BACKGROUND: Implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most common technique for post-mastectomy reconstructions in the United Kingdom (UK). Subpectoral implant placement is the conventional method of reconstruction. Placement of implant in the subcutaneous pocket covered by an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a relatively recent approach. We report a comparative analysis of prepectoral versus subpectoral approach for implant-based IBR from a single institution in the UK. METHODS: Retrospective analysis from a prospectively maintained data was conducted from January 2015 to May 2017 including all patients who underwent a mastectomy with immediate implant-based IBR in a single breast unit. The demographic details, operative details, immediate and delayed complications were recorded. Specific complications recorded were infection, seroma, unplanned readmission and loss of implant. Factors affecting complication rates and implant loss were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-four reconstructions were included in the analysis with a median follow-up of 11.8 months. Mean age of the cohort was 50 years with a mean BMI of 26.09 kg/m2. Major implant-related complication rate was 12.3% with an implant loss rate of 7.8%. Age more than 50 years (P=0.037) and bilateral reconstructions (P=0.0001) had significant impact on complication rate, on multivariate analysis. Patients with bilateral implants had a significantly higher implant loss rate (P=0.0001). Implant loss rates in the prepectoral group (4.2%) and subpectoral group (10.8%) were not statistically significant (P=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral and subpectoral techniques of IBR have comparable outcomes. Studies reporting on long-term outcomes are planned.
BACKGROUND: Implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most common technique for post-mastectomy reconstructions in the United Kingdom (UK). Subpectoral implant placement is the conventional method of reconstruction. Placement of implant in the subcutaneous pocket covered by an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a relatively recent approach. We report a comparative analysis of prepectoral versus subpectoral approach for implant-based IBR from a single institution in the UK. METHODS: Retrospective analysis from a prospectively maintained data was conducted from January 2015 to May 2017 including all patients who underwent a mastectomy with immediate implant-based IBR in a single breast unit. The demographic details, operative details, immediate and delayed complications were recorded. Specific complications recorded were infection, seroma, unplanned readmission and loss of implant. Factors affecting complication rates and implant loss were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-four reconstructions were included in the analysis with a median follow-up of 11.8 months. Mean age of the cohort was 50 years with a mean BMI of 26.09 kg/m2. Major implant-related complication rate was 12.3% with an implant loss rate of 7.8%. Age more than 50 years (P=0.037) and bilateral reconstructions (P=0.0001) had significant impact on complication rate, on multivariate analysis. Patients with bilateral implants had a significantly higher implant loss rate (P=0.0001). Implant loss rates in the prepectoral group (4.2%) and subpectoral group (10.8%) were not statistically significant (P=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral and subpectoral techniques of IBR have comparable outcomes. Studies reporting on long-term outcomes are planned.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acellular dermis; breast implants; breast neoplasms
Authors: Miguel S Cabalag; Marie Rostek; George S Miller; Michael P Chae; Tam Quinn; Warren M Rozen; David J Hunter-Smith Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2016-04
Authors: Raghavan Vidya; Jaume Masià; Simon Cawthorn; Giorgio Berna; Fernando Bozza; Alexander Gardetto; Agnieszka Kołacińska; Francesco Dell'Antonia; Cesare Tiengo; Franco Bassetto; Glenda G Caputo; Maurizio Governa Journal: Breast J Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Scott L Spear; Mitchel Seruya; Mark W Clemens; Steven Teitelbaum; Maurice Y Nahabedian Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Jenny Neuburger; Fiona Macneill; Ranjeet Jeevan; Jan H P van der Meulen; David A Cromwell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Luís Mata Ribeiro; Rita P Meireles; Irís M Brito; Patrícia M Costa; Marco A Rebelo; Rui F Barbosa; Miguel P Choupina; Carlos J Pinho; Matilde P Ribeiro Journal: Arch Plast Surg Date: 2022-04-06