Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Jordan Kaplan, Ryan D Wagner, Tara L Braun, Carrie Chu, Sebastian J Winocour
Author Information
  1. Jordan Kaplan: Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
  2. Ryan D Wagner: Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
  3. Tara L Braun: Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
  4. Carrie Chu: Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
  5. Sebastian J Winocour: Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Abstract

Prepectoral breast reconstruction was first done in the early 1960s; however, while initial results were promising, high complication rates led surgeons to move toward submuscular implant placement. We soon came to find that submuscular implant placement was not without its own set of drawbacks. Surgeons have since revisited the efficacy of prepectoral breast reconstruction in light of new surgical and technological advances. Following these advancements, complication profiles for prepectoral breast reconstruction have drastically improved. Despite this change, surgeons recognize that prepectoral implant placement is not for everyone and patient selection is critical to success. As increasing numbers of these procedures continue to be done, we must now look to conduct direct comparisons between submuscular and prepectoral breast implant placement so that surgeons can make evidence-based decisions on patient selection and operative planning.

Keywords

References

  1. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991 Oct;88(4):635-9; discussion 640-1 [PMID: 1896535]
  2. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Jun;135(6):1540-4 [PMID: 26017590]
  3. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016 Jan 07;3(12):e574 [PMID: 26893999]
  4. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016 Nov 23;4(11):e1139 [PMID: 27975034]
  5. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982 Feb;69(2):195-208 [PMID: 7054790]
  6. Ann Plast Surg. 2008 Nov;61(5):494-9 [PMID: 18948774]
  7. Breast J. 2017 Sep;23(5):545-553 [PMID: 28295975]
  8. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009 Jan;33(1):44-8 [PMID: 19052809]
  9. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981 Mar;67(3):312-7 [PMID: 7232564]
  10. Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Apr;68(4):346-56 [PMID: 22421476]
  11. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1971 Jun;47(6):565-7 [PMID: 5088650]
  12. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Jul;132(1):8e-19e [PMID: 23806958]
  13. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017 Dec 28;5(12):e1631 [PMID: 29632799]
  14. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Feb;68(2):162-7 [PMID: 25455288]
  15. J Int Med Res. 2018 Feb;46(2):626-636 [PMID: 29332418]
  16. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015 Jul 08;3(6):e412 [PMID: 26180713]
  17. Ann Plast Surg. 2006 Jul;57(1):1-5 [PMID: 16799299]
  18. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):49S-52S [PMID: 29166348]
  19. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Feb;139(2):287-294 [PMID: 28121858]
  20. Semin Plast Surg. 2004 May;18(2):65-9 [PMID: 20574484]
  21. Breast J. 2016 May;22(3):274-81 [PMID: 26899399]
  22. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Feb;23(2):600-10 [PMID: 26438439]
  23. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008 May;32(3):418-25 [PMID: 18338102]
  24. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Aug;138(2):329-37 [PMID: 27064232]
  25. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016 Jan 07;3(12):e577 [PMID: 26894002]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0breastprepectoralreconstructionimplantplacementsurgeonssubmuscularPrepectoraldonecomplicationpatientselectionfirstearly1960showeverinitialresultspromisinghighratesledmovetowardsooncamefindwithoutsetdrawbacksSurgeonssincerevisitedefficacylightnewsurgicaltechnologicaladvancesFollowingadvancementsprofilesdrasticallyimprovedDespitechangerecognizeeveryonecriticalsuccessincreasingnumbersprocedurescontinuemustnowlookconductdirectcomparisonscanmakeevidence-baseddecisionsoperativeplanningBreastReconstructionsubcutaneousapproach

Similar Articles

Cited By