Prepectoral vs. Submuscular Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Our Early Experience.
breast cancer
immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction
mastectomy
neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Journal
Journal of personalized medicine
ISSN: 2075-4426
Titre abrégé: J Pers Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101602269
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Sep 2022
19 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
20
08
2022
revised:
15
09
2022
accepted:
16
09
2022
entrez:
23
9
2022
pubmed:
24
9
2022
medline:
24
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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). 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36143318
pii: jpm12091533
doi: 10.3390/jpm12091533
pmc: PMC9504024
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Surg Today. 2022 Jan;52(1):129-136
pubmed: 34089365
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016 Jan 07;3(12):e574
pubmed: 26893999
Arch Plast Surg. 2019 Nov;46(6):550-557
pubmed: 31775208
Breast Cancer. 2022 Mar;29(2):302-313
pubmed: 34775540
J Clin Oncol. 2012 May 20;30(15):1796-804
pubmed: 22508812
JAMA Surg. 2014 Oct;149(10):1068-76
pubmed: 25133469
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020 Apr 23;8(4):e2744
pubmed: 32440414
J Pers Med. 2021 Feb 22;11(2):
pubmed: 33671712
Ann Plast Surg. 2020 Mar;84(3):263-270
pubmed: 31663934
J Pers Med. 2021 Apr 21;11(5):
pubmed: 33919061
Front Oncol. 2021 Jul 01;11:675955
pubmed: 34277421
Carbohydr Polym. 2019 Jul 15;216:213-216
pubmed: 31047059
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021 Jun 1;147(6):1278-1286
pubmed: 33973934
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19(1):27-39
pubmed: 29242041
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022 Mar;75(3):1123-1129
pubmed: 34916161
Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2019 Dec;97(10):575-581
pubmed: 31530386
Minerva Chir. 2007 Aug;62(4):249-55
pubmed: 17641585
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Sep;45(9):1542-1550
pubmed: 31256950
Breast. 2021 Feb;55:55-62
pubmed: 33341706
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022 Aug;75(8):2520-2525
pubmed: 35396192
Ann Ital Chir. 2015 Mar-Apr;86(2):89-99
pubmed: 25951853
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):22S-30S
pubmed: 29166344
J Clin Oncol. 2021 May 1;39(13):1485-1505
pubmed: 33507815
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Dec;28(13):9150-9158
pubmed: 34386913
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Sep;43(9):1636-1646
pubmed: 28528191
Breast J. 2005 Sep-Oct;11(5):355-6
pubmed: 16174159
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Sep;140(3):432-443
pubmed: 28574950
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Jul;126(1):1-11
pubmed: 20595827
Minerva Surg. 2021 Dec;76(6):498-505
pubmed: 34935320
Ann Surg. 2007 May;245(5):665-71
pubmed: 17457156
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017 Jun 20;5(6):e1369
pubmed: 28740781
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Nov 15;21(22):4165-74
pubmed: 14559892
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6):1091-1100
pubmed: 28806288
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019 Jan;23(1):225-231
pubmed: 30657564
Tumori. 2012 Jan-Feb;98(1):79-85
pubmed: 22495705
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Feb;145(2):263e-272e
pubmed: 31985613
J Med Dent Sci. 2009 Mar;56(1):55-60
pubmed: 19697519
Surgery. 2012 Sep;152(3):382-8
pubmed: 22739071