the implant. Therefore, when carrying out the second stage of breast reconstruction, a very important moment of the operation is the suturing of the postoperative wound, the competent implementation of which allows the prevention of implant extrusion.

Impact of Implant Exchange Timing after Post-Mastectomy Radiation in Immediate Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

The use of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in the setting of immediate two-stage breast reconstruction is becoming increasingly widespread. However, the timeframe of tissue expander exchange for permanent implant placement following PMRT is not well-defined, and it remains unclear what time interval optimizes surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction. A systematic review conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 was completed. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched under keywords pertaining to concepts of tissue expander breast reconstruction and PMRT. Inclusion criteria encompassed primary articles on tissue expander breast reconstruction with adjuvant radiation therapy reporting timing of exchange to permanent implant following radiation and surgical outcomes. Of the initial 1,259 publications, 15 studies met our inclusion criteria, and 11 studies had granular enough data to use for pooled analysis. Implant exchange less than 6 months after PMRT was found to be associated with increased incidence of wound dehiscence (17.12% vs 3.64%, p<0.001) and hematoma (25% vs 2.59%, p<0.001) compared to exchange after 6 months. There was no significant difference in incidence of SSI, seroma, capsular contracture, and reconstructive failure. Expander to implant exchange at less than 6 months is associated with a higher incidence of wound dehiscence and hematoma formation but does not increase the risk of reconstruction failure. The limited research on ideal timing prompts further investigation to optimize surgical outcomes for the increasing patient population undergoing PMRT and immediate two-staged breast reconstruction.

Abstract PO4-27-11: Fat grafting is oncologically safe during implant-based breast reconstruction and mastectomy after radiotherapy for breast cancer or Hodgkin Lymphoma: results of a multicentric study

Abstract Background. Fat grafting during or after mastectomy could promote the regeneration of irradiated tissues, thus improving tissue softness, increasing patient comfort and ameliorating quality of life. However, there are no conclusive data about the oncological safety of fat grafting, especially in terms of risk of tumor recurrences. The most appropriate timing of adipose tissue transplant is also debated, especially in patients with locoregional breast cancer (BC) recurrence undergoing salvage mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction after breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy. Methods. We conducted a prospective, multicentric Italian study to investigate the oncological safety of fat grafting between June 2007 and March 2022. One hundred sixty-three patients who had previously received radiotherapy, either as adjuvant treatment after breast conservative surgery (N=154), or as a treatment of Hodgkin Lymphoma (N=9), underwent mastectomy (simple mastectomy, NAC-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy) and implant-based, two-stage breast reconstruction. Inclusion criteria were: age between 25 and 75 years, absence of concomitant malignancies, grade 2 or 3 of Breast post Radiotherapy Reconstruction with ExpAnder Score Test (B.R.R.E.A.S.T. score) (Tab 1). Patient BMI, hypertension, smoking history, diabetes and having received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not considered as exclusion criteria. Contextual mastectomy and expander positioning were performed during first stage (stage I), while substitution of the expander with definitive implant occurred during second stage (stage II). Fat grafting could be performed during stage I, between stage I and II surgery, or during stage II. Results. One hundred sixty-nine mastectomy procedures (six bilateral) and first-stage implant-based reconstructions with expander were performed either as prophylactic surgery (N=23) or for the treatment of primary or recurrent BC (N=146). Thirty-four patients had ductal carcinoma in situ, whereas 112 patients had invasive disease, including: 17 patients with Luminal A BC, 67 patients with Luminal B HER2-negative BC, 3 patients with Luminal B HER-2 positive BC, 7 patients with HER-2 positive BC and 18 patients had triple-negative BC. One hundred thirty-six (80.5%) patients received at least one fat grafting. Eighty-six patients (52.8%) have received second-stage definitive implant. With a median time of observation of 25.1 months, we observed four locoregional cancer recurrences (2.4%), one of which in axillary lymph nodes. All tumor recurrences occurred in patients who had received fat grafting. Eight patients (4.9%) developed distant metastases (liver, lung, lymph nodes, and bone metastases); of these, four patients (50%) had received fat grafting. No death events occurred. Conclusion. Fat grafting after radiotherapy of the breast is associated with a low incidence of locoregional tumor recurrences and distant metastases. Although our findings need to be confirmed in larger, multicentric clinical studies, fat grafting is a safe and useful technique that can be proposed for breast reconstruction after irradiation. Table. Breast post Radiotherapy Reconstruction with ExpAnder Score Test, B.R.R.E.A.S.T score. Based on our experience, we thought to include two tissue characteristics (Pinch test ≥ 0.5 cm and presence/absence of skin teleangectasia or severe dyscromia) in a pre-operative, clinically useful, and ready-to-use score to assess soft tissue adequacy as recommended by NCCN guidelines, that we called Breast post Radiotherapy Reconstruction with ExpAnder Score Test (B.R.R.E.A.S.T. score). In our study, two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction and adipose tissue transplant with regenerative intent were performed in patients with Pinch test ≥ 0.5 cm but moderate skin teleangectasia or dyscromia (B.R.R.E.A.S.T. score 2) and in patients with Pinch test ≥ 0.5 cm and absence of skin teleangectasia or severe dyscromia (B.R.R.E.A.S.T. score 3). Patients with skin teleangectasia or dyscromia and Pinch test &amp;lt; 0.5 cm (B.R.R.E.A.S.T. score 1) were not enrolled in our study as they did not undergo alloplastic breast reconstruction but they underwent autologous reconstruction (data not shown). Citation Format: Chiara Listorti, Claudio Vernieri, Francesco Barretta, Chiara Osio, Ilaria Maugeri, Federica Pilotta, Cristina Ferraris, Massimiliano Gennaro, Gabriele Martelli, Marco Visaggio, Giulia Valeria Bianchi, Serena Di Cosimo, Gianfranco Scaperrotta, Maria Carmen De Santis, Daniela Tognali, Antonino Romeo, Matteo Mingozzi, Francesco Marongiu, Annalisa Curcio, Secondo Folli. Fat grafting is oncologically safe during implant-based breast reconstruction and mastectomy after radiotherapy for breast cancer or Hodgkin Lymphoma: results of a multicentric study [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 PO4-27-11.

Breast reconstruction with mentor anatomical implants and the risk of implant rotation: A retrospective study of 1134 women

BackgroundImplant rotation is a known complication to breast reconstruction using anatomical implants. However, there is a lack of large studies investigating the risk of implant rotation and potential predisposing risk factors. MethodWe reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent breast reconstruction with Mentor anatomical implants from 2010 to 2021 at two Danish hospitals. We compared the risk of implant rotation between one- and two-stage breast reconstruction using univariate logistic regression. We analyzed the effect of biological mesh, immediate versus delayed reconstruction, and use of a higher final expander volume than the permanent implant volume on the risk of implant rotation. Finally, we analyzed the success rate of revision surgery for implant rotation. ResultsIn total, 1134 patients were enrolled. Patients who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction (n = 720) had a significantly higher risk of implant rotation than those who underwent one-stage breast reconstruction (n = 426; 11% vs. 5%, p < 0.01). There was no significant association between implant rotation and the use of biological mesh, immediate breast reconstruction, or use of a higher final expander volume than the permanent implant volume. The success rate of revision surgery after implant rotation was 73% (62/85 rotations). ConclusionsTwo-stage breast reconstruction significantly increased the risk of implant rotation compared to one-stage breast reconstruction. The overall risk of implant rotation was low and success rate of revision surgery was high. These findings suggest that anatomical implants are safe to use for breast reconstruction. However, surgeons and patients should be aware of the increased risk of implant rotation after two-stage reconstruction.

Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction with tissue expander entirely covered by acellular dermal matrix: feasibility, safety and histological features resulting from the first 64 procedures.

Reconstructive options that can be used following conservative mastectomy, skin-, nipple-sparing and skin-reducing mastectomies, allow a remarkable variety of safe methods to restore the natural shape and aesthetics of the breast mound. In case of two-stage breast reconstruction, tissue expanders (TEs) are usually placed in a subpectoral position. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of two-step reconstruction with TE in pre-pectoral position covered by acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Between March 2021 and May 2023, at the Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, 55 patients with BRCA 1/2 mutations or early breast cancer underwent conservative mastectomy with immediate pre-pectoral reconstruction using TE covered with ADM, followed by a second surgery with replacement of the expander with definitive prosthesis. Demographic, oncological, and histological data along with surgical complications were recorded. A total of 64 conservative mastectomies were performed. In 2 patients (3.1%) complications were found that required reintervention and, in both cases, the TE had to be removed. Two patients developed hematoma and one patient developed seroma. Two patients showed wound dehiscence, both healed after conservative treatment and without implant exposure. No case of necrosis of the skin or nipple-areola complex has been observed, neither of capsular contracture. Capsule formed around TE was populated with cells and blood vessels and showed a thin area of synovial metaplasia. In selected cases it may be more cautious to perform a two-stage breast reconstruction after radical breast surgery by means of TEs. The placement of TEs in pre-pectoral position combines the excellent aesthetic and functional results of the pre-pectoral philosophy with a quite safer and more prudent two-step approach. Our experience reports optimistic results: the ADM covering the TE is seen successfully integrating during tissue expansion and becoming a vascularised new self-tissue. Complications rates are low and such ADM-assisted two-stage pre-pectoral reconstructive technique is a safe, practical, and reproducible method.

Sudden deflation of the tissue expander used in two-stage breast reconstruction surgery: two cases of this rare complication

For breast cancer patients, the goal after mastectomy is to reconstruct a cosmetically beautiful, natural-appearing breast that is symmetrical to the contralateral breast. Breast reconstruction using a tissue expander is one of the most commonly employed methods. This two-stage method involves initially placing a tissue expander, followed by its exchange for a permanent implant. It is recognized as safe and effective, and demand for this procedure is gradually increasing. However, we encountered two unusual instances of sudden deflation of tissue expanders used in two-stage breast reconstruction surgery. Both expanders were placed using a dual-plane technique beneath an acellular dermal matrix. One patient had undergone radiation therapy, while the other had not. Upon removal of the tissue expanders, they were examined for physical rupture, but no abnormalities were detected. Postoperative malfunction of tissue expanders or implants is relatively uncommon, and there have been no reports of delayed leakage without rupture of the expander. In this study, we present a rare complication involving tissue expanders and discuss potential causes and solutions.

Early Complications in Prepectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Prepectoral implant placement for postmastectomy breast reconstruction has increased in recent years. Benefits of prepectoral reconstruction may include lack of animation deformities and reduced postoperative pain, but its complication profile is currently unclear. This study aimed to examine the complication profile of prepectoral tissue expanders (TEs) to determine factors associated with TE loss. A retrospective review was performed to identify all patients who underwent immediate prepectoral TE reconstruction from January 2018 to June 2021. The decision to use the prepectoral technique was based on mastectomy skin quality and patient comorbidities. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative details were evaluated. Outcomes of interest included TE loss, seroma, hematoma, infection/cellulitis, mastectomy skin flap necrosis requiring revision, and TE exposure. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with TE loss. The study identified 1225 TEs. The most frequent complications were seroma (8.7%, n = 106), infection/cellulitis (8.2%, n = 101), and TE loss (4.2%, n = 51). Factors associated with TE loss in the univariate analysis included ethnicity, history of smoking, body mass index, mastectomy weight, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In the multivariate regression analysis, only mastectomy weight had a positive association with TE loss (odds ratio, 1.001; p = 0.016). Prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction can be performed safely with an acceptable early complication profile. The study data suggest that increasing mastectomy weight is the most significant factor associated with TE loss. Further research examining the quality of the soft tissue envelope and assessing patient-reported outcomes would prove beneficial.

Complications after one-stage and two-stage breast reconstruction depending on the method of reconstruction and risk factors

Complications after one-stage and two-stage breast reconstruction depending on the method of reconstruction and risk factors

Smooth versus Textured Tissue Expanders: Comparison of Outcomes and Complications in 536 Implants.

Background Increasing concerns regarding the safety of textured surface implants have resulted in surgeons transitioning from textured tissue expanders (TEs) to smooth TEs. Given this change has only recently occurred, this study evaluated outcomes between smooth and textured TEs. Methods Women who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction using TEs from 2013 to 2022 were included. TE-specific variables, perioperative information, pain scores, and complications were collected. Chi-squared, t -test, and linear regression analyses were performed. Results A total of 320 patients received a total of 384 textured and 152 smooth TEs. Note that 216 patients received bilateral reconstruction. TEs were removed in 9 cases. No significant differences existed between groups regarding comorbidities. Smooth TEs had a higher proportion of prepectoral placement ( p < 0.001). Smooth TEs had less fills (3 ± 1 vs. 4 ± 2, p < 0.001), shorter expansion periods (60 ± 44 vs. 90 ± 77 days, p < 0.001), smaller expander fill volumes (390 ± 168 vs. 478 ± 177 mL, p < 0.001), and shorter time to exchange (80 ± 43 vs. 104 ± 39 days, p < 0.001). Complication rates between textured and smooth TEs were comparable. Smooth TE had a greater proportion of TE replacements ( p = 0.030). On regression analysis, pain scores were more closely associated with age ( p = 0.018) and TE texture ( p = 0.046). Additional procedures at time of TE exchange ( p < 0.001) and textured TE ( p = 0.017) led to longer operative times. Conclusion As many surgeons have transitioned away from textured implants, our study shows that smooth TEs have similar outcomes to the textured alternatives.

Technical Tips to Reduce Implant Rippling in Staged Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is becoming increasingly popular, permitting optimal implant positioning on the chest wall, prevention of animation deformity, and reduced patient discomfort. There are, however, concerns related to increased rates of breast implant rippling in pre-pectoral (versus submuscular) IBR, which can prompt a patient to seek revisionary surgery. The aim of this study is to identify factors that can be implemented to reduce implant rippling in the setting of pre-pectoral IBR. A literature review was conducted using the PubMed database to determine the rate of rippling in pre-pectoral IBR. Clinical studies in English were included. Further review was then performed to explore technical strategies associated with reduced rates of rippling in pre-pectoral two-stage breast reconstruction. Implant rippling has been reported with a rate varying from 0 to 53.8% in 25 studies of pre-pectoral IBR (including both direct-to-implant and two-stage IBR). The majority of studies reviewed did not demonstrate a significant association between BMI and rippling, suggesting that other factors, likely technical and device-related, contribute to the manifestation of implant rippling. Hence, we explored whether specific technical modifications could be implemented that would reduce the risk of rippling in patients undergoing pre-pectoral IBR. Specifically, we highlight the need for close attention to expansion protocol and pocket dimension, expander fill medium and implant characteristics, and the rationale behind adjunctive procedures to reduce implant rippling. Surgical modifications may reduce the incidence of rippling in pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. 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 .

Benefits of Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging During Breast Tissue Expansion: Literature Review and Case Series.

Breast cancer results in up to 1.6 million new candidates for yearly breast reconstruction (BR) surgery. Two-stage breast reconstruction surgery with the use of a tissue expander (TE) is a common approach to reconstruct the breast after mastectomy. However, a common disadvantage encountered with traditional breast TE is the magnetic injection port, which has been reported to cause injuries in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Thus, this type of breast TE is labeled "MR Unsafe". Recent technological advances have incorporated radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology into the TE to allow for the location of the injection port without using magnetic components, thus resulting in an MR Conditional TE. This paper aims to review the information regarding the safety profile of tissue expanders (TEs) with magnetic ports and to gather distinct clinical scenarios in which an MR Conditional TE benefits the patient during the BR process. A literature review ranging from 2018 to 2022 was performed with the search terms: "tissue expander" OR "breast tissue expander" AND "magnetic resonance imaging" OR "MRI". Additionally, a case series was collected from each the authors' practices. The literature search yielded 13 recent peer-reviewed papers, and 6 distinct clinical scenarios were compiled and discussed. Most clinicians find MRI exams to be the state-of-art diagnostic imaging modality. However, due to the pre-existing risks associated with TE with magnetic ports, the MRI labeling classification should be considered when deciding which TE is the most appropriate for the patient requiring MRI exams.

Comparative analysis of the frequency of complications in one-stage and two-stage breast reconstruction after subcutaneous/skin-saving mastectomy in combination with radiotherapy

Background. Breast cancer (BC) is not only a global medical problem, but a social problem associated with its steady growth and spread. Thus, the prevalence of BC in women in Russia in 2021 was 21.1 %. Combined or complex treatment is used in the vast majority of cases (surgery, drug and radiation therapy); in 2021, this percentage was 64.5 %. Currently, there is no doubt that radiation therapy is necessary as part of the complex treatment of patients with T1–3N1–2 BC, as it leads to an increase in survival rates. The development of reconstructive plastic surgery makes it possible to restore the removed breast using implants or autologous tissues. Reconstruction with endoprostheses is the main method, it accounts for up to 70 % of all reconstructive breast surgeries. Until recently, the most popular method was a two-stage reconstruction. Especially in cases where radiation therapy is planned. However, our own experience of one-stage reconstructions in combination with radiation therapy showed good aesthetic results with a low complication rate, which was the reason for this study.Aim. To study and compare the incidence of complications in one- and two-stage breast reconstruction after subcutaneous/skin-sparing mastectomy in combination with radiation therapy.Materials and methods. A prospective study of 92 patients diagnosed with BC was carried out. The patients were divided into 2 groups: group I (study) included 50 women, who underwent one stage – subcutaneous/skin-sparing mastectomy with breast reconstruction using an implant, II (control) group included 42 patients, who underwent subcutaneous/skin-preserving mastectomy with breast reconstruction with an expander, followed by replacement of the expander with an implant. After radiation therapy, the groups underwent a comparative assessment of anthropometric and anamnestic data, a study of the somatic anamnesis, the results of pathomorphological typing of the tumor, treatment tactics and complications.Results and conclusion. Subcutaneous/skin-sparing mastectomy with simultaneous breast reconstruction using an implant does not increase the incidence of postoperative complications when combined with radiation therapy, and also does not limit the appointment of concomitant treatment methods in the complex therapy of women with BC. This method of surgical treatment can be used in patients with IIA, IIB and IIIA stages of tumor growth.

Machine-Learning Prediction of Capsular Contraction after Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction

BackgroundTwo-stage breast reconstruction is a common technique used to restore preoperative appearance in patients undergoing mastectomy. However, capsular contracture may develop and lead to implant failure and significant morbidity. The objective of this study is to build a machine-learning model that can determine the risk of developing contracture formation after two-stage breast reconstruction. MethodsA total of 209 women (406 samples) were included in the study cohort. Patient characteristics that were readily accessible at the preoperative visit and details pertaining to the surgical approach were used as input data for the machine-learning model. Supervised learning models were assessed using 5-fold cross validation. A neural network model is also evaluated using a 0.8/0.1/0.1 train/validate/test split. ResultsAmong the subjects, 144 (35.47%) developed capsular contracture. Older age, smaller nipple-inframammary fold distance, retropectoral implant placement, synthetic mesh usage, and postoperative radiation increased the odds of capsular contracture (p < 0.05). The neural network achieved the best performance metrics among the models tested, with a test accuracy of 0.82 and area under receiver operative curve of 0.79. ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first study that uses a neural network to predict the development of capsular contraction after two-stage implant-based reconstruction. At the preoperative visit, surgeons may counsel high-risk patients on the potential need for further revisions or guide them toward autologous reconstruction.

Differences in complications and asymmetry in patients who did not receive a balancing procedure in two-stage and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction

Background Implant-based immediate breast reconstruction surgery with nipple-sparing mastectomy has recently been favored by patients. However, in patients who do not wish to undergo balancing procedures, it is difficult to select the appropriate implant size, making it challenging to achieve a symmetrical breast shape. Therefore, this study investigated the differences in breast asymmetry and other complications in patients who underwent a two-stage procedure or direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction to determine whether the two-stage procedure can produce more favorable outcomes.Methods The participants of this study were patients who underwent immediate two-stage breast reconstruction or DTI breast reconstruction from May 2018 to April 2022, did not receive postoperative radiotherapy, and did not wish to undergo any balancing procedures. An acellular dermal matrix was used for breast reconstruction in all patients, and a single reconstructive surgeon performed all the operations. Statistical significance was set at P&lt;0.05.Results No significant differences in complications were found between the patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction and those who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction. In the two-stage breast reconstruction group, breast volume asymmetry was observed in 18.4% (seven patients), which was significantly lower than the percentage of 44.7% (17 patients) observed in the DTI group.Conclusions Breast asymmetry was observed in a significant proportion of the patients in both groups. However, because breast volume asymmetry was more common in the DTI group than in the two-stage breast reconstruction group, two-stage breast reconstruction may be a favorable method for patients who do not wish to undergo balancing procedures.

Risk Factors for Unplanned Reoperation during the Expansion Phase in Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

The majority of postmastectomy breast reconstructions (PMBRs) are currently performed in two stages using a tissue expander (TE). However, complications during the expansion phase occur regularly, leading to unplanned reoperations and/or reconstruction failure. This study aimed to identify risk factors for unplanned reoperation after TE placement, assessed the time until unplanned and planned reoperation, and investigated indications for unplanned reoperation. Patient- and surgery-related characteristics of patients who underwent two-stage PMBR between 2017 and 2021 were collected from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR). Unplanned reoperation was defined as TE explantation followed by either no replacement or replacement with the same or a different TE. Covariate-adjusted characteristics associated with unplanned reoperation were determined using backward stepwise selection and multivariable logistic regression analyses. In total, 2529 patients (mean age, 50.2 years) were included. Unplanned reoperation occurred in 19.4% of all registered TEs ( n = 3190). Independent factors associated with unplanned reoperation were body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 25 kg/m 2 (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.63, 99% CI, 1.20 to 2.57 for BMI of 25 to 29.9 kg/m 2 ; aOR, 2.57, 99% CI, 1.74 to 3.78 for BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 ), low institutional volume (aOR, 1.51; 99% CI, 1.06 to 2.18), no drains (aOR, 2.06; 99% CI, 1.15 to 3.60), subcutaneous TE placement (aOR, 5.71; 99% CI, 3.59 to 9.10), and partial pectoralis major muscle coverage (aOR, 1.35; 99% CI, 1.02 to 1.79). Age younger than 40 years (aOR, 0.49; 99% CI, 0.32 to 0.74) and delayed PMBR (aOR, 0.35; 99% CI, 0.19 to 0.60) reduced the risk of unplanned reoperation. Median time until reoperation was 97 days for unplanned and 213 days for planned reoperation. Deep wound infections were most often registered as indication for unplanned reoperation (34.4%). This study identified several risk factors for unplanned reoperation that may be used to reduce complications in expander-based PMBR. Risk, III.

American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy: Executive Summary of Clinical Topics

To conduct an appropriate use criteria expert panel update on clinical topics relevant to current clinical practice regarding postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). An analysis of the medical literature from peer-reviewed journals was conducted from May 4, 2010 to May 4, 2022 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to search the PubMed database to retrieve a comprehensive set of relevant articles. A well-established methodology (modified Delphi) was used by the expert panel to rate the appropriate use of procedures. Evidence for key questions in PMRT regarding benefit in special populations and technical considerations for delivery was examined and described. Risk factors for local-regional recurrence in patients with intermediate-risk disease that indicate benefit of PMRT include molecular subtype, age, clinical stage, and pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Use of hypofractionated radiation in PMRT has been examined in several recent randomized trials and is under investigation for patients with breast reconstruction. The use of bolus varies significantly by practice region and has limited evidence for routine use. Adverse effects occurred with both PMRT preimplant and postimplant exchange in 2-staged breast reconstruction. Most patients with even limited nodal involvement will likely benefit from PMRT with significant reduction in local-regional recurrence and potential survival. Patients with initial clinical stage III disease and/or any residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be strongly considered for PMRT. Growing evidence supports the use of hypofractionated radiation for PMRT with equivalent efficacy and decreased acute side effects, but additional evidence is needed for special populations. There is limited evidence to support routine use of bolus in all patients. Timing of PMRT regarding completion of 2-staged breast reconstruction requires a discussion of increased risks with radiation postimplant exchange compared with increased risk of failure of reconstruction or surgical complications with radiation preimplant exchange.

A pilot study of the use of human amniotic membrane as subcutaneous implants in a mouse model: a potential for temporary substitutes in two-stage breast reconstructions

IntroductionBreast reconstruction by prosthesis is frequently performed in breast cancer treatments, and a temporary substitute is used in the first step of two-stage operations.AimDue to the advantageous biological features of the human amniotic membrane, we aimed to evaluate its use for temporary implants.MethodWe prepared small spherical implants from human amniotic membranes and inserted them into BALB/c mice’s subcutaneous flanks. Then, we compared the bulging they produced, the durability, and the host reaction with implants made from the chorionic membrane, folded membrane patches, and sterile plastic beads.ResultsAll amionitic cases were healthy throughout the study and only mild inflammation occurred in them. Furthermore, the bulging of the implants was acceptable and faded gradually. However, moderate inflammation was observed in chorionic implant mice, and the bulging disappeared very soon. Finally, the control group had severe inflammation and the beads implant was rejected.ConclusionOur study showed that the human amniotic membrane could represent a safe and valid tool for breast reconstruction, however, further studies on larger animals and more implants are suggested.

Risk of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma in Patients with Textured Tissue Expanders.

The association between textured implants and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is well established, but the risk of BIA-ALCL in patients with transient exposure to a textured tissue expander (TE) is not as well documented. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and risk of BIA-ALCL in patients with temporary exposure to a textured TE with subsequent smooth implant placement. This single-institution retrospective cohort study included all female patients who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction with placement of a textured TE from 1995 to 2016 with subsequent exchange to a smooth permanent implant. Primary outcome of interest was development of BIA-ALCL. Patients with exposure to textured implants were excluded. Follow-up was determined by last documented visit. The authors calculated summary statistics for exposure time and follow-up intervals. Overall, 3310 patients had temporary exposure to a textured TE with exchange to a smooth implant, totaling 5201 textured TEs. Average textured TE exposure time was 6.7 months (median, 5.8 months). Average follow-up was 6.8 years (median, 6.3 years), ranging from 3.7 months to 18 years. No cases of BIA-ALCL were identified. As no cases of BIA-ALCL were identified, the risk of BIA-ALCL with short exposure to textured TEs is likely lower than the risk from exposure to permanent textured implants. Although longer follow-up is needed, these results can help counsel patients with previous exposure to textured TEs who are concerned about their risk of BIA-ALCL and can contribute to discussions on potential continued utility of textured TEs. Risk, IV.

Impact of Tissue Expander Surface Texture on Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction Outcomes: A Combined Analysis.

With ongoing investigations of the impact of device texturing on breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), studies have begun comparing complication profiles of tissue expanders. However, there is a paucity of timing and severity data of complications. The aim of this study was to provide a comparative survival analysis of postoperative complications between smooth (STEs) and textured tissue expanders (TTEs) in breast reconstruction. A single-institution experience with tissue expander breast reconstruction was reviewed for complications up to 1 year after second-stage reconstruction from 2014 to 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, operation-related variables, and complications were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazard models, and a consensus-based ordinal logistic regression model were used to compare complication profiles. Of 919 total patients, 600 (65.3%) received TTEs and 319 (34.7%) received STEs. There was increased risk of infection ( P < 0.0001), seroma ( P = 0.046), expander malposition ( P < 0.0001), and wound dehiscence ( P = 0.019) in STEs compared with TTEs. However, there was also a decreased risk of capsular contracture ( P = 0.005) in STEs compared with TTEs. Failure of breast reconstruction ( P < 0.001) and wound dehiscence ( P = 0.018) occurred significantly earlier in STEs compared with TTEs. Predictors for significantly higher severity complications included the following: smooth tissue expander use ( P = 0.007), shorter time to complication ( P < 0.0001), higher body mass index ( P = 0.005), smoking history ( P = 0.025), and nipple-sparing mastectomy ( P = 0.012). Differences in the timing and severity of complications contribute to the safety profiles of tissue expanders. STEs are associated with increased odds of higher severity and earlier complications. Therefore, tissue expander selection may depend on underlying risk factors and severity predictors. Therapeutic, III.