Literature DB >> 31076195

A systematic review of complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Ryan D Wagner1, Tara L Braun2, Huirong Zhu3, Sebastian Winocour4.   

Abstract

The use of implants for breast reconstruction began over four decades ago, with implants initially placed in the prepectoral space. Concerns arose regarding the high incidence of capsular contracture and complication rates. With the introduction of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), plastic surgeons are again considering the advantages of prepectoral implant placement. A systematic review was conducted to examine complication profiles in prepectoral breast reconstruction alone versus prepectoral with ADM or mesh. A systematic review of the PubMed database was performed from inception to March 2017 to identify literature on postmastectomy patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without ADM or mesh. Study characteristics, complication rates, and outcomes were extracted for analysis. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and complication profiles were analyzed using the random-effects model. Twenty-seven studies met criteria for inclusion out of 550 identified for review. For 1881 total breasts, the complication rate with ADM was 23.4%, while the rate without an additional implant material was 27.5%. The difference in the capsular contracture rate with and without ADM was 2.3% and 12.4%, respectively. The use of ADM in prepectoral breast reconstruction correlated with lower capsular contracture and overall complications rates; however, rates of implant loss, infection, and mastectomy flap necrosis were higher with the use of ADM. Results were variable across studies, and in general, the quality of evidence reported was low. Because the methodology for outcome assessment was inconsistent, there is a need for further investigation with comparative studies and standardized outcome reporting.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acellular dermal matrix; Breast reconstruction; Capsular contracture; Prepectoral

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31076195     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2019.04.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg        ISSN: 1748-6815            Impact factor:   2.740


  13 in total

1.  Human Acellular Dermal Matrix (Epiflex®) in Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Skin- and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Treatment of Capsular Fibrosis: Results of a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational NOGGO-AWOGyn Study.

Authors:  Lea Beier; Andree Faridi; Corina Neumann; Stefan Paepke; Christine Mau; Maren Keller; Hans Joachim Strittmatter; Claudia Gerber-Schäfer; Lelia Bauer; Maria Margarete Karsten; Sherko Kümmel; Jens-Uwe Blohmer
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 2.  Current Concepts in Capsular Contracture: Pathophysiology, Prevention, and Management.

Authors:  Tyler Safran; Hillary Nepon; Carrie K Chu; Sebastian Winocour; Amanda M Murphy; Peter G Davison; Tassos Dionisopolos; Joshua Vorstenbosch
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 2.195

Review 3.  Direct-to-Implant Subcutaneous Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Complications and Patient's Quality of Life.

Authors:  José Silva; Francisco Carvalho; Marisa Marques
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 2.708

4.  The PreQ-20 TRIAL: A prospective cohort study of the oncologic safety, quality of life and cosmetic outcomes of patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Benigno Acea-Nebril; Alejandra García-Novoa; Lourdes García Jiménez
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-14       Impact factor: 3.752

5.  Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Implant-Based Reconstruction with or Without Skin Reduction in Patients with Large Ptotic Breasts: A Case-Matched Analysis.

Authors:  Sukru Yazar; Fuat Baris Bengur; Altug Altinkaya; Halil Kara; Cihan Uras
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 2.326

6.  Pre-pectoral one-stage breast reconstruction with anterior biological acellular dermal matrix coverage.

Authors:  Ayesha Khan; Marios-Konstantinos Tasoulis; Victoria Teoh; Aleksandra Tanska; Ruth Edmonds; Gerald Gui
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-03

7.  Prepectoral and Subpectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of 90-Day Clinical and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes.

Authors:  Jonas A Nelson; Meghana G Shamsunder; Joshua Vorstenbosch; Thais O Polanco; Evan Matros; Michelle R Coriddi; Babak J Mehrara; Robert J Allen; Joseph H Dayan; Joseph J Disa
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 5.169

8.  The Pre-BRA (pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction EvAluation) feasibility study: protocol for a mixed-methods IDEAL 2a/2b prospective cohort study to determine the safety and effectiveness of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Kate Louise Harvey; Nicola Mills; Paul White; Christopher Holcombe; Shelley Potter
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-01-26       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  What Is in a Number? Evaluating a Risk Assessment Tool in Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Jordan D Frey; Ara A Salibian; Jonathan M Bekisz; Mihye Choi; Nolan S Karp; Vishal D Thanik
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2019-12-31

10.  Comparison of 30-day Clinical Outcomes with SimpliDerm and AlloDerm RTU in Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Brian P Tierney
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-06-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.