Literature DB >> 26595013

A Systematic Review and Head-to-Head Meta-Analysis of Outcomes following Direct-to-Implant versus Conventional Two-Stage Implant Reconstruction.

Marten N Basta1, Patrick A Gerety, Joseph M Serletti, Stephen J Kovach, John P Fischer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Innovative approaches to reconstruction have ushered in an era of breast reconstruction in which direct-to-implant procedures can provide an immediately reconstructed breast. Balancing the benefits against its technical challenges is vital. The authors evaluated the safety and efficacy of using direct-to-implant versus conventional two-stage reconstruction through a systematic meta-analysis.
METHODS: A literature search identified all articles published after 1999 involving prosthetic-based breast reconstruction as a two-stage tissue expander/implant or direct-to-implant technique. The primary outcomes of interest, including implant loss, capsular contracture, reoperation, and infection, were analyzed by means of head-to-head meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies involving 5216 breast reconstructions were included. The average patient age was 47.2 ± 1.0 years, the average body mass index was 24.9 ± 0.8 mg/k2, and the average follow-up was 40.8 months. Wound infection, seroma, and capsular contracture risk were similar between groups. However, direct-to-implant reconstruction was associated with a higher risk for skin flap necrosis (OR, 1.43; p = 0.01; I2 = 51 percent) and reoperation (OR, 1.25; p = 0.04; I2 = 43 percent). Ultimately, the risk for implant loss was nearly two-fold higher with direct-to-implant reconstruction compared with tissue expander/implant reconstruction (OR, 1.87; p = 0.04; I2 = 33 percent).
CONCLUSIONS: Although direct-to-implant and two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction are successful approaches, this meta-analysis demonstrates significantly greater risk of flap necrosis and implant failure with direct-to-implant reconstruction. The authors' findings suggest that the critical component of patient selection is judgment of mastectomy flap tissue quality. These findings can enhance the risk counseling process and highlight the need for additional investigations to optimize outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26595013     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001749

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


  21 in total

1.  Conceptual Considerations for Payment Bundling in Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Clifford C Sheckter; Shantanu N Razdan; Joseph J Disa; Babak J Mehrara; Evan Matros
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.730

2.  Comparison of Immediate Breast Reconstruction Outcomes in Patients With and Without Prior Cosmetic Breast Surgery.

Authors:  Caroline K Fiser; Joshua P Kronenfeld; Sophia N Liu; Neha Goel; Wrood Kassira; John C Oeltjen; Susan B Kesmodel
Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Closed-Incision and Surrounding Soft Tissue Negative Pressure Dressings in Post-Mastectomy Pre-Pectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Udai S Sibia; Devinder Singh; Kathryn M Sidrow; Luther H Holton
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 0.558

4.  Hyperbaric oxygen treatment for mastectomy flap ischaemia: A case series of 50 breasts.

Authors:  Nicole E Spruijt; Lisette T Hoekstra; Johan Wilmink; Maarten M Hoogbergen
Journal:  Diving Hyperb Med       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 0.887

Review 5.  Clinical outcomes of patients after nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction based on the expander/implant technique.

Authors:  Uhi Toh; Miki Takenaka; Nobutaka Iwakuma; Yoshito Akagi
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 2.549

6.  Can Skin Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Submuscular Implant-Based Reconstruction Be a Better Choice in Treatment of Early-Stage Breast Cancer?

Authors:  Münire Kayahan
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2021-12-30

7.  Subcutaneous Implant-based Breast Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix/Mesh: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Ara A Salibian; Jordan D Frey; Mihye Choi; Nolan S Karp
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2016-11-23

Review 8.  One-Stage Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Concise Review.

Authors:  Nicolò Bertozzi; Marianna Pesce; Pierluigi Santi; Edoardo Raposio
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Breast Reconstruction Completion in the Obese: Does Reconstruction Technique Make a Difference in Its Achievement?

Authors:  Christine Velazquez; Robert C Siska; Ivo A Pestana
Journal:  J Reconstr Microsurg       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 2.873

Review 10.  Reducing infection risk in implant-based breast-reconstruction surgery: challenges and solutions.

Authors:  Adrian Sh Ooi; David H Song
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)       Date:  2016-09-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.