2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction and Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: Short-Term Outcomes

      research-article

      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

          Background:

          Prosthetic breast reconstruction in the setting of radiotherapy is associated with poor outcomes. Until recently, prosthetic breast reconstruction was predominantly performed by placing the prosthesis in a subpectoral space. Placement of the prosthesis in a prepectoral space is currently emerging as a simpler, alternative approach to subpectoral placement. The impact of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) on prepectoral reconstruction has not yet been specifically assessed. This study compared the outcomes of patients who underwent immediate, direct-to-implant, or 2-staged, prepectoral breast reconstruction followed by PMRT with those from patients who did not receive PMRT.

          Methods:

          Patients with well-perfused skin flaps and without contraindications, including uncontrolled diabetes-mellitus, previous irradiation, and current tobacco use, were offered the prepectoral approach. Following implant or expander placement, patients underwent planned or unplanned radiotherapy. Complications after each stage of reconstruction were recorded.

          Results:

          Thirty-three patients underwent 52 breast reconstructions via the prepectoral approach. Sixty-five percentage of the breasts were irradiated, including 21% after expander and 44% after implant placement. Patients were followed for a mean of 25.1 ± 6.4 months. Complication rate in irradiated breasts was 5.9% (1 incidence of seroma and 1 incidence of wound dehiscence followed by expander removal) and 0% in nonirradiated breasts. Capsular contracture rate was 0% in both irradiated and nonirradiated breasts.

          Conclusions:

          Immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction followed by PMRT appears to be well tolerated, with no excess risk of adverse outcomes, at least in the short term. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the risk of PMRT in prepectorally reconstructed breasts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction.

          Multiple outcome studies have been published on the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in breast reconstruction with disparate results. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine an aggregate estimate of risks associated with ADM-assisted breast reconstruction. The MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were queried, and relevant articles published up to September 2010 were analyzed based on specific inclusion criteria. Seven complications were studied including seroma, cellulitis, infection, hematoma, skin flap necrosis, capsular contracture, and reconstructive failure. A pooled random effects estimate for each complication and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived. For comparisons of ADM and non-ADM, the pooled random effects odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI were derived. Heterogeneity was measured using the I2 statistic. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled complication rates were seroma (6.9%; 95% CI, 5.3%-8.8%), cellulitis (2.0%; 95% CI, 1.2%-3.1%), infection (5.7%; 95% CI, 4.3%-7.3%), skin flap necrosis (10.9%; 95% CI, 8.7%-13.5%), hematoma (1.3%; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.4%), capsular contracture (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%), and reconstructive failure (5.1%; 95% CI, 3.8%-6.7%). Five studies reported findings for both the ADM and non-ADM patients and were used in the meta-analysis to calculate pooled OR. ADM-assisted breast reconstructions had a higher likelihood of seroma (pooled OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.4-6.2), infection (pooled OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1-6.4), and reconstructive failure (pooled OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.3-6.8) than breast reconstructions without the use of ADM. The relation of ADM use to hematoma (pooled OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 0.8-5.2), cellulitis (pooled OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 0.9-4.3), and skin flap necrosis (pooled OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4) was inconclusive. In the studies evaluated, ADM-assisted breast reconstructions exhibited a higher likelihood of seroma, infection, and reconstructive failure than prosthetic-based breast reconstructions using traditional musculofascial flaps. ADM is associated with a lower rate of capsular contracture. A careful risk/benefit analysis should be performed when choosing to use ADM in implant-based breast reconstruction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Rationale, Indications, and Preliminary Results.

            Implant-based breast reconstruction is currently performed with placement of the implant in a subpectoral pocket beneath the pectoralis major muscle, by means of the dual-plane approach. Although the safety and breast aesthetics of this approach are well recognized, it is not without concerns. Animation deformities and accompanying patient discomfort, which are direct consequences of muscle elevation, can be severe in some patients. Moving the implant prepectorally may eliminate these concerns. For a successful prepectoral approach, the authors advocate use of their bioengineered breast concept, which was detailed in a previous publication. In this report, the authors discuss the rationale for prepectoral implant reconstruction, its indications/contraindications, and preliminary results from over 350 reconstructions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction.

              The Baker classification of capsular contracture remains the most popular and practical method of assessing clinical firmness of the breast after augmentation mammaplasty. This classification system was never intended to describe prosthetic breast reconstruction. A modification of the Baker classification to include classes IA, IB, II, III, and IV has been developed to describe breast reconstruction more accurately. For this modified system, a soft but visible implant (class IB), an implant with mild firmness (class II), and an implant with moderate firmness (class III) could still be considered good or excellent outcomes. Only a class IV classification with an excessively firm and symptomatic breast resulting in a poor aesthetic result would necessarily be considered a poor outcome.
                Bookmark

                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
                28 December 2017
                December 2017
                : 5
                : 12
                : e1631
                Affiliations
                From the [* ]DuPage Medical Group/DMG AESTHETICS, Department of Plastic Surgery, Central DuPage Hospital/Northwestern Medicine, Winfield, Ill.; []Department of Plastic Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, Calif.; []Department of Breast Surgery, Central DuPage Hospital/Northwestern Medicine, Winfield, Ill.; [§ ]Compass Oncology, Portland, Ore.; []Compass Oncology, Vancouver, Wash.; []DuPage Medical Group, Winfield, Ill.; [** ]Peacehealth Medical Group, Vancouver, Wash.; and [†† ]Department of Plastic Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, Calif.
                Author notes
                Allen Gabriel, MD, FACS, Department of Plastic Surgery, 505 NE, 87 th Avenue, Suite 250, Vancouver, WA 98664, E-mail: gabrielallen@ 123456yahoo.com
                Article
                00014
                10.1097/GOX.0000000000001631
                5889451
                29632799
                76753720-4b46-43fc-9802-e77f8c76e1ac
                Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

                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
                : 6 November 2017
                : 13 November 2017
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article