Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
ReviewA systematic review of complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction✰
Introduction
The use of implants for reconstruction after mastectomy began over four decades ago when Snyderman and Guthrie first used the Cronin silicone implant for these procedures.1 Initially, implants were placed prepectorally, and only small sizes could be used to avoid excessive tension on the skin with the potential for skin necrosis or implant extrusion. In the decades following, there were numerous published reports of high complication rates with prepectoral placement of tissue expanders and implants, as well as high rates of capsular contracture.2, 3, 4, 5 These findings contributed to a paradigm shift away from prepectoral and toward submuscular implant placement.
Advantages of submuscular implant placement stem from the added layer of tissue between the implant and the mastectomy flap. These include additional protection against implant exposure in cases of wound breakdown, a decrease in visible rippling particularly with saline implants, and a proposed decreased rate of capsular contracture.2, 6 Drawbacks of the submuscular technique include deficiencies in upper pole contour, animation deformity, and increased postoperative pain and length of recovery secondary to muscle dissection.7, 8, 9
The introduction of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in breast reconstruction in 2005 led to several improvements in submuscular reconstruction, including improved definition of the inframammary fold, decreased capsular contracture rates, prevention of implant migration, and decreased tension on mastectomy skin flaps leading to increased initial expansion volumes.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 However, the use of ADM did not address postoperative pain, recovery time, or animation deformity and may be associated with increased rates of infection and seroma.15, 16 Synthetic mesh products have also proven to be safe and effective in implant-based breast reconstruction to address the same problems as those with ADM but are used less frequently in the United States.17
Along with the use of ADM for implant coverage, many refinements in the techniques for oncologic resection and subsequent reconstruction have occurred since the first attempts at prepectoral reconstruction. In light of these advancements, prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has re-emerged as a viable surgical technique after skin or nipple-sparing mastectomy. Supporters posit that these procedures carry less morbidity and provide more natural-looking results. In addition, animation deformity is no longer an issue with prepectoral placement. According to the ASPS Plastic Surgery Statistics Report in 2015, over 106,000 breast reconstruction procedures were performed in the United States. Implant-based reconstructions were the most common procedures, and ADM was used in 53% of the surgeries.18 Despite this impressive scale, the current literature on prepectoral breast reconstruction with ADM is limited.
Systematic reviews on prepectoral breast reconstruction by Salibian et al. and Chatterjee et al. found relatively low pooled complication rates; however, follow-up times and complication rates across studies were inconsistent.19, 20 These reviews mainly included reconstructions incorporating the use of ADM or mesh; outcomes with and without additional implant material have not yet been reviewed. A systematic review was conducted to examine outcomes in postmastectomy patients undergoing breast reconstruction using prepectoral placement of TEs and implants, and then, the complication profiles with and without the use of ADM or synthetic mesh were compared.
Section snippets
Literature search
A broad search of the literature was performed using the PubMed database from inception to March 2017. The database was queried using the following search terms: “breast” and “implant” and “subcutaneous” or “sub-cutaneous” or “prepectoral” or “pre-pectoral.” In addition, the references of relevant studies were reviewed for potential inclusion.
Study selection and data extraction
Studies were considered eligible if they reported on outcomes and complications of breast reconstruction with prepectoral implant or tissue expander
Study characteristics
A total of 550 articles were identified using our search terms and inclusion criteria. After two levels of screening, 27 articles were identified for analysis in our systematic review (see Figure 1). The 27 studies included a total of 1881 breasts or procedures. The majority of articles reported complications according to the number of breasts, as we did in this review. When examining material for implant or tissue expander coverage, there were 893 breasts with ADM, 18 breasts with Vicryl mesh,
Discussion
After initial attempts at prepectoral placement of implants and TEs, there have been many developments that have led surgeons to re-examine prepectoral implant placement as a reconstructive option. These advancements include improved design of implants and TEs, intraoperative perfusion assessment technologies, and fat grafting to augment soft tissue between the skin flap and implant.26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Form-stable silicone implants have been shown to be associated with lower rates of
Financial disclosures/commercial associations
None.
Sources of support/funding
None.
Conflict of interest
None.
References (44)
- et al.
Comparison of subcutaneous versus submuscular expander placement in the first stage of immediate breast reconstruction
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
(2016) - et al.
Pain after breast surgery: a survey of 282 women
Pain
(1996) - et al.
Prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with porcine acellular dermal matrix: a new technique for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
(2015) - et al.
Capsular contracture around saline-filled and textured subcutaneously-placed implants in irradiated and non-irradiated breast cancer patients: five years of monitoring of a prospective trial
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
(2006) - et al.
A Guide to prepectoral breast reconstruction: a new dimension to implant-based breast reconstruction
Clin Breast Cancer
(2017) - et al.
The cost effectiveness of acellular dermal matrix in expander-implant immediate breast reconstruction
J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg
(2014) - et al.
Reconstruction of the female breast following radical mastectomy
Plast Reconstr Surg
(1971) - et al.
Breast reconstruction following mastectomy: a comparison of submuscular and subcutaneous techniques
Plast Reconstr Surg
(1981) - et al.
Breast reconstruction utilizing subcutaneous tissue expansion followed by polyurethane-covered silicone implants: a 6-year experience
Plast Reconstr Surg
(1991) - et al.
Early results of subcutaneous mastectomy with immediate silicone prosthetic implant for carcinoma of the breast
Br J Surg
(1983)
Long-term use of polyurethane breast prostheses: a 14-year experience
Plast Reconstr Surg
Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation
Aesthetic Plast Surg
Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position
Plast Reconstr Surg
Immediate single-stage breast reconstruction using implants and human acellular dermal tissue matrix with adjustment of the lower pole of the breast to reduce unwanted lift
Ann Plast Surg
Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction
Aesthetic Plast Surg
Staged suprapectoral expander/implant reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix following nipple-sparing mastectomy
Plast Reconstr Surg
Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm)
Ann Plast Surg
Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings
Ann Plast Surg
The use of acellular dermal matrices in two-stage expander/implant reconstruction
Plast Reconstr Surg
Updated evidence of acellular dermal matrix use for implant-based breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis
Ann Surg Oncol
Implant-based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP Bra)
Plast Reconstr Surg
Cited by (65)
Prepectoral Direct-To-Implant One-Stage Reconstruction With ADMs: Safety and Outcome in “Thin Patients”
2023, Clinical Breast CancerDo we need acellular dermal matrix in prepectoral breast reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis
2023, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic SurgeryInterest of acellular dermal matrices in immediate breast reconstruction: Comparison of quality of life and complications with and without matrix
2023, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic SurgeryImmediate post-mastectomy prepectoral breast reconstruction with animal derived acellular dermal matrices: A systematic review
2023, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
- ✰
Presented at: ASPS Plastic Surgery the Meeting on October 7th, 2017; Orlando, FL.