BACKGROUND: Prepectoral breast reconstruction following mastectomy has become a more widely performed technique in recent years because of its numerous benefits for women. These include full pectoralis muscle preservation, reduced loss of strength, reduced pain, and elimination of animation deformity. As with any breast reconstruction technique, widespread adoption is dependent on a low morbidity profile in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy, as this adjuvant therapy is routine in breast cancer treatment. The authors assess the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy following prepectoral breast reconstruction, and compare these to outcomes of patients undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy with submuscular reconstruction. METHODS: A single surgeon's experience with immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction, followed by postmastectomy radiation therapy, from 2015 to 2017 was reviewed. Patient demographics and incidence of complications during the tissue expander stage were assessed. In addition, the morbidity profile of these patients was compared to that of patients undergoing submuscular/dual-plane reconstruction and postmastectomy radiation therapy over the same period. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 175 breasts underwent immediate prepectoral reconstruction, and 236 breasts underwent immediate submuscular/dual-plane reconstruction. Overall rates of adjuvant radiation therapy (postmastectomy radiation therapy) were similar between prepectoral [26 breasts (14.9 percent)] and submuscular [31 breasts (13.1 percent)] (p = 0.6180) reconstruction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the two reconstructive cohorts, in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy, including rates of explantation (15.4 percent versus 19.3 percent; p = 0.695). CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral breast reconstruction is a safe and effective option in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy. The morbidity profile is similar to that encountered with submuscular reconstruction in this setting. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
BACKGROUND: Prepectoral breast reconstruction following mastectomy has become a more widely performed technique in recent years because of its numerous benefits for women. These include full pectoralis muscle preservation, reduced loss of strength, reduced pain, and elimination of animation deformity. As with any breast reconstruction technique, widespread adoption is dependent on a low morbidity profile in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy, as this adjuvant therapy is routine in breast cancer treatment. The authors assess the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy following prepectoral breast reconstruction, and compare these to outcomes of patients undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy with submuscular reconstruction. METHODS: A single surgeon's experience with immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction, followed by postmastectomy radiation therapy, from 2015 to 2017 was reviewed. Patient demographics and incidence of complications during the tissue expander stage were assessed. In addition, the morbidity profile of these patients was compared to that of patients undergoing submuscular/dual-plane reconstruction and postmastectomy radiation therapy over the same period. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 175 breasts underwent immediate prepectoral reconstruction, and 236 breasts underwent immediate submuscular/dual-plane reconstruction. Overall rates of adjuvant radiation therapy (postmastectomy radiation therapy) were similar between prepectoral [26 breasts (14.9 percent)] and submuscular [31 breasts (13.1 percent)] (p = 0.6180) reconstruction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the two reconstructive cohorts, in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy, including rates of explantation (15.4 percent versus 19.3 percent; p = 0.695). CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral breast reconstruction is a safe and effective option in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy. The morbidity profile is similar to that encountered with submuscular reconstruction in this setting. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
Authors: Hillary Nepon; Tyler Safran; Edward M Reece; Amanda M Murphy; Joshua Vorstenbosch; Peter G Davison Journal: Semin Plast Surg Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 2.195
Authors: Susanna Polotto; Maria Luisa Bergamini; Giuseppe Pedrazzi; Maria F Arcuri; Francesca Gussago; Leonardo Cattelani Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2020-04
Authors: Robert W Mutter; J Isabelle Choi; Rachel B Jimenez; Youlia M Kirova; Marcio Fagundes; Bruce G Haffty; Richard A Amos; Julie A Bradley; Peter Y Chen; Xuanfeng Ding; Antoinette M Carr; Leslie M Taylor; Mark Pankuch; Raymond B Mailhot Vega; Alice Y Ho; Petra Witt Nyström; Lisa A McGee; James J Urbanic; Oren Cahlon; John H Maduro; Shannon M MacDonald Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Arash Momeni; Alexander Y Li; Jacqueline Tsai; Derrick Wan; Mardi R Karin; Irene L Wapnir Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2019-12-24