Abdelrahman Awadeen1, Mohamed Fareed2, Ali Mohamed Elameen3. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Faculty of Medicine (Boys), Al-Azhar University, Al Mokhaym Al Daem, Gameat Al Azhar, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt. abdelrahmanawadeen.206@azhar.edu.eg. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Faculty of Medicine (Boys), Al-Azhar University, Al Mokhaym Al Daem, Gameat Al Azhar, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt. 3. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, El-Sahel Teaching Hospital, Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is the mainstay treatment choice for patients subjected to a mastectomy. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is deemed to be a promising alternative to subpectoral reconstruction. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is necessary for locoregional recurrence control and to improve the disease-free survival rate in locally advanced breast cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was designed to reveal the surgical, aesthetic, and oncological outcomes of prepectoral IBBR after PMRT. METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed from inception to March 28, 2022. All clinical studies that included patients who were subjected to prepectoral IBBR and PMRT were included. Studies that included patients who received radiation therapy before prepectoral IBBR were excluded. RESULTS: This systematic review included six articles encompassing 1234 reconstructed breasts. Of them, 391 breasts were subjected to PMRT, while 843 breasts were not subjected. Irradiated breasts were more susceptible to develop wound infection (RR 2.49; 95% 1.43, 4.35; P = 0.001) and capsular contracture (RR 5.17; 95% 1.93, 13.80; P = 0.001) than the non-irradiated breasts. Furthermore, irradiated breasts were more vulnerable to losing implants (RR 2.89; 95% 1.30, 6.39; P = 0.009) than the non-irradiated breast. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the risk of implant extrusion (RR 1.88; 95% 0.20, 17.63; P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prepectorally IBBR and PMRT were more vulnerable to developing poor outcomes. This included a higher risk of breast-related and implant-related adverse events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is the mainstay treatment choice for patients subjected to a mastectomy. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is deemed to be a promising alternative to subpectoral reconstruction. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is necessary for locoregional recurrence control and to improve the disease-free survival rate in locally advanced breast cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was designed to reveal the surgical, aesthetic, and oncological outcomes of prepectoral IBBR after PMRT. METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed from inception to March 28, 2022. All clinical studies that included patients who were subjected to prepectoral IBBR and PMRT were included. Studies that included patients who received radiation therapy before prepectoral IBBR were excluded. RESULTS: This systematic review included six articles encompassing 1234 reconstructed breasts. Of them, 391 breasts were subjected to PMRT, while 843 breasts were not subjected. Irradiated breasts were more susceptible to develop wound infection (RR 2.49; 95% 1.43, 4.35; P = 0.001) and capsular contracture (RR 5.17; 95% 1.93, 13.80; P = 0.001) than the non-irradiated breasts. Furthermore, irradiated breasts were more vulnerable to losing implants (RR 2.89; 95% 1.30, 6.39; P = 0.009) than the non-irradiated breast. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the risk of implant extrusion (RR 1.88; 95% 0.20, 17.63; P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prepectorally IBBR and PMRT were more vulnerable to developing poor outcomes. This included a higher risk of breast-related and implant-related adverse events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Authors: Adelyn L Ho; Esta S Bovill; Sheina A Macadam; Scott Tyldesley; Janice Giang; Peter A Lennox Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Mimi R Borrelli; Abra H Shen; Gordon K Lee; Arash Momeni; Michael T Longaker; Derrick C Wan Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: P McGale; C Taylor; C Correa; D Cutter; F Duane; M Ewertz; R Gray; G Mannu; R Peto; T Whelan; Y Wang; Z Wang; S Darby Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 79.321