Literature DB >> 29068918

Direct-to-Implant versus Two-Stage Tissue Expander/Implant Reconstruction: 2-Year Risks and Patient-Reported Outcomes from a Prospective, Multicenter Study.

Dhivya R Srinivasa1,2, Patrick B Garvey1,2, Ji Qi1,2, Jennifer B Hamill1,2, Hyungjin M Kim1,2, Andrea L Pusic1,2, Steven J Kronowitz1,2, Edwin G Wilkins1,2, Charles E Butler1,2, Mark W Clemens1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction offers time-saving advantages over two-stage techniques. However, use of direct-to-implant reconstruction remains limited, in part, because of concerns over complication rates., The authors' aim was to compare 2-year complications and patient-reported outcomes for direct-to-implant versus tissue expander/implant reconstruction.
METHODS: Patients undergoing immediate direct-to-implant or tissue expander/implant reconstruction were enrolled in the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium, an 11-center prospective cohort study. Complications and patient-reported outcomes (using the BREAST-Q questionnaire) were evaluated. Outcomes were compared using mixed-effects regression models, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics.
RESULTS: Of 1427 patients, 99 underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction and 1328 underwent tissue expander/implant reconstruction. Two years after reconstruction and controlling for covariates, direct-to-implant and tissue expander/implant reconstruction patients did not show statistically significant differences in any complications, including infection. Multivariable analyses found no significant differences between the two groups in patient-reported outcomes, with the exception of sexual well-being, where direct-to-implant patients fared better than the tissue expander/implant cohort (p = 0.047).
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, multi-institutional study showed no statistically significant differences between direct-to-implant and tissue expander/implant reconstruction, in either complication rates or most patient-reported outcomes at 2 years postoperatively. Direct-to-implant reconstruction appears to be a viable alternative to expander/implant reconstruction. This analysis provides new evidence on which to base reconstructive decisions. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29068918      PMCID: PMC5902733          DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003748

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


  18 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  [Effect of free deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap transplantation in breast shaping of two-staged breast reconstruction with vertical scar].

Authors:  Dajiang Song; Yuanyuan Tang; Zan Li; Xiao Zhou; Yixin Zhang; Guang Feng; Bo Zhou; Chunliu Lü; Liang Yi; Zhenhua Luo; Zhiyuan Wang
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-10-15

3.  Cost analysis of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Sachin Chinta; Daniel J Koh; Nikhil Sobti; Kathryn Packowski; Nikki Rosado; William Austen; Rachel B Jimenez; Michelle Specht; Eric C Liao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Comparison of Sterile and Aseptic AlloDerm in 2039 Consecutive Cases.

Authors:  Rajiv P Parikh; Gabriella M Brown; Ketan Sharma; Yan Yan; Terence M Myckatyn
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Comparisons of Therapeutic and Aesthetic Effects of One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with and without Biological Matrix.

Authors:  Peng Gao; Zhongzhao Wang; Xiangyi Kong; Xiangyu Wang; Yi Fang; Jing Wang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 3.989

6.  Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Shelley Potter; Elizabeth J Conroy; Ramsey I Cutress; Paula R Williamson; Lisa Whisker; Steven Thrush; Joanna Skillman; Nicola L P Barnes; Senthurun Mylvaganam; Elisabeth Teasdale; Abhilash Jain; Matthew D Gardiner; Jane M Blazeby; Chris Holcombe
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  Beyond 30 Days: A Risk Calculator for Longer Term Outcomes of Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Jordan T Blough; Michael M Vu; Cecil S Qiu; Alexei S Mlodinow; Nima Khavanin; Neil A Fine; John Y S Kim
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2018-12-12

8.  Perceived barriers to randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction: obstacle to trial initiation or opportunity to resolve? A qualitative study.

Authors:  Gareth Davies; Nicola Mills; Chris Holcombe; Shelley Potter
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Wise Pattern Direct Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Review and Improved Outcomes Using Dermal Matrix.

Authors:  Harold I Friedman; Sarah Talebagha; Jarom Gilstrap; Mirsad Mujadzic; Elliott Chen
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2019-10-16

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.