Michele Maruccia1, Rossella Elia1, Pasquale Tedeschi1, Angela Gurrado2, Marco Moschetta3, Mario Testini2, Giuseppe Giudice1. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Piazza Giulio Cesare, Bari, Italy. 2. Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Piazza Giulio Cesare, Bari, Italy. 3. Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Piazza Giulio Cesare, Bari, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) has increased its popularity in the last years because of its aim to minimise the chances of developing breast cancer in high-risk patients. Women undergoing this procedure must be considered highly demanding patients given the need to combine aesthetical, functional and preventive desires. This study aims to present the authors' experience in performing BRRM followed by single-stage prepectoral reconstruction (PPBR) with implant completely covered by acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and to report indications, surgical techniques, functional and aesthetic results. METHODS: A single-centre prospective data collection was carried out from January 2017 to January 2021 of patients at high risk of developing breast cancer undergoing BRRM and immediate PPBR with ADM. Patients were subdivided into two groups according to the breast shape: Group A had small and medium size breasts and Group B had large and ptotic breasts. Oncological and surgical outcomes were collected. Satisfaction with reconstruction and related quality of life were evaluated through the BREAST-Q questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of twenty-three patients met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen patients were included in group A and six patients in group B. Average follow-up was 18.4 months. Minor complications occurred in four breasts: one seroma, one hematoma and two cases of wound dehiscence. Capsular contracture was not observed. All patients were satisfied with the final result according to the post-operative BREAST-Q questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction could represent the ideal reconstruction option after BRRM and should be offered to all women that fulfil the inclusion criteria. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) has increased its popularity in the last years because of its aim to minimise the chances of developing breast cancer in high-risk patients. Women undergoing this procedure must be considered highly demanding patients given the need to combine aesthetical, functional and preventive desires. This study aims to present the authors' experience in performing BRRM followed by single-stage prepectoral reconstruction (PPBR) with implant completely covered by acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and to report indications, surgical techniques, functional and aesthetic results. METHODS: A single-centre prospective data collection was carried out from January 2017 to January 2021 of patients at high risk of developing breast cancer undergoing BRRM and immediate PPBR with ADM. Patients were subdivided into two groups according to the breast shape: Group A had small and medium size breasts and Group B had large and ptotic breasts. Oncological and surgical outcomes were collected. Satisfaction with reconstruction and related quality of life were evaluated through the BREAST-Q questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of twenty-three patients met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen patients were included in group A and six patients in group B. Average follow-up was 18.4 months. Minor complications occurred in four breasts: one seroma, one hematoma and two cases of wound dehiscence. Capsular contracture was not observed. All patients were satisfied with the final result according to the post-operative BREAST-Q questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction could represent the ideal reconstruction option after BRRM and should be offered to all women that fulfil the inclusion criteria. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Katharine Yao; Erik Liederbach; Rong Tang; Lan Lei; Tomasz Czechura; Mark Sisco; Michael Howard; Peter J Hulick; Scott Weissman; David J Winchester; Suzanne B Coopey; Barbara L Smith Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Kelly A Metcalfe; Nida Mian; Melissa Enmore; Aletta Poll; Marcia Llacuachaqui; Sonia Nanda; Ping Sun; Kevin S Hughes; Steven A Narod Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kristi D Graves; Patti Vegella; Elizabeth A Poggi; Beth N Peshkin; Angie Tong; Claudine Isaacs; Clinton Finch; Scott Kelly; Kathryn L Taylor; George Luta; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: L C Hartmann; D J Schaid; J E Woods; T P Crotty; J L Myers; P G Arnold; P M Petty; T A Sellers; J L Johnson; S K McDonnell; M H Frost; R B Jenkins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-01-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Benjamin G Baker; Renu Irri; Vivienne MacCallum; Rahul Chattopadhyay; John Murphy; James R Harvey Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Allen Gabriel; Steven Sigalove; Noemi M Sigalove; Toni L Storm-Dickerson; Jami Rice; Nicole Pope; G Patrick Maxwell Journal: Aesthet Surg J Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 4.283