logo logo
Technical Refinements and Outcomes Assessment in Prepectoral Pocket Conversion After Postmastectomy Radiotherapy. Aesthetic surgery journal BACKGROUND:Several studies show how submuscular breast reconstruction is linked to animation deformity, shoulder dysfunction, and increased postoperative chest pain, when compared to prepectoral breast reconstruction. In solving all these life-impairing side effects, prepectoral implant pocket conversion has shown encouraging results. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to propose a refinement of the prepectoral implant pocket conversion applied to previously irradiated patients. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective study on 42 patients who underwent previous nipple- or skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate submuscular reconstruction, followed by radiotherapy. We performed fat grafting sessions as regenerative pretreatment. Six months after the last fat graft, we performed the conversion, with prepectoral placement of micropolyurethane foam-coated implants. We investigated the preconversion and postconversion differences in upper limb range of motion, Upper Extremity Functional Index, and patient satisfaction with the breast and physical well-being of the chest. RESULTS:We reported a resolution of animation deformity in 100% of cases. The range of motion and the Upper Extremity Functional Index scores were statistically improved after prepectoral implant pocket conversion. BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with the breast and physical well-being of the chest were also improved. CONCLUSIONS:The refined prepectoral implant pocket conversion is a reliable technique for solving animation deformity and improving quality of life in patients previously treated with submuscular reconstruction and radiotherapy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3: 10.1093/asj/sjae012
Current Global Trends in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most frequently performed procedure for breast reconstruction following mastectomy, which involves the surgical placement of breast implants. The approach to breast reconstruction can be divided into two main categories, namely prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR), based on the implant plan and placement technique. In recent years, there has been a significant surge in the popularity of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction, where the implants are positioned above the chest muscle, as opposed to beneath it in the subpectoral approach. However, despite this growing preference, there is a lack of comprehensive data regarding the national trends in the utilization of this technique, thus necessitating further investigation. This narrative review aims to ascertain the current global patterns linked to prepectoral breast reconstruction and elucidate the considerations surrounding patient and implant selection, reconstructive techniques, the utilization of meshes in prepectoral reconstruction, the ensuing outcomes and complications, the ramifications of radiotherapy, and the potential advantages of integrating fat infiltration into the implementation of this technique in breast reconstruction with a focus on published papers in last five years. Conclusion: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has emerged as an appropriate surgical option for individuals seeking breast reconstruction. This development can be attributed to the recent progress made in implant technology, which has significantly enhanced the outcomes of this procedure. Additionally, advancements in mastectomy techniques, autologous fat grafting, and the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have also played a vital role in improving the aesthetic results of prepectoral breast reconstruction. As a result, the significance and effectiveness of this technique in the field of breast reconstruction have been firmly established, making it an essential component of the overall armamentarium available to plastic surgeons for breast reconstruction purposes. 10.3390/medicina60030431
Choosing breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy and subpectoral implant breast reconstruction: implications for pectoralis major function. Breast cancer research and treatment BACKGROUND:An increasing number of women are choosing mastectomy and subpectoral implant (SI) breast reconstruction over breast-conserving therapy (BCT). It is unclear to what extent these procedures differ in their effect on the pectoralis major (PM). The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of choosing BCT or SI breast reconstruction on PM function. METHODS:Ultrasound shear wave elastography images were acquired from the PM fiber regions and surface electromyography obtained activity from six shoulder muscles, while 14 BCT participants, 14 SI participants, and 14 age-matched controls remained at rest or generated submaximal shoulder torques. RESULTS:BCT and SI participants were significantly weaker in shoulder adduction, while BCT participants were also weaker in internal and external rotation (all p ≤ 0.003). PM function was altered following either BCT or SI. In all treatment groups, the clavicular fiber region contributed primarily to flexion, and the sternocostal primarily contributed to adduction. However, healthy participants utilized the clavicular region more during adduction and the sternocostal region more during flexion when compared to BCT or SI participants (all p ≤ 0.049). The still intact clavicular region increased its contributions to flexion torques in SI participants compared to controls (p = 0.016). Finally, BCT and SI participants compensated for changes in PM function using synergistic shoulder musculature. CONCLUSION:Both BCT and SI breast reconstruction result in significant long-term upper extremity strength deficits. Our results suggest changes to the underlying function of the PM and the adoption of unique but inadequate neuromuscular compensation strategies drive these deficits. 10.1007/s10549-024-07381-z
Three and twelve-month analysis of the PROM-Q study: comparison of patient-reported outcome measures using the BREAST-Q questionnaire in pre- vs. sub-pectoral implant-based immediate breast reconstruction. Breast cancer research and treatment PURPOSE:Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is being increasingly performed with implant placed above the pectoral muscle (pre-pectoral), instead of below the pectoral muscle (sub-pectoral). Currently, there is a lack of comparative data on clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- vs. sub-pectoral IBR. We investigated whether this difference in surgical approach influenced clinical or patient-perceived outcomes. METHODS:This prospective non-randomised longitudinal cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04842240) recruited patients undergoing immediate IBR at the Leeds Breast Unit (Sep 2019-Sep 2021). Data collection included patient characteristics and post-operative complications. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures were collected using the BREAST-Q questionnaire at baseline, 2 weeks, 3- and 12-months post-surgery. RESULTS:Seventy-eight patients underwent IBR (46 patients pre-pectoral; 59% vs. 32 patients sub-pectoral; 41%). Similar complication rates were observed (15.2% pre-pectoral vs. 9.4% sub-pectoral; p = 0.44). Overall implant loss rate was 3.8% (6.5% pre-pectoral vs. 0% sub-pectoral; p = 0.13). Respective median Breast-Q scores for pre- and sub-pectoral IBR at 3 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 48; p = 0.01), psychosocial well-being (60 vs. 57; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 76; p = 0.53), and Animation Q scores (73 vs. 76; p = 0.45). Respective Breast-Q scores at 12 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 53; p = 0.3), psychosocial well-being (59 vs. 60; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 78; p = 0.18), and Animation Q scores (69 vs. 73; p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates equivalent clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- and sub-pectoral IBR. The study findings can be utilised to aid informed decision making regarding either surgical option. 10.1007/s10549-024-07416-5
A Comparison of BREAST-Q Scores between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and reconstructive surgery BACKGROUND:Subpectoral breast implant placement has in recent history predominated in breast reconstruction, but there has been more recent adoption of prepectoral implant reconstruction. There has been limited study to date of patient-reported outcomes comparing the two techniques. METHODS:Patients who underwent direct-to-implant breast reconstruction between 2013 and 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients were asked to complete BREAST-Q domains comparing quality of life and satisfaction. Descriptive, t test, chi-square test, and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to compare BREAST-Q scores. Significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS:There were 64 patients (114 breasts) who underwent prepectoral reconstruction and 37 patients (68 breasts) who underwent subpectoral reconstruction. Among the 101 women (182 breasts), there were no significant differences between BREAST-Q scores and implant position for the Satisfaction with Breasts domain (adjusted p = 0.819), Psychosocial Well-being domain (adjusted p = 0.206), or Physical Well-being Chest domain (adjusted p = 0.110). The subpectoral implant cohort was associated with higher scores, 53 versus 47, for the Sexual Well-being module (adjusted p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction had comparable BREAST-Q satisfaction scores for most modules regardless of implant plane. The subpectoral implant cohort scored higher for sexual well-being. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008410
Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Safety Outcome Endpoints and Delineation of Risk Factors. Plastic and reconstructive surgery BACKGROUND:Continued evolution of implant-based breast reconstruction involves immediate placement of the implant above the pectoralis muscle. The shift to prepectoral breast reconstruction is driven by goals of decreasing morbidity such as breast animation deformity, range-of-motion problems, and pain, and is made possible by improvements in mastectomy skin flap viability. To define clinical factors to guide patient selection for direct-to-implant prepectoral implant reconstruction, this study compares safety endpoints and risk factors between prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction cohorts. The authors hypothesized that prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. METHODS:Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, performed by a team of five surgical oncologists and two plastic surgeons. Univariate analysis compared patient characteristics between cohorts. A penalized logistic regression model was constructed to identify relationships between postoperative complications and covariate risk factors. RESULTS:A cohort of 114 prepectoral direct-to-implant patients was compared with 142 subpectoral direct-to-implant patients. The results of the penalized regression model demonstrated equivalence in safety metrics between prepectoral direct-to-implant and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, including seroma (p = 0.0883), cancer recurrence (p = 0.876), explantation (p = 0.992), capsular contracture (p = 0.158), mastectomy skin flap necrosis (p = 0.769), infection (p = 0.523), hematoma (p = 0.228), and revision (p = 0.122). CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates that prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction. Given the low morbidity and elimination of animation deformity, prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction should be considered when the mastectomy skin flap is robust. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic, III. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006721
Understanding the Evidence and Improving Outcomes with Implant-Based Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Campbell Chris A,Losken Albert Plastic and reconstructive surgery LEARNING OBJECTIVES:After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the risks, benefits, and safety profile of prepectoral breast reconstruction. 2. Have knowledge of primary immediate and delayed prepectoral breast reconstruction techniques and secondary procedures required. 3. Describe data on outcomes of prepectoral breast reconstruction. SUMMARY:Once considered to have an unacceptable complication profile, prepectoral breast reconstruction is increasing in popularity because of decreased surgical invasiveness and postoperative pain and the absence of animation deformity. Short-term outcomes studies comparing prepectoral breast reconstruction to partially submuscular techniques demonstrate similarly acceptable rates of postoperative complications. Aesthetic outcomes demonstrate similar rates of capsular contracture but increased rippling and implant palpability of the upper pole. Postoperative functional data are limited but overall show decreased pain and more rapid return of function but equivalent satisfaction on the BREAST-Q. Long-term aesthetic data and rates of revision are lacking. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008229
An Algorithmic Approach to Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Version 2.0. Antony Anuja K,Robinson Emilie C Plastic and reconstructive surgery BACKGROUND:Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction has historically been fraught with complications, including flap necrosis, implant extrusion, and capsular contracture, along with high rates of operative revisions. This may result from a number of factors, including the lack of an algorithmic approach, failure to predict postoperative migration of the implant, use of improper implants, and unsuitable patient selection. Over the past 5 years, the authors have gained significant experience in prepectoral breast reconstruction as they have transitioned their direct-to-implant technique. METHODS:Using video, technical aspects for achieving superior results are demonstrated, including suture technique, application of acellular dermal matrix, creation of the implant pocket, implant selection and placement, and postoperative dressings. Video is used to highlight technical aspects to yield consistent, predictable results using the anterior tenting technique. RESULTS:A systematic review of prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction was conducted to amalgamate the experience of the authors and others with regard to technique, material, and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction represents a significant paradigm shift in postmastectomy breast reconstruction and warrants reconsideration. Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction provides the potential benefits of a single-stage operation, elimination of dynamic deformity, enhanced aesthetic outcomes, and increased patient satisfaction. Although early evidence suggests an increased incidence of complications, our experience and that of others demonstrate favorable outcomes with version 2.0 of prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. As the body of literature encompassing a modern approach to prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction grows, greater appreciation for operative technique, candidate selection, and implant choice may accelerate its adoption and mitigate past concerns. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005519
Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes. Safran Tyler,Al-Halabi Becher,Viezel-Mathieu Alex,Hazan Jessica,Dionisopoulos Tassos Plastic and reconstructive surgery BACKGROUND:Direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently experienced a resurgence in popularity because of its lower levels of postoperative pain and animation deformity. BREAST-Q, a well-validated patient-reported outcomes tool, was used to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life. The goal of this study was to assess patient-reported outcomes at 6-month and 1-year follow-up after direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction. METHODS:Sixty-nine consented adult patients undergoing a total of 110 direct-to-implant, prepectoral, postmastectomy breast reconstructions completed BREAST-Q questionnaires immediately preoperatively, and at 6 and 12 months thereafter. RESULTS:Mean breast satisfaction decreased nonsignificantly from 61.3 preoperatively to 58.6 at 12 months after reconstruction (p = 0.32). Psychosocial well-being improved nonsignificantly from 67.1 preoperatively to 71.1 at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.26). Physical well-being of the chest was insignificantly different, from 74.4 to 73.3 at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.62). Finally, sexual well-being similarly remained nonsignificantly changed from 60.2 preoperatively, to 59.1 at 12 months (p = 0.80). The use of acellular dermal matrix and postmastectomy radiotherapy did not have any significant effects on patient-reported outcomes. Through regression analysis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, increased age, and incidence of rippling were found to negatively influence BREAST-Q results. CONCLUSIONS:Patients who underwent direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction demonstrated an overall satisfaction with their outcomes. As prepectoral breast reconstruction continues to advance and grow in popularity, patient-reported outcomes such as those presented in this study become of paramount importance in practice. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic, IV. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008506
Revising Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Goodreau Adam M,Driscoll Cassandra R,Nye Anthony,Nigro Lauren C,Blanchet Nadia P Plastic and reconstructive surgery SUMMARY:Prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction continues to gain popularity, largely due to its decreased postoperative pain, animation deformity, and operative time as compared to subpectoral reconstruction. Widespread use has led to opportunities for surgical revisions. While some techniques for submuscular reconstruction revisions, such as implant exchange and fat grafting, also apply to prepectoral revisions, others require modification for the prepectoral space. The prosthesis' unique reliance on the mastectomy flaps and acellular dermal matrix for support leads to a progressive alteration of the breast footprint, conus, envelope, and nipple-areola complex position. To date, revisions of prepectoral reconstructions have not been addressed in the literature. This article presents the senior author's (N.P.B.) techniques for (1) revising prepectoral breast reconstructions, including staged and direct-to-implant reconstructions, with a special focus on nipple-sparing reconstruction, and (2) minimizing undesirable outcomes of prepectoral reconstruction. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008850
Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Ter Louw Ryan P,Nahabedian Maurice Y Plastic and reconstructive surgery Oncologic and reconstructive advancements in the management of patients with breast cancer and at high risk for breast cancer have led to improved outcomes and decreased patient morbidity. Traditional methods for prosthetic breast reconstructions have utilized total or partial muscle coverage of prosthetic devices. Although effective, placement of devices under the pectoralis major muscle can be associated with increased pain due to muscle spasm and animation deformities. Prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction has gained popularity in the plastic surgery community, and long-term outcomes have become available. This article will review the indications, technique, and current literature surrounding prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003942