7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Abstract 159: Deformity After Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A Clinical Outcomes And Differential Costs Analysis

      abstract

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy has regained popularity over subpectoral implant placement in recent years. With the advent of novel tissue replacement matrices and tissue perfusion assessment technologies, prepectoral implant placement has been shown to confer multiple advantages over subpectoral placement, such as reduced animation deformity, decreased pain, and improved muscular function. However, prepectoral implant placement does carry certain disadvantages such as contour deformity and rippling. This study evaluated deformity and revision surgery after prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction in post-mastectomy patients. Methods: This was an Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective analysis of mastectomy patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction at our institution between October 2016 and July 2019. Medical records were reviewed for patients’ clinical/demographic characteristics, surgeries, outcomes/revisions, and surgical charges. Two-tailed chi square tests and Student’s t test analyses were used where appropriate to compare prepectoral and subpectoral implant groups. Hierarchical multivariate regression was used to generate crude and adjusted odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for outcomes data. The two-tailed threshold for statistical significance was set at p values < 0.05. Results: One-hundred-eighty patients (296 breasts) met inclusion criteria during the study period, of whom, 76 (42.2%) received prepectoral implants and 104 (57.8%) received subpectoral implants. Mean follow-up was 212 days for patients with prepectoral implants and 203 days for subpectoral implants. After adjusting for clinical and demographic factors, a significantly-greater proportion of prepectoral implants developed skin rippling/wrinkling when compared to subpectorally-placed implants (46.5% versus 10.4%, p<0.0001). Similarly, prepectorally-placed implants demonstrated significantly-higher rates of superior pole contour deformity (59.4% versus 38.0%, p=0.02) than subpectoral implants. However, adjusted capsular contracture rates were similar between prepectoral and subpectoral implant cohorts. A significantly-greater proportion of patients with prepectoral implants received fat grafting upon initial implant placement (75.4% versus 37.8%, p<0.0001) as well as revision fat grafting (78.3% versus 42.17%, p=0.03). The mean number of revision surgeries for prepectoral implants was 1.4 (standard deviation: 0.8), which was significantly greater than the mean number of revision surgeries for subpectoral implants was 0.9 (standard deviation: 0.5; p=0.001). Total revision surgery(ies) costs were greater in patients with prepectoral implants than those with subpectoral implants, though this difference reached borderline significance ($3154 versus $1636 respectively, p=0.05). Lastly, upon multivariate hierarchical regression of individual breasts adjusting for anatomic placement of the implant (prepectoral versus subpectoral), lower body mass index independently predicted prepectoral implant contour deformity/rippling (odds ratio: 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.2-1.8, p=0.02). Conclusion: In our cohort, prepectoral implants were associated with greater postoperative rippling/contour deformity and revision costs than subpectoral implants. Such information could help inform decision-making regarding breast reconstruction, when weighed against previous data demonstrating improved quality of life/decreased pain and narcotic-use following prepectoral placement. Further study is required to comprehensively evaluate cost-effectiveness of prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based reconstruction, taking into consideration both long-term quality of life and costs.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
          Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
          GOX
          Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
          Wolters Kluwer Health
          2169-7574
          April 2020
          13 May 2020
          : 8
          : 4 Suppl
          : 107-107
          Affiliations
          [1]Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
          Article
          00158
          10.1097/01.GOX.0000667692.59933.56
          7224804
          702c4e0a-c560-42c2-a6c7-7871c9bbf8f1
          Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. All rights reserved.

          This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

          History
          Categories
          PSRC Abstract Supplement
          Custom metadata
          TRUE

          Comments

          Comment on this article