Literature DB >> 26218372

Embrace the Change: Incorporating Single-Stage Implant Breast Reconstruction into Your Practice.

Jose Rodriguez-Feliz1, Mark A Codner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have reported on the safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and low complication rates associated with single-stage implant breast reconstruction. Yet many plastic surgeons continue to be resistant to change. This article presents the senior author's (M.A.C.) experience during his transition period from the latissimus dorsi flap with adjustable implants to a "one-and-done" approach using shaped implants and fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix.
METHODS: A literature review was performed selecting articles discussing single-stage implant reconstruction, indications, outcomes, technique, and complications. Additional articles were selected after review of the references of identified articles. Clinical pearls discussed include patient selection, implant selection, and mastectomy incision choices, with a detailed description of the senior author's operative technique.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven single-stage implant reconstructions were performed. Average mastectomy weight was 343.82 g. The average implant volume was 367 cc. Shaped implants were most commonly used. Acellular dermal matrix was used in all breasts. Complications included erythema requiring intravenous antibiotics (three patients), skin ischemia caused by methylene blue (one patient), seroma (one patient), unilateral partial nipple necrosis (one patient), mastectomy skin necrosis (one patient), and exposed/infected implants that were salvaged using a sequential irrigation protocol described by Sforza et al. in 2014 (two patients).
CONCLUSIONS: Breast reconstruction after mastectomy has evolved toward less invasive, single-stage procedures. Aesthetic refinements include nipple-sparing mastectomy, use of acellular dermal matrix, shaped implants, and fat grafting. Selected patients will benefit from a one-and-done breast implant reconstruction with no additional oncologic risk. Surgeons must embrace the change and provide their patients with a procedure that will offer the best aesthetic outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26218372     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001448

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  14 in total

Review 1.  Implant Reconstruction in Nipple Sparing Mastectomy.

Authors:  Carrie K Chu; Matthew J Davis; Amjed Abu-Ghname; Sebastian J Winocour; Albert Losken; Grant W Carlson
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 2.314

Review 2.  Update in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Aurelia Trisliana Perdanasari; Amjed Abu-Ghname; Sarth Raj; Sebastian J Winocour; Rene D Largo
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 2.314

3.  Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Implant-Based Reconstruction with or Without Skin Reduction in Patients with Large Ptotic Breasts: A Case-Matched Analysis.

Authors:  Sukru Yazar; Fuat Baris Bengur; Altug Altinkaya; Halil Kara; Cihan Uras
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 2.326

Review 4.  Overview of indications for nipple sparing mastectomy.

Authors:  Eleni Tousimis; Michelle Haslinger
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2018-06

5.  Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Primary Implant Reconstruction: Surgical and Oncological Outcome of 435 Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Zoran Radovanovic; Milan Ranisavljevic; Dragana Radovanovic; Ferenc Vicko; Tatjana Ivkovic-Kapicl; Nenad Solajic
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 2.860

6.  Surgical Delay of the Nipple-Areolar Complex in High-risk Nipple-sparing Mastectomy Reconstruction.

Authors:  Maryann E Martinovic; James V Pellicane; Nadia P Blanchet
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2016-06-28

7.  Complication Rates With Human Acellular Dermal Matrices: Retrospective Review of 211 Consecutive Breast Reconstructions.

Authors:  Robert H Schnarrs; Claire M Carman; Chase Tobin; Serena A Chase; Kerri A Rossmeier
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2016-11-21

8.  The BREASTrial Stage II: ADM Breast Reconstruction Outcomes from Definitive Reconstruction to 3 Months Postoperative.

Authors:  Shaun D Mendenhall; Layla A Anderson; Jian Ying; Kenneth M Boucher; Leigh A Neumayer; Jayant P Agarwal
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2017-01-25

9.  Mastectomy Flap Thickness and Complications in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Objective Evaluation using Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Jordan D Frey; Ara A Salibian; Mihye Choi; Nolan S Karp
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2017-08-08

10.  Biological Matrix-Assisted One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications.

Authors:  Peng Gao; Ping Bai; Yinpeng Ren; Xiangyi Kong; Zhongzhao Wang; Yi Fang; Jing Wang
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 2.326

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.