Jiameng Liu1,2, Xiaobin Zheng1,3, Shunguo Lin2,4,5, Hui Han2,4,5, Chunsen Xu6,7,8. 1. The Graduate School of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350000, Fujian Province, China. 2. Department of Breast Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No. 29, Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. 3. Department of Radiotherapy, Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, 350000, Fujian Province, China. 4. Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. 5. Breast Cancer Institute, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. 6. Department of Breast Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No. 29, Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. xuchunsen@yeah.net. 7. Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. xuchunsen@yeah.net. 8. Breast Cancer Institute, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. xuchunsen@yeah.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh reopened the possibility for the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction (PBR). The complications of single-stage breast reconstruction after PRB are controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction. Our aim was to evaluate the different postoperative complications between patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) on single-stage breast reconstruction. METHODS: A comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature evaluating the effect of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2020. All included studies were evaluated the complications after single-stage breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1724 patients. In general, compared with SBR group, the PBR significantly reduced the risk of total complications (including seroma, hematoma, necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, capsular contraction, implant loss/remove, and rippling) after single-stage breast reconstruction (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.67, p < 0.001). Compared with the SBR group, the PBR had remarkably decreased capsular contracture (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58, p < 0.001) and postoperative infection (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.95, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The PBR is a safe single-stage breast reconstruction with fewer postoperative complications. It is an alternative surgical method for SBR.
BACKGROUND: The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh reopened the possibility for the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction (PBR). The complications of single-stage breast reconstruction after PRB are controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction. Our aim was to evaluate the different postoperative complications between patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) on single-stage breast reconstruction. METHODS: A comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature evaluating the effect of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2020. All included studies were evaluated the complications after single-stage breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1724 patients. In general, compared with SBR group, the PBR significantly reduced the risk of total complications (including seroma, hematoma, necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, capsular contraction, implant loss/remove, and rippling) after single-stage breast reconstruction (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.67, p < 0.001). Compared with the SBR group, the PBR had remarkably decreased capsular contracture (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58, p < 0.001) and postoperative infection (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.95, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The PBR is a safe single-stage breast reconstruction with fewer postoperative complications. It is an alternative surgical method for SBR.
Authors: Sashank Reddy; Salih Colakoglu; Michael S Curtis; Janet H Yueh; Adeyemi Ogunleye; Adam M Tobias; Bernard T Lee Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Jana L Schmidt; Cordula M Wetzel; Klaus W Lange; Norbert Heine; Olaf Ortmann Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2017-09-02 Impact factor: 2.344