Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM.

Ara A Salibian, Jonathan M Bekisz, Hudson C Kussie, Vishal D Thanik, Jamie P Levine, Mihye Choi, Nolan S Karp
Author Information
  1. Ara A Salibian: Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, N.Y.
  2. Jonathan M Bekisz: Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, N.Y.
  3. Hudson C Kussie: Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, N.Y.
  4. Vishal D Thanik: Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, N.Y.
  5. Jamie P Levine: Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, N.Y.
  6. Mihye Choi: Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, N.Y.
  7. Nolan S Karp: Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, N.Y.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The majority of two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction has been described utilizing acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Although reports of prepectoral breast reconstruction without ADM exist, there is a paucity of comparative studies.
METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients undergoing immediate prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from 2017 to 2019. Short-term reconstructive and aesthetic complications were compared between cases that utilized ADM for support and those that did not.
RESULTS: In total, 76 cases (51 patients) were identified, of which 35 cases utilized ADM and 41 did not. Risk factors and demographics were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of body mass index, which was higher in the ADM cohort (29.3 versus 25.4, = 0.011). Average follow-up length was also longer in patients who received ADM (20.3 versus 12.3 months, < 0.001). Intraoperative expander fill was higher in patients who did not receive ADM (296.8 cm versus 151.4 cm, < 0.001) though final implant size was comparable in both cohorts ( = 0.584). There was no significant difference in the rate of any complication between the ADM and no ADM cohorts (25.7% versus 17.1%, respectively = 0.357), including major mastectomy flap necrosis ( 0.245), major infection ( 1.000), seroma ( 0.620), expander explantation ( 1.000), capsular contracture ( 1.000), implant dystopia ( 1.000), and rippling ( 0.362).
CONCLUSIONS: Immediate two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with tissue expanders has comparable rates of short-term complications with or without ADM support. Safety of prepectoral expander placement without ADM may warrant more selective ADM use in these cases.

References

  1. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 Dec 31;7(12):e2585 [PMID: 32537315]
  2. Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Nov;69(5):516-20 [PMID: 21587037]
  3. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Oct;132(4):725-736 [PMID: 23783060]
  4. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Nov;134(5):932-938 [PMID: 25347629]
  5. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Dec;126(6):1842-1847 [PMID: 21124125]
  6. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981 Mar;67(3):312-7 [PMID: 7232564]
  7. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017 Apr;41(2):275-281 [PMID: 28204936]
  8. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Feb;68(2):162-7 [PMID: 25455288]
  9. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Sep;140(3):432-443 [PMID: 28574950]
  10. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017 Jul 12;5(7):e1371 [PMID: 28831335]
  11. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Feb;137(2):415-421 [PMID: 26818275]
  12. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Aug;124(2):409-418 [PMID: 19644255]
  13. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991 Oct;88(4):635-9; discussion 640-1 [PMID: 1896535]
  14. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Sep;134(3):396-404 [PMID: 25158699]
  15. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):7S-13S [PMID: 29166342]
  16. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jun;137(6):1702-1705 [PMID: 27219226]
  17. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Nov;140(5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction):51S-59S [PMID: 29064922]
  18. Gland Surg. 2017 Dec;6(6):682-688 [PMID: 29302486]
  19. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Sep;146(3):516-525 [PMID: 32842102]
  20. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):43S-48S [PMID: 29166347]
  21. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 May 23;7(5):e2280 [PMID: 31333984]
  22. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017 Aug 8;5(8):e1439 [PMID: 28894660]
  23. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):22S-30S [PMID: 29166344]
  24. Ann Plast Surg. 2005 Sep;55(3):232-9 [PMID: 16106158]
  25. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017 Jul;17(4):266-271 [PMID: 28190760]
  26. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 May 17;7(5):e2213 [PMID: 31333946]
  27. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Aug;138(2):329-337 [PMID: 27064232]
  28. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 May;145(5):1125-1133 [PMID: 32332524]
  29. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Apr;145(4):686e-696e [PMID: 32221195]
  30. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Mar;123(3):807-816 [PMID: 19319043]
  31. Breast J. 2018 Jul;24(4):586-591 [PMID: 29498444]
  32. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60(5):482-9 [PMID: 17399656]
  33. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Oct;144(4):801-807 [PMID: 31568276]
  34. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):4S-5S [PMID: 29166341]
  35. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 Jan 11;7(1):e2103 [PMID: 30859052]
  36. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Feb;145(2):263e-272e [PMID: 31985613]
  37. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 Nov;71(11):1547-1556 [PMID: 30093286]
  38. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Jan;129(1):28-41 [PMID: 22186498]
  39. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Jan;139(1):30-39 [PMID: 28027223]
  40. Gland Surg. 2019 Feb;8(1):11-18 [PMID: 30842923]
  41. ANZ J Surg. 2017 Jun;87(6):493-498 [PMID: 25266930]
  42. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):31S-38S [PMID: 29166345]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0ADM0prepectoralbreastreconstructionwithoutpatientscasesversus1000two-stagecohorts3=expandertissueexpanderscomplicationsutilizedsupporthigher25<001implantcomparablemajorBACKGROUND:majoritydescribedutilizingacellulardermalmatrixAlthoughreportsexistpaucitycomparativestudiesMETHODS:single-institutionretrospectivereviewperformedconsecutiveundergoingimmediate20172019Short-termreconstructiveaestheticcomparednotRESULTS:total7651identified3541Riskfactorsdemographicssimilartwoexceptionbodymassindexcohort294011Averagefollow-uplengthalsolongerreceived2012monthsIntraoperativefillreceive2968 cm1514 cmthoughfinalsize584significantdifferenceratecomplication7%171%respectively357includingmastectomyflapnecrosis245infectionseroma620explantationcapsularcontracturedystopiarippling362CONCLUSIONS:Immediateratesshort-termSafetyplacementmaywarrantselectiveuseNeedSupportPrepectoralBreastReconstruction?ComparingOutcomes

Similar Articles

Cited By (12)