Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction without Placement of Acellular Dermal Matrix or Mesh after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.
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 11 2022
01 11 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
23
8
2022
medline:
29
10
2022
entrez:
22
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to report the results of prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction in nipple-sparing mastectomy without acellular dermal matrices or mesh. A multicenter cohort of patients undergoing prophylactic or therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy was included from 2013 to 2020. All sizes and types of breasts were included, except those with previously failed reconstruction, previous radiotherapy with severe skin damage, locally advanced breast cancer, gigantomasty, severe degree of ptosis, tumors close to the nipple-areola complex (<1 cm on magnetic resonance imaging), or combined autologous-based reconstruction. A total of 280 immediate breast reconstructions were performed in 195 patients. The mean age was 45 years and 32.8 percent of patients were postmenopausal. The mean follow-up period was 16.5 (±17.43) months. Eighty-five patients (43.6 percent) underwent bilateral mastectomy; 116 mastectomies (41.4 percent) were prophylactic and 164 (58.6 percent) were therapeutic. Sixty-eight reconstructions (24 percent) had at least one acute complication, the most common being implant explantation (9.2 percent), which was more frequent in smokers. Late complications included rippling (grades 3 and 4) in seven cases (3.8 percent) and capsular contracture (Baker II through IV) in 29 cases (15.7 percent) [22 Baker II (11.9 percent), six Baker III (3.3 percent), and one Baker IV (0.5 percent)]. One implant rotation was observed. No deformity animation was observed. Cosmetic results were considered good or excellent in 87.3 percent of patients. Overall complications were similar to those reported in acellular dermal matrices, mesh, or subpectoral series, except for a higher explantation rate. This technique is safe and economically advantageous, as it is a one-stage technique without acellular dermal matrices and mesh. These are preliminary data and larger and comparative studies are needed. Risk, III.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to report the results of prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction in nipple-sparing mastectomy without acellular dermal matrices or mesh.
METHODS
A multicenter cohort of patients undergoing prophylactic or therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy was included from 2013 to 2020. All sizes and types of breasts were included, except those with previously failed reconstruction, previous radiotherapy with severe skin damage, locally advanced breast cancer, gigantomasty, severe degree of ptosis, tumors close to the nipple-areola complex (<1 cm on magnetic resonance imaging), or combined autologous-based reconstruction.
RESULTS
A total of 280 immediate breast reconstructions were performed in 195 patients. The mean age was 45 years and 32.8 percent of patients were postmenopausal. The mean follow-up period was 16.5 (±17.43) months. Eighty-five patients (43.6 percent) underwent bilateral mastectomy; 116 mastectomies (41.4 percent) were prophylactic and 164 (58.6 percent) were therapeutic. Sixty-eight reconstructions (24 percent) had at least one acute complication, the most common being implant explantation (9.2 percent), which was more frequent in smokers. Late complications included rippling (grades 3 and 4) in seven cases (3.8 percent) and capsular contracture (Baker II through IV) in 29 cases (15.7 percent) [22 Baker II (11.9 percent), six Baker III (3.3 percent), and one Baker IV (0.5 percent)]. One implant rotation was observed. No deformity animation was observed. Cosmetic results were considered good or excellent in 87.3 percent of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall complications were similar to those reported in acellular dermal matrices, mesh, or subpectoral series, except for a higher explantation rate. This technique is safe and economically advantageous, as it is a one-stage technique without acellular dermal matrices and mesh. These are preliminary data and larger and comparative studies are needed.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Risk, III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35994351
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009618
pii: 00006534-202211000-00007
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
973-983Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Références
Weber WP, Haug M, Kurzeder C, et al. Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;172:523–537.
Valero MG, Muhsen S, Moo TA, et al. Increase in utilization of nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer: Indications, complications, and oncologic outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:344–351.
Storm-Dickerson T, Sigalove N. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: The breast surgeon’s perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6S):43S–48S.
Daar DA, Abdou SA, Rosario L, et al. Is there a preferred incision location for nipple-sparing mastectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019; 143: 906e–919e.
Ter Louw RP, Nahabedian MY. Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(5S):51S–59S.
Chu CK, Davis MJ, Abu-Ghname A, Winocour SJ, Losken A, Carlson GW. Implant reconstruction in nipple sparing mastectomy. Semin Plast Surg. 2019;33:247–257.
Gunnarsson GL, Heidemann LN, Bille C, Sørensen JA, Thomsen JB. Nipple sparing mastectomy and the evolving direct to implant breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2018;7:267–272.
Safran T, Al-Halabi B, Viezel-Mathieu A, Boileau JF, Dionisopoulos T. Direct-to-implant, prepectoral breast reconstruction: A single-surgeon experience with 201 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:686e–696e.
Storm-Dickerson T, Sigalove NM. The breast surgeons’ approach to mastectomy and prepectoral breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2019;8:27–35.
Manrique OJ, Huang TC, Martinez-Jorge J, et al. Prepectoral two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix: Do we see a difference? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:263e–272e.
Reitsamer R, Peintinger F, Klaassen-Federspiel F, Sir A. Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with complete ADM or synthetic mesh coverage: 36-Months follow-up in 200 reconstructed breasts. Breast. 2019;48:32–37.
Vidya R, Iqbal FM, Becker H, Zhadan O. Rippling associated with pre-pectoral implant based breast reconstruction: A new grading system. World J Plast Surg. 2019;8:311–315.
Salibian AH, Harness JK, Mowlds DS. Staged suprapectoral expander/implant reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:30–39.
Antony AK, Robinson EC. An algorithmic approach to prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: Version 2.0. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:1311–1319.
de Vita R, Buccheri EM, Villanucci A, Pozzi M. Breast reconstruction actualized in nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant, prepectoral polyurethane positioning: Early experience and preliminary results. Clin Breast Cancer. 2019;19:e358–e363.
Thangarajah F, Treeter T, Krug B, et al. Comparison of Subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant reconstruction after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer patients: A retrospective hospital-based cohort study. Breast Care (Basel). 2019;14:382–387.
Li L, Su Y, Xiu B, et al. Comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomies: A systematic review and meta analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:1542–1550.
Nealon KP, Weitzman RE, Sobti N, et al. Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: Safety outcome endpoints and delineation of risk factors. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:898e–908e.
Sobti S, Witzman RE, Nealon KP, et al. Evaluation of capsular contracture following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Sci Rep. 2020; 10: 1137. .
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.
Heidemann LN, Gunnarsson GL, Salzberg CA, Sørensen JA, Thomsen JB. Complications following nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate acellular dermal matrix implant-based breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1625.
Colwell AS, Tessler O, Lin AM, et al. Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: Predictors of complications, reconstruction outcomes, and 5-year trends. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:496–506.
Zheng Y, Zhong M, Ni C, Yuan H, Zhang J. Radiotherapy and nipple-areolar complex necrosis after nipple-sparing mastectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiol Med. 2017;122:171–178.
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.
Ashikari AY, Kelemen PR, Tastan B, Salzberg CA, Ashikari RH. Nipple sparing mastectomy techniques: A literature review and an inframammary technique. Gland Surg. 2018;7:273–287.
Antony AK, Poirier J, Madrigrano A, Kopkash KA, Robinson EC. Evolution of the surgical technique for “breast in a day direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: Transitioning from dual-plane to prepectoral implant placement. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:1547–1556.
Colwell AS, Damjanovic B, Zahedi B, Medford-Davis L, Hertl C, Austen WG Jr. Retrospective review of 331 consecutive immediate single-stage implant reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix: Indications, complications, trends, and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:1170–1178.
Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Koch RM, Chabner-Thompson E. An 8-year experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm). Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:514–524.