Direct-to-Implant versus Immediate Free Flap Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
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 06 2023
01 06 2023
Historique:
medline:
26
5
2023
pubmed:
3
2
2023
entrez:
2
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Both direct-to-implant (DTI) and immediate free flap (FF) breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have been described in the literature. However, there is a paucity of comparative studies between these two techniques. Furthermore, existing studies do not control for factors influencing ischemic complications. A retrospective review of all NSMs performed at a single institution between January of 2014 and January of 2020 was performed. Immediate FF reconstructions were propensity score matched using probit regression to identify a comparable DTI cohort based on mastectomy weight, smoking, age, and history of radiotherapy. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day ischemic complications. One hundred eight NSMs performed in 79 patients were included. Average age was 45.7 ± 10.5 years and mean body mass index was 27.1 ± 4.8 kg/m 2 . There were 54 breasts in both the DTI group and the immediate FF group. Median mastectomy weight in the DTI group was 508 g (interquartile range, 264 g) as compared with 473 g (interquartile range, 303 g) in the FF group ( P = 0.792). There was no significant difference in the rate of partial nipple-areola complex necrosis in the DTI and FF groups (5.6% versus 3.7%, respectively; P = 0.500) or mastectomy flap necrosis (5.6% versus 11.1%; P = 0.297). Both the DTI and FF groups had a total nipple-areola complex necrosis rate of 1.9% ( P = 0.752). Both DTI and immediate FF reconstruction can be safely offered to patients undergoing NSM while providing the benefit of a single reconstructive procedure. Therapeutic, III.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Both direct-to-implant (DTI) and immediate free flap (FF) breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have been described in the literature. However, there is a paucity of comparative studies between these two techniques. Furthermore, existing studies do not control for factors influencing ischemic complications.
METHODS
A retrospective review of all NSMs performed at a single institution between January of 2014 and January of 2020 was performed. Immediate FF reconstructions were propensity score matched using probit regression to identify a comparable DTI cohort based on mastectomy weight, smoking, age, and history of radiotherapy. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day ischemic complications.
RESULTS
One hundred eight NSMs performed in 79 patients were included. Average age was 45.7 ± 10.5 years and mean body mass index was 27.1 ± 4.8 kg/m 2 . There were 54 breasts in both the DTI group and the immediate FF group. Median mastectomy weight in the DTI group was 508 g (interquartile range, 264 g) as compared with 473 g (interquartile range, 303 g) in the FF group ( P = 0.792). There was no significant difference in the rate of partial nipple-areola complex necrosis in the DTI and FF groups (5.6% versus 3.7%, respectively; P = 0.500) or mastectomy flap necrosis (5.6% versus 11.1%; P = 0.297). Both the DTI and FF groups had a total nipple-areola complex necrosis rate of 1.9% ( P = 0.752).
CONCLUSION
Both DTI and immediate FF reconstruction can be safely offered to patients undergoing NSM while providing the benefit of a single reconstructive procedure.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic, III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36729691
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010094
pii: 00006534-202306000-00005
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1137-1145Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Références
Bailey CR, Ogbuagu O, Baltodano PA, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes improve with nipple-sparing mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:219–226.
Jadeja P, Ha R, Rohde C, et al. Expanding the criteria for nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with poor prognostic features. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18:229–233.
Lee K-T, Pyon J-K, Bang S-I, Lee JE, Nam SJ, Mun G-H. Does the reconstruction method influence development of mastectomy flap complications in nipple-sparing mastectomy? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66:1543–1550.
Djohan R, Gage E, Gatherwright J, et al. Patient satisfaction following nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: an 8-year outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:818–829.
Choi M, Frey JD, Alperovich M, Levine JP, Karp NS. “Breast in a day”: examining single-stage immediate, permanent implant reconstruction in nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:184e–191e.
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.
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.
Krishnan NM, Fischer JP, Basta MN, Nahabedian MY. Is single-stage prosthetic reconstruction cost effective? A cost-utility analysis for the use of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction relative to expander-implant reconstruction in postmastectomy patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:537–547.
Susarla SM, Ganske I, Helliwell L, Morris D, Eriksson E, Chun YS. Comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in immediate single-stage versus two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:1e–8e.
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.
Frey JD, Choi M, Salibian AA, Karp NS. Comparison of outcomes with tissue expander, immediate implant, and autologous breast reconstruction in greater than 1000 nipple-sparing mastectomies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:1300–1310.
Tousimis E, Haslinger M. Overview of indications for nipple sparing mastectomy. Gland Surg. 2018;7:288–300.
Spear SL, Willey SC, Feldman ED, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for prophylactic and therapeutic indications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:1005–1014.
Bartholomew AJ, Dervishaj OA, Sosin M, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and nipple-sparing mastectomy: timing and postoperative complications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:2768–2772.
Lam TC, Hsieh F, Salinas J, Boyages J. Immediate and long-term complications of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple- or skin-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1977.
de Vita R, Buccheri EM. Nipple sparing mastectomy and direct to implant breast reconstruction, validation of the safe procedure through the use of laser assisted indocyanine green fluorescent angiography. Gland Surg. 2018;7:258–266.
Colwell AS, Christensen JM. Nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(Suppl):44S–50S.
Moyer HR, Ghazi B, Daniel JR, Gasgarth R, Carlson GW. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: technical aspects and aesthetic outcomes. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:446–450.
Frey JD, Salibian AA, Choi M, Karp NS. Mastectomy flap thickness and complications in nipple-sparing mastectomy: objective evaluation using magnetic resonance imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1439.
Dicuonzo S, Leonardi MC, Radice D, et al. Long-term results and reconstruction failure in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation therapy with a temporary expander or permanent implant in place. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:317–327.
Sbitany H, Gomez-Sanchez C, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy: an assessment of clinical outcomes and benefits. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:10–20.
Tang R, Coopey SB, Colwell AS, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in irradiated breasts: selecting patients to minimize complications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3331–3337.
Jagsi R, Momoh AO, Qi J, et al. Impact of radiotherapy on complications and patient-reported outcomes after breast reconstruction. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110:157–165.
Chawla AK, Kachnic LA, Taghian AG, Niemierko A, Zapton DT, Powell SN. Radiotherapy and breast reconstruction: complications and cosmesis with TRAM versus tissue expander/implant. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2002;54:520–526.
Frey JD, Salibian AA, Levine JP, Karp NS, Abstract CM. Incision choices in nipple-sparing mastectomy: a comparative analysis of outcomes and evolution of a clinical algorithm. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:177–188.
Freeman BS. Subcutaneous mastectomy for benign breast lesions with immediate or delayed prosthetic replacement. Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull. 1962;30:676–682.
Jones G, Yoo A, King V, et al. Prepectoral immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with anterior AlloDerm coverage. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):31S–38S.
Safran T, Al-Halabi B, Viezel-Mathieu A, Boileau J-F, Dionisopoulos T. Direct-to-implant, prepectoral breast reconstruction: a single-surgeon experience with 201 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:686e–696e.
Janhofer DE, Economides JM, Song DH. The suture tab technique: securing implant position in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e2005.