Revision Breast Reconstruction with Prepectoral Pocket Conversion of Submuscular Breast Implants.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1529-4242
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2021
01 May 2021
Historique:
entrez:
23
4
2021
pubmed:
24
4
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prepectoral reconstruction using prosthetic devices has demonstrated a notable increase in popularity and confers a number of advantages over subpectoral placement, including minimal animation, no pain secondary to muscle spasm, and less device displacement or malposition. As such, more women with implants in the dual-plane position are seeking a remedy for animation deformities, chronic pain caused by muscle spasm, and implant malposition. The purpose of this study was to review outcomes following the conversion from subpectoral to prepectoral implant placement. This was a retrospective review of 63 patients who underwent breast implant conversion from the subpectoral plane to the prepectoral plane from 2009 to 2019. A total of 73 implant pocket conversions from subpectoral to prepectoral were performed on 41 women who met inclusion criteria for this study. The mean time interval from the initial subpectoral operation to the prepectoral conversion was 1608.4 days. The reasons cited for prepectoral conversion was animation deformity (87.8 percent), significant levels of pain related to the implant (34.1 percent), capsular contracture (26.8 percent), or asymmetries and implant displacements (9.8 percent); 7.8 percent of individuals continued to experience their presenting symptom after plane conversion. Rippling and wrinkling were noted in 19.5 percent of individuals and edge visibility was documented in 4.9 percent. Complication rates were low, and no patients experienced necrosis of the mastectomy flap or nipple-areola complex. The use of prepectoral conversion for revision implant-based breast reconstruction successfully resolves animation deformity. This technique can be reliably and safely performed in a variety of patient demographics. Therapeutic, IV.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prepectoral reconstruction using prosthetic devices has demonstrated a notable increase in popularity and confers a number of advantages over subpectoral placement, including minimal animation, no pain secondary to muscle spasm, and less device displacement or malposition. As such, more women with implants in the dual-plane position are seeking a remedy for animation deformities, chronic pain caused by muscle spasm, and implant malposition. The purpose of this study was to review outcomes following the conversion from subpectoral to prepectoral implant placement.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a retrospective review of 63 patients who underwent breast implant conversion from the subpectoral plane to the prepectoral plane from 2009 to 2019.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 73 implant pocket conversions from subpectoral to prepectoral were performed on 41 women who met inclusion criteria for this study. The mean time interval from the initial subpectoral operation to the prepectoral conversion was 1608.4 days. The reasons cited for prepectoral conversion was animation deformity (87.8 percent), significant levels of pain related to the implant (34.1 percent), capsular contracture (26.8 percent), or asymmetries and implant displacements (9.8 percent); 7.8 percent of individuals continued to experience their presenting symptom after plane conversion. Rippling and wrinkling were noted in 19.5 percent of individuals and edge visibility was documented in 4.9 percent. Complication rates were low, and no patients experienced necrosis of the mastectomy flap or nipple-areola complex.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The use of prepectoral conversion for revision implant-based breast reconstruction successfully resolves animation deformity. This technique can be reliably and safely performed in a variety of patient demographics.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Therapeutic, IV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33890886
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007885
pii: 00006534-202105000-00005
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
743e-748eInformations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Références
American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic surgery statistics. Available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics . Accessed August 2, 2018.
American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2017 plastic surgery statistics. Available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2017/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2017.pdf . Accessed May 17, 2020.
Apfelberg DB, Laub DR, Maser MR, Lash H. Submuscular breast reconstruction: Indications and techniques. Ann Plast Surg. 1981;7:213–221.
Gruber RP, Kahn RA, Lash H, Maser MR, Apfelberg DB, Laub DR. Breast reconstruction following mastectomy: A comparison of submuscular and subcutaneous techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981;67:312–317.
Nahabedian MY, Cocilovo C. Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction: A comparison between prepectoral and partial subpectoral techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):22S–30S.
Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy: Short-term outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017;5:e1631.
Salibian AA, Frey JD, Choi M, Karp NS. Subcutaneous implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix/mesh: A systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016;4:e1139.
Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: A safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:432–443.
Wong L. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: A fad or here to stay? Ann Plast Surg. 2020;140(Suppl 5):S411–S413.
Louw RPT, Nahabedian MY. Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(Advances in Breast Reconstruction):51S–59S.
Li Y, Xu G, Yu N, Huang J, Long X. Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: A meta-analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;85:437–447.
Copeland-Halperin LR, Yemc L, Emery E, et al. Evaluating postoperative narcotic use in prepectoral versus dual-plane breast reconstruction following mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019;7:e2082.
Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Rationale, indications, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:287–294.
Gabriel A, Sigalove S, Sigalove NM, et al. Prepectoral revision breast reconstruction for treatment of implant-associated animation deformity: A review of 102 reconstructions. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38:519–526.
Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O’Connor EA. Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:1540–1544.
Jones GE, King VA, Yoo A. Prepectoral site conversion for animation deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019;7:e2301.
Holland MC, Lentz R, Sbitany H. Surgical correction of breast animation deformity with implant pocket conversion to a prepectoral plane. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:632–642.
Lentz R, Alcon A, Sbitany H. Correction of animation deformity with subpectoral to prepectoral implant exchange. Gland Surg. 2019;8:75–81.
Lesavoy MA, Trussler AP, Dickinson BP. Difficulties with subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty and its correction: The role of subglandular site change in revision aesthetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:363–371.
Kobraei EM, Cauley R, Gadd M, Austen WG Jr, Liao EC. Avoiding breast animation deformity with pectoralis-sparing subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016;4:e708.
Elswick SM, Harless CA, Bishop SN, et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with postmastectomy radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:1–12.