Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Skin-Reducing Mastectomy with Prepectoral Polyuretane (Pu) Implant Covered with an Autologous Dermo-Adipose Flap.
BREAST-Q
Polyurethane
Prepectoral
Reconstruction
Skin-reducing mastectomy
Journal
Aesthetic plastic surgery
ISSN: 1432-5241
Titre abrégé: Aesthetic Plast Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7701756
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jan 2023
11 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
23
08
2022
accepted:
18
12
2022
entrez:
11
1
2023
pubmed:
12
1
2023
medline:
12
1
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The aim of this study was to present our new technique of immediate breast reconstruction with prepectoral Polyuretane (PU) Implants, covered with an autologous dermo-adipose flap, in skin-reducing mastectomy both for risk-reducing (prophylactic mastectomy) and therapeutic cases. We performed a single-center, retrospective review of 21 patients (mean age 47 years), undergone skin-reducing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with prepectoral Polyuretane (PU) Implants, covered with an autologous dermo-adipose flap, un the period January 2018-June 2021. All procedures were performed by the same surgeon. A total of 36 skin-reducing mastectomies (6 curative, 15 prophylactic) with one-stage prepectoral PU foam-coated implant and autologous dermo-adipose flap reconstruction were performed. All postoperative complications were collected. Quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction with reconstruction were evaluated through the BREAST-Q questionnaire, administered preoperatively and at 12 months after surgery. Independent Student's t tests were used to compare means of continuous variables and Chi-square test was used for ordinal variables. A p-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Uni- and multiple linear regression analyses were used to confirm all results. Out of 21 patients, we observed one small wound dehiscence and one partial Nipple-Areola Complex (NAC) necrosis. All cases of minor complications were managed conservatively and did not affect the quality of the final outcome. No implant loss was observed. No significant severe capsular contracture (grade III or IV) was detected at follow-up. Overall satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial, physical and sexual well-being all significantly increased, analyzing BRAST-Q data. Statistical analysis showed a significant influence of diabetes on the risk of complications. Our experience suggests that the procedure described is effective, feasible and cost-effective. It is easier to perform compared to similar and more demanding procedure, reduces operative time, and minimizes complications related to manipulation of the pectoralis major muscle, while also contributing to the containment of costs. Moreover, it appears to be oncologically safe, provides good esthetic results with low postoperative complication rate and leads to high level of patients' satisfaction. 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 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to present our new technique of immediate breast reconstruction with prepectoral Polyuretane (PU) Implants, covered with an autologous dermo-adipose flap, in skin-reducing mastectomy both for risk-reducing (prophylactic mastectomy) and therapeutic cases.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a single-center, retrospective review of 21 patients (mean age 47 years), undergone skin-reducing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with prepectoral Polyuretane (PU) Implants, covered with an autologous dermo-adipose flap, un the period January 2018-June 2021. All procedures were performed by the same surgeon.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 36 skin-reducing mastectomies (6 curative, 15 prophylactic) with one-stage prepectoral PU foam-coated implant and autologous dermo-adipose flap reconstruction were performed. All postoperative complications were collected. Quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction with reconstruction were evaluated through the BREAST-Q questionnaire, administered preoperatively and at 12 months after surgery. Independent Student's t tests were used to compare means of continuous variables and Chi-square test was used for ordinal variables. A p-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Uni- and multiple linear regression analyses were used to confirm all results. Out of 21 patients, we observed one small wound dehiscence and one partial Nipple-Areola Complex (NAC) necrosis. All cases of minor complications were managed conservatively and did not affect the quality of the final outcome. No implant loss was observed. No significant severe capsular contracture (grade III or IV) was detected at follow-up. Overall satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial, physical and sexual well-being all significantly increased, analyzing BRAST-Q data. Statistical analysis showed a significant influence of diabetes on the risk of complications.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our experience suggests that the procedure described is effective, feasible and cost-effective. It is easier to perform compared to similar and more demanding procedure, reduces operative time, and minimizes complications related to manipulation of the pectoralis major muscle, while also contributing to the containment of costs. Moreover, it appears to be oncologically safe, provides good esthetic results with low postoperative complication rate and leads to high level of patients' satisfaction.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV
METHODS
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 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 36631603
doi: 10.1007/s00266-022-03240-8
pii: 10.1007/s00266-022-03240-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R (2017) Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following Nipple-Sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 140:432–443
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003627
Jones G, Antony AK (2019) Single stage, direct to implant prepectoral breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 8(1):53–60. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2018.10.08
doi: 10.21037/gs.2018.10.08
Nava MB, Ottolenghi J, Pennati A et al (2012) Skin/nipple sparing mastectomies and implant-based breast reconstruction in patients with large and ptotic breast: oncological and reconstructive results. Breast 21(3):267–271
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2011.01.004
Caputo GG, Marchetti A, Dalla Pozza E et al (2016) Skin-reduction breast reconstruction with prepectoral implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 137(6):1702–1705
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002227
Bloom J, Patel K, Cohen S, Chatterjee A, Homsy C (2020) Prepectoral breast reconstruction: an overview of the history, technique, and reported complications. Open Access Surg 13:1–9
doi: 10.2147/OAS.S201298
Wagner RD, Braun TL, Zhu H, Winocour S (2019) A systematic review of complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction. JPRAS 72(7):1051–1059
Gardani M, Cocconi A, Palli D (2021) Skin-reducing mastectomy and prepectoral breast reconstruction using the Braxon
doi: 10.23736/S2724-5691.21.08941-3
Poveromo LP, Franck P, Ellison A, Janhofer DE, Asadourian PA, Otterburn DM (2022) Prepectoral breast reconstruction without the use of acellular dermal matrix: a 3-year review. Ann Plast Surg 88:S205–S208
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003188
DeLong MR, Tandon VJ, Bertrand AA, MacEachern M, Goldberg M, Salibian A, Pusic AL, Festekjian JH, Wilkins EG (2021) Review of outcomes in prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction with and without surgical mesh assistance. Plast Reconstr Surg 147(2):305–315
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007586
Safran T, Al-Halabi B, Viezel-Mathieu A, Boileau JF, Dionisopoulos T (2021) Skin-reducing mastectomy with immediate prepectoral reconstruction: surgical, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes with and without dermal matrices. Plast Reconstr Surg 147(5):1046–1057
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007899
Sewart E, Turner NL, Conroy EJ, Cutress RI, Skillman J, Whisker L, Thrush S, Barnes N, Holcombe C, Potter S (2021) Implant breast reconstruction evaluation (iBRA) steering group and the breast reconstruction research collaborative. Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh. BJS Open. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa063
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa063
Potter S, Conroy EJ, Cutress RI, Williamson PR, Whisker L, Thrush S, Skillman J, Barnes NLP, Mylvaganam S, Teasdale E, Jain A, Gardiner MD, Blazeby JM, Holcombe C (2019) iBRA steering group; breast reconstruction research collaborative. Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 20(2):254–266
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30781-2
Salibian AA, Bekisz JM, Kussie HC, Thanik VD, Levine JP, Choi M, Karp NS (2021) (2021) Do we need support in prepectoral breast reconstruction? comparing outcomes with and without ADM. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003745
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003745
Singla A, Singla A, Lai E et al (2017) Subcutaneously placed breast implants after a skin-sparing mastectomy: Do we always need ADM? Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5:e1371
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001371
National Toxicology Program (1979) Bioassay of 2, 4-diaminotoluene for possible carcinogenicity. Natl Cancer Inst Carcinog Tech Rep Ser 162:1–139
Castel N, Soon-Sutton T, Deptula P, Flaherty A, Parsa FD (2015) Polyurethane-coated breast implants revisited: a 30-year follow-up. Arch Plast Surg 42(2):186–193. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2015.42.2.186
doi: 10.5999/aps.2015.42.2.186
Pharma and MedTech Business Intellignece (1993) The gray sheet: bristol- myers squibb polyurethane-coated breast implant study. In: Informa business information Inc
Hester TR Jr, Ford NF, Gale PJ et al (1997) Measurement of 2,4-toluenediamine in urine and serum samples from women with Meme or Replicon breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:1291–1298
doi: 10.1097/00006534-199710000-00035
Ribeiro RC, Arduini ABS, Córdova LF, de Carvalho FM (2020) Invited discussion on: skin reducing mastectomy and prepectoral breast reconstruction in large ptotic breasts. Aesthetic Plast Surg 44(3):673–676
doi: 10.1007/s00266-020-01709-y
Thuman J, Freitas AM, Schaeffer C, Campbell CA (2019) Prepectoral wise-pattern staged implant- based breast reconstruction for obese or ptotic patients. Ann Plast Surg 82:S404–S409. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001791
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001791
Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM et al (2017) Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy: short-term outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5(12):e1631. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001631
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001631
Sinnott CJ, Persing SM, Pronovost M, Hodyl C, McConnell D, Ott YA (2018) Impact of postmastectomy radiation therapy in prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 25(10):2899–2908. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6602-7
doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6602-7
Sbitany H, Gomez-Sanchez C, Piper M, Lentz R (2019) Prepectoral breast reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy: an assessment of clinical outcomes and benefits. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(1):10–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005140
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005140
Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M et al (2019) Evaluation of prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with TiLoop bra mesh for breast reconstruction: a prospective study on long-term and patient-reported BREAST-Q Outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(1):1e–9e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005078
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005078
Cattelani L, Polotto S, Arcuri MF, Pedrazzi G, Linguadoca C, Bonati E (2017) One-step prepectoral breast reconstruction with dermal matrix-covered implant compared to submuscular implantation: Functional and cost evaluation. Clin Breast Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2017.11.015
doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2017.11.015
Apte A, Walsh M, Balaji P, Khor B, Chandrasekharan S, Chakravorty A (2020) Single stage immediate breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix and implant: defining the risks and outcomes of postmastectomy radiotherapy. Surg 18:202–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2019.09.007
doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2019.09.007