nach oben

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Erschienen in:

09.06.2020 | Review

Meta-analysis of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: guide to patient selection and current outcomes

verfasst von: Olivia Abbate, Nikki Rosado, Nikhil Sobti, Brittany L. Vieira, Eric C. Liao

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Ausgabe 3/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

This meta-analysis provides a large-scale comparison of prepectoral vs. subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction, with primary outcomes of patient safety and efficacy.

Methods

Literature review was performed via PRISMA criteria, 33 studies met inclusion criteria for prepectoral review and 13 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Patient characteristics and per-breast complications were collected. Data were analyzed using Cochrane RevMan and IBM SPSS.

Results

In 4692 breasts of 3014 patients that underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction, rippling was observed as the most common complication, followed by seroma and skin flap necrosis. Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant decrease in odds of skin flap necrosis and capsular contracture in prepectoral groups compared to subpectoral groups. Odds of infection, seroma, and hematoma were equal between the two groups.

Conclusions

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has surged in popularity in recent years. This review and large-scale analysis corroborates current literature reporting a favorable safety profile with emphasis on patient selection. Variability in skin flap thickness and vascularity mandates thoughtful selection of patients whose overall health and intra-operative skin flap assessment can tolerate a muscle-sparing reconstruction.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, Disa JJ, Pusic AL, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, Matros E (2013) A paradigm shift in US breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(1):15–23PubMedCrossRef

Manrique OJ, Banuelos J, Abu-Ghname A, Nguyen MD, Tran NV, Martinez-Jorge J, Harless C, Sharaf B, Jakub JW, Degnim AC et al (2019) Surgical outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral ibbr in young women. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 7(3):e2119PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Manrique OJ, Kapoor T, Banuelos J, Jacobson SR, Martinez-Jorge J, Nguyen MT, Tran NV, Harless CA, Degnim AC, Jakub JW (2019) Single-stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: a comparison between subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement. Ann Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.GOX.0000558354.18596.c6 CrossRefPubMed

Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, Storm-Dickerson TL, Pope N, Rice J, Gabriel A (2017) Prepectoral IBBR and postmastectomy radiotherapy: short-term outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5(12):e1631PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Becker H, Lind JG 2nd, Hopkins EG (2015) Immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction using a vertical incision. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3(6):e412PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Bettinger LN, Waters LM, Reese SW, Kutner SE, Jacobs DI (2017) Comparative study of prepectoral and subpectoral expander-based breast reconstruction and Clavien IIIb Score outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5(7):e1433PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Woo A, Harless C, Jacobson SR (2017) Revisiting an old place: single-surgeon experience on post-mastectomy subcutaneous IBBR. Breast J 23(5):545–553CrossRefPubMed

Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, Sordi S, Kothari A, Kovacs T, Lo Torto F, Cigna E, Calabrese C, Ribuffo D (2019) Evaluation of prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with TiLoop bra mesh for breast reconstruction: a prospective study on long-term and patient-reported BREAST-Q outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(1):1e–9eCrossRefPubMed

Salibian AA, Frey JD, Choi M, Karp NS (2016) Subcutaneous IBBR with acellular dermal matrix/mesh: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4(11):e1139PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

10.

Jones G, Yoo A, King V, Jao B, Wang H, Rammos C, Elwood E (2017) Prepectoral immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with anterior alloderm coverage. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(6S):31S–38SCrossRefPubMed

11.

Reitsamer R, Peintinger F, Klaassen-Federspiel F, Sir A (2019) Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with complete ADM or synthetic mesh coverage–36-months follow-up in 200 reconstructed breasts. Breast 48:32–37CrossRefPubMed

12.

Tousimis E, Haslinger M (2018) Overview of indications for nipple sparing mastectomy. Gland Surg 7(3):288–300PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

13.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):e1–e34PubMedCrossRef

14.

Higgins JP, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, vol 4. Wiley, Hoboken

15.

Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T (2014) Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 14(135):1–13

16.

Nealon KP, Weitzman RE, Sobti N, Jimenez RB, Ehrlichman R, Faulkner HR, Gadd M, Specht M, Austen WG, Liao EC (2020) Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: safety outcome endpoints and delineation of risk factors. Plast Reconstr Surg 145:898e–908eCrossRefPubMed

17.

Sinnott CJ, Persing SM, Pronovost M, Hodyl C, McConnell D, Ott Young A (2018) Impact of postmastectomy radiation therapy in prepectoral versus subpectoral IBBR. Ann Surg Oncol 25(10):2899–2908CrossRefPubMed

18.

Chandarana MN, Jafferbhoy S, Marla S, Soumian S, Narayanan S (2018) Acellular dermal matrix in implant-based immediate breast reconstructions: a comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral approach. Gland Surg 7(Suppl 1):S64–S69PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

19.

Tasoulis M-K, Iqbal F, Cawthorn S, MacNeill F, Vidya R (2017) Subcutaneous implant breast reconstruction: time to reconsider? Eur J Surg Oncol 43(9):1636–1646CrossRefPubMed

20.

Rebowe RE, Allred LJ, Nahabedian MY (2018) The evolution from subcutaneous to prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6(6):e1797PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

21.

Chun YS, Verma K, Rosen H, Lipsitz S, Morris D, Kenney P, Eriksson E (2010) IBBR using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 125(2):429–436CrossRefPubMed

22.

Breuing KH, Colwell AS (2007) Inferolateral AlloDerm hammock for implant coverage in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 59(3):250–255CrossRefPubMed

23.

Spear SL, Sher SR, Al-Attar A, Pittman T (2014) Applications of acellular dermal matrix in revision breast reconstruction surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 133(1):1–10CrossRefPubMed

24.

Ter Louw RP, Nahabedian MY (2017) Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(5S):51S–59SPubMedCrossRef

25.

Nahabedian M, Spear S (2011) Acellular dermal matrix for secondary procedures following prosthetic breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J 31(7Supplement):38S–50SCrossRefPubMed

26.

Li L, Su Y, Xiu B, Huang X, Chi W, Hou J, Zhang Y, Tian J, Wang J, Wu J (2019) Comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomies: a systematic review and meta analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.05.015 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Lentz R, Alcon A, Sbitany H (2019) Correction of animation deformity with subpectoral to prepectoral implant exchange. Gland Surg 8(1):75–81PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

28.

Wormer BA, Valmadrid AC, Ganesh Kumar N, Al Kassis S, Rankin TM, Kaoutzanis C, Higdon KK (2019) Reducing expansion visits in immediate IBBR: a comparative study of prepectoral and subpectoral expander placement. Plast Reconstr Surg 144(2):276–286CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kaplan J, Wagner RD, Braun TL, Chu C, Winocour SJ (2019) Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Seminars in plastic surgery. Thieme Medical Publishers, New York, pp 236–239

30.

Nahabedian MY, Cocilovo C (2017) Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction: a comparison between prepectoral and partial subpectoral techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(6S):22S–30SCrossRefPubMed

31.

Kim SE (2019) Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Yeungnam Univ J Med 26(3):201–207CrossRef

32.

Harless CA, Jacobson SR (2016) Tailoring through technology: a retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience with implant-based breast reconstruction before and after implementation of laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography. Breast J 22(3):274–281CrossRefPubMed

33.

Newman MI, Samson MC, Tamburrino JF et al (2010) Intraoperative laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography for the evaluation of mastectomy flaps in immediate breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 26:487–492CrossRefPubMed

34.

Sorkin M, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Kozlow JH, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG (2017) Acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander/implant breast reconstruction: a multicenter assessment of risks and benefits. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(6):1091–1100PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

35.

Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R (2017) Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(3):432–443CrossRefPubMed

36.

Chatterjee A, Nahabedian MY, Gabriel A, Macarios D, Parekh M, Wang F, Griffin L, Sigalove S (2018) Early assessment of post-surgical outcomes with pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: a literature review and meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol 117(6):1119–1130CrossRefPubMed

37.

Copeland-Halperin LR, Yemc L, Emery E, Collins D, Liu C, Mesbahi AN, Venturi ML (2019) Evaluating postoperative narcotic use in prepectoral versus dual-plane breast reconstruction following mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 7(2):e2082PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

38.

Pandey S, Chittoria RK, Mohapatra DP, Friji M, Sivakumar DK (2017) Mnemonics for gillies principles of plastic surgery and it importance in residency training programme. Indian J Plast Surg 50(01):114–115PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

39.

Schnarrs RH, Carman CM, Tobin C, Chase SA, Rossmeier KA (2016) Complication rates with human acellular dermal matrices: retrospective review of 211 consecutive breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4(11):e1118PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

40.

Banuelos J, Abu-Ghname A, Vyas K, Sharaf B, Nguyen MT, Harless C, Manrique OJ, Martinez-Jorge J, Tran NV (2019) Should obesity be considered a contraindication for prepectoral breast reconstruction? Plast Reconstr Surg 145:619–627CrossRef

41.

Zhu L, Mohan AT, Abdelsattar JM, Wang Z, Vijayasekaran A, Hwang SM, Tran NV, Saint-Cyr M (2016) Comparison of subcutaneous versus submuscular expander placement in the first stage of immediate breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69(4):e77–86CrossRefPubMed

42.

Mirhaidari SJ, Azouz V, Wagner DS (2019) Prepectoral versus subpectoral direct to implant immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 84:263–270CrossRef

43.

Holzgreve W, Beller FK (1987) Surgical complications and follow-up evaluation of 163 patients with subcutaneous mastectomy. Aesthetic Plast Surg 11(1):45–48CrossRefPubMed

44.

Nahabedian MY (2012) Acellular dermal matrices in primary breast reconstruction: principles, concepts, and indications. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(5S-2):44S–53SCrossRefPubMed

45.

Schmitz M, Bertram M, Kneser U, Keller AK, Horch RE (2013) Experimental total wrapping of breast implants with acellular dermal matrix: a preventive tool against capsular contracture in breast surgery? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66(10):1382–1389CrossRefPubMed

46.

Sobti N, Weitzman R, Nealon K, Jimenez R, Gfrerer L, Mattos D, Liao E (2020) Evaluation of capsular contracture following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Sci Rep 10(1):1137PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

47.

Nahabedian MY (2018) Current approaches to prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 142(4):871–880CrossRefPubMed

48.

Gabriel A, Sigalove S, Sigalove NM, Storm-Dickerson TL, Rice J, Pope N, Maxwell GP (2018) Prepectoral revision breast reconstruction for treatment of implant-associated animation deformity: a review of 102 reconstructions. Aesthet Surg J 38(5):519–526PubMedCrossRef

49.

Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O’Connor EA (2015) Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(6):1540–1544PubMedCrossRef

50.

Holland MC, Lentz R, Sbitany H (2019) Surgical correction of breast animation deformity with implant pocket conversion to a prepectoral plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 145:632–642CrossRef

51.

Kobraei EM, Cauley R, Gadd M, Austen WG Jr, Liao EC (2016) Avoiding breast animation deformity with pectoralis-sparing subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4(5):e708PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

52.

Kim JY, Qiu CS, Chiu W-K, Feld LN, Mioton LM, Kearney A, Fracol M (2019) A quantitative analysis of animation deformity in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 144(2):291–301CrossRefPubMed

53.

Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, Storm-Dickerson TL, Pope N, Rice J, Gabriel A (2017) Prepectoral IBBR: rationale, indications, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(2):287–294CrossRefPubMed

54.

Keehn A, Olson D, Dort J, Parker S, Anderes S, Headley L, Quan M (2019) Same-day surgery for mastectomy patients in Alberta: a perioperative care pathway and quality improvement initiative. Ann Surg Oncol 26(10):3354–3360CrossRefPubMed

55.

Case C, Johantgen M, Steiner C (2001) Outpatient mastectomy: clinical, payer, and geographic influences. Health Serv Res 36(5):869–86984PubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Meta-analysis of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: guide to patient selection and current outcomes
verfasst von: Olivia Abbate
Nikki Rosado
Nikhil Sobti
Brittany L. Vieira
Eric C. Liao
Publikationsdatum: 09.06.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Ausgabe 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05722-2

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

17.04.2024 | Mammakarzinom | Nachrichten

Springer Medizin

Meta-analysis of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: guide to patient selection and current outcomes

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Adjuvante Brustkrebstherapie: Doppelt hält besser

Manche Gestagene können das Risiko für Meningeome erhöhen

Einladung zum PSA-Screening senkt die Krebssterblichkeit

Chemotherapie mit Hindernissen

Update Onkologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2020

Purposeful surgical delay and the coronavirus pandemic: how will black breast cancer patients fare?

N083E (Alliance): long-term outcomes of patients treated in a pilot phase II study of docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and lapatinib as adjuvant therapy for early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer

The association of body composition parameters and adverse events in women receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer

The bottom line for lesion localization in breast cancer

Impact of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and endocrine therapy on sick leave in women with early-stage breast cancer during a 5-year period: a population-based cohort study

The prognostic significance of BMI1 expression in invasive breast cancer is dependent on its molecular subtypes

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Adjuvante Brustkrebstherapie: Doppelt hält besser

Manche Gestagene können das Risiko für Meningeome erhöhen

Einladung zum PSA-Screening senkt die Krebssterblichkeit

Chemotherapie mit Hindernissen

Update Onkologie