Literature DB >> 32332523

Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Safety Outcome Endpoints and Delineation of Risk Factors.

Kassandra P Nealon1, Rachel E Weitzman1, Nikhil Sobti1, Michele Gadd1, Michelle Specht1, Rachel B Jimenez1, Richard Ehrlichman1, Heather R Faulkner1, William G Austen1, Eric C Liao1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Continued evolution of implant-based breast reconstruction involves immediate placement of the implant above the pectoralis muscle. The shift to prepectoral breast reconstruction is driven by goals of decreasing morbidity such as breast animation deformity, range-of-motion problems, and pain, and is made possible by improvements in mastectomy skin flap viability. To define clinical factors to guide patient selection for direct-to-implant prepectoral implant reconstruction, this study compares safety endpoints and risk factors between prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction cohorts. The authors hypothesized that prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, performed by a team of five surgical oncologists and two plastic surgeons. Univariate analysis compared patient characteristics between cohorts. A penalized logistic regression model was constructed to identify relationships between postoperative complications and covariate risk factors.
RESULTS: A cohort of 114 prepectoral direct-to-implant patients was compared with 142 subpectoral direct-to-implant patients. The results of the penalized regression model demonstrated equivalence in safety metrics between prepectoral direct-to-implant and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, including seroma (p = 0.0883), cancer recurrence (p = 0.876), explantation (p = 0.992), capsular contracture (p = 0.158), mastectomy skin flap necrosis (p = 0.769), infection (p = 0.523), hematoma (p = 0.228), and revision (p = 0.122).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction. Given the low morbidity and elimination of animation deformity, prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction should be considered when the mastectomy skin flap is robust. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32332523     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006721

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  12 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Jiameng Liu; Xiaobin Zheng; Shunguo Lin; Hui Han; Chunsen Xu
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in the Setting of Two-Stage Retropectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Should It be Delivered Before or After Implant Exchange? A Retrospective Analysis on 183 Patients.

Authors:  Barbara Cagli; Marco Morelli Coppola; Federica Augelli; Francesco Segreto; Stefania Tenna; Annalisa Cogliandro; Paolo Persichetti
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 2.708

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.  Cost analysis of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Sachin Chinta; Daniel J Koh; Nikhil Sobti; Kathryn Packowski; Nikki Rosado; William Austen; Rachel B Jimenez; Michelle Specht; Eric C Liao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix for Two-Staged Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: An Institutional Experience.

Authors:  Jessica Luo; Rhett N Willis; Suzanna M Ohlsen; Meghan Piccinin; Neal Moores; Alvin C Kwok; Jayant P Agarwal
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2022-04-06

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

Review 7.  Shared Decision-Making in Breast Reconstruction for Breast Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Xuejing Li; Meiqi Meng; Junqiang Zhao; Xiaoyan Zhang; Dan Yang; Jiaxin Fang; Junxin Wang; Liu Han; Yufang Hao
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 2.711

8.  Implant-based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ian J Saldanha; Justin M Broyles; Gaelen P Adam; Wangnan Cao; Monika Reddy Bhuma; Shivani Mehta; Andrea L Pusic; Laura S Dominici; Ethan M Balk
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-03-18

9.  The Safety of Same-day Discharge after Immediate Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Troy Marxen; Orr Shauly; Albert Losken
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-07-20

10.  High-Efficiency Same-Day Approach to Breast Reconstruction During the COVID-19 Crisis.

Authors:  Michelle Specht; Nikhil Sobti; Nikki Rosado; Eleanor Tomczyk; Olivia Abbate; Dan Ellis; Eric C Liao
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 4.872

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.