BACKGROUND: The numerous office visits required to complete expansion in implant-based breast reconstruction impact patient satisfaction, office resources, and time to complete reconstruction. This study aimed to determine whether prepectoral compared to subpectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction offers expedited tissue expansion without affecting complication rates. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from January of 2016 to July of 2017 by a single surgeon were grouped into subpectoral (partial submuscular/partial acellular dermal matrix) or prepectoral (complete acellular dermal matrix coverage), and reviewed. The primary outcomes were total days and number of visits to complete expansion. Groups were compared by univariate analysis with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 101 patients (subpectoral, n = 69; prepectoral, n = 32) underwent 184 immediate implant-based breast reconstructions (subpectoral, n = 124; prepectoral, n = 60). There was no difference in age, body mass index, smoking, or diabetes between the groups (all p > 0.05). Follow-up was similar between groups (179.3 ± 98.2 days versus 218.3 ± 119.8 days; p = 0.115). Prepectoral patients took fewer days to complete expansion (40.4 ± 37.8 days versus 62.5 ± 50.2 days; p < 0.001) and fewer office visits to complete expansion (2.3 ± 1 .7 versus 3.9 ± 1.8; p < 0.001), and were expanded to greater final volumes than subpectoral patients (543.7 ± 122.9 ml versus 477.5 ± 159.6 ml; p = 0.017). Between prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions, there were similar rates of minor complications (25 percent versus 18.5 percent; p = 0.311), readmissions (5 percent versus 2.4 percent; p = 0.393), seromas (8.3 percent versus 5.6 percent; p = 0.489), reoperations for hematoma (3.3 percent versus 1.6 percent; p = 0.597), and explantations (5 percent versus 2.4 percent; p = 0.393). CONCLUSION: This novel analysis demonstrates that prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction can facilitate expansion to higher total volumes in nearly half the office visits compared to subpectoral placement in similar populations without increasing complication rates. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
BACKGROUND: The numerous office visits required to complete expansion in implant-based breast reconstruction impact patient satisfaction, office resources, and time to complete reconstruction. This study aimed to determine whether prepectoral compared to subpectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction offers expedited tissue expansion without affecting complication rates. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from January of 2016 to July of 2017 by a single surgeon were grouped into subpectoral (partial submuscular/partial acellular dermal matrix) or prepectoral (complete acellular dermal matrix coverage), and reviewed. The primary outcomes were total days and number of visits to complete expansion. Groups were compared by univariate analysis with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 101 patients (subpectoral, n = 69; prepectoral, n = 32) underwent 184 immediate implant-based breast reconstructions (subpectoral, n = 124; prepectoral, n = 60). There was no difference in age, body mass index, smoking, or diabetes between the groups (all p > 0.05). Follow-up was similar between groups (179.3 ± 98.2 days versus 218.3 ± 119.8 days; p = 0.115). Prepectoral patients took fewer days to complete expansion (40.4 ± 37.8 days versus 62.5 ± 50.2 days; p < 0.001) and fewer office visits to complete expansion (2.3 ± 1 .7 versus 3.9 ± 1.8; p < 0.001), and were expanded to greater final volumes than subpectoral patients (543.7 ± 122.9 ml versus 477.5 ± 159.6 ml; p = 0.017). Between prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions, there were similar rates of minor complications (25 percent versus 18.5 percent; p = 0.311), readmissions (5 percent versus 2.4 percent; p = 0.393), seromas (8.3 percent versus 5.6 percent; p = 0.489), reoperations for hematoma (3.3 percent versus 1.6 percent; p = 0.597), and explantations (5 percent versus 2.4 percent; p = 0.393). CONCLUSION: This novel analysis demonstrates that prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction can facilitate expansion to higher total volumes in nearly half the office visits compared to subpectoral placement in similar populations without increasing complication rates. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.