Literature DB >> 30827802

A retrospective comparative analysis of risk factors and outcomes in direct-to-implant and two-stages prepectoral breast reconstruction: BMI and radiotherapy as new selection criteria of patients.

D Casella1, G Di Taranto2, M G Onesti3, M Greco4, D Ribuffo3.   

Abstract

Recently prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) has showed acceptable outcomes in the short-term. There are few evidence on long-term results and variables which could influence surgical safety. So far, no specific guidelines or indications have been developed for prepectoral technique and heterogeneous inclusion criteria had been used in previous reports. This study revises a series of 397 patients. We conducted a retrospective comparative analysis of risk factors and outcomes between patients undergoing direct to-implant (DTI) and patients undergoing two-stages expander-assisted (TSE) PBR. Univariate binary logistic regression was performed to investigate the association between the incidence of postoperative and aesthetic complications and several variables. 521 breasts were included in the analysis, with an average follow-up of 38 months. 210 patients underwent DTI and 187 TSE PBR. No statistical differences were found between the two populations in term of the characteristics of patients, surgeries and outcomes. Binary logistic regression found no significant association in the TSE group. In the DTI group, a significant association was found between surgical complications and BMI and adjuvant radiotherapy. The association remained significant only for BMI, when investigated with the onset of aesthetic complications. Lower BMI and adjuvant radiotherapy are significantly associated to a higher risk of developing a surgical complication in DTI PBR. Patients at lowest BMI with DTI are prone to develop an aesthetic complication. According to this analysis, we suggest to carefully choose candidates for PBR and propose new selection criteria for subcutaneous techniques.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BREAST-Q; Muscle sparing reconstruction; Prepectoral reconstruction; Sparing mastectomy; Subcutaneous breast reconstruction; Tiloop

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30827802     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.02.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0748-7983            Impact factor:   4.424


  4 in total

1.  Multi-center investigation of breast reconstruction after mastectomy from Chinese Society of Breast Surgery: A survey based on 31 tertiary hospitals (CSBrS-004).

Authors:  Feng Xu; Chuqi Lei; Heng Cao; Jun Liu; Jie Li; Hongchuan Jiang
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2021-02-28       Impact factor: 5.087

2.  Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh.

Authors:  E Sewart; N L Turner; E J Conroy; R I Cutress; J Skillman; L Whisker; S Thrush; N Barnes; C Holcombe; S Potter
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2021-01-08

Review 3.  Systematic Review of Breast-Q: A Tool to Evaluate Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Ishith Seth; Nimish Seth; Gabriella Bulloch; Warren M Rozen; David J Hunter-Smith
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)       Date:  2021-12-16

4.  The Language of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: Can We Do Better?

Authors:  Shamit S Prabhu; Ramon Llull; Adam J Katz
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-08-30
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.