Tissue Expansion after Non-Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: A Comparative Study of Expansion Courses of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement with Acellular Dermal Matrix.

Daiwon Jun, Jin Kwan Kim, Byung Yeun Kwon, Young Jin Kim, Ji Young Rhu, Kwan Ho Lee, Jung Ho Lee
Author Information
  1. Daiwon Jun: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 07345, Korea. ORCID
  2. Jin Kwan Kim: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 07345, Korea.
  3. Byung Yeun Kwon: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 07345, Korea.
  4. Young Jin Kim: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 07345, Korea.
  5. Ji Young Rhu: Department of Surgery, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 07345, Korea. ORCID
  6. Kwan Ho Lee: Department of Surgery, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 07345, Korea.
  7. Jung Ho Lee: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 07345, Korea. ORCID

Abstract

Although skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy has been popular in the treatment of breast cancer, the radical excision of breast tissue is unavoidable in certain circumstances. However, the ability of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to expand remains questionable, and this situation may further hinder tissue expansion. From October 2017 to January 2020, patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expander placement using ADM whose initial fill volume was less than 50 mL were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcomes were the number of visits and number of days required to complete the expansion, and the secondary outcomes were the amount of postoperative expansions, expander fill ratio and expander volume. Between the prepectoral group ( = 26) and subpectoral group ( = 39), the mean number of days (81.46 days versus 88.64 days, = 0.365) and mean number of visits (5.08 versus 5.69, = 0.91) required to complete expansion exhibited no significant differences. Additionally, there were no significant differences in the mean amount of postoperative expansion (314.23 mL versus 315.38 mL, = 0.950), the mean final volume (353.08 mL versus 339.62 mL, = 0.481) or the mean final volume ratio (0.89 versus 0.86, = 0.35) between the two groups. Therefore, we suggest that prepectoral tissue expander placement after conventional mastectomy can be a valid option.

Keywords

References

  1. Ann Surg. 2010 Apr;251(4):632-9 [PMID: 20224371]
  2. Breast J. 2013 Nov-Dec;19(6):571-81 [PMID: 22284266]
  3. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Aug;144(2):276-286 [PMID: 31348326]
  4. In Vivo. 2021 Sep-Oct;35(5):2739-2746 [PMID: 34410963]
  5. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Dec;126(6):1842-1847 [PMID: 21124125]
  6. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 May;131(5):969-984 [PMID: 23629079]
  7. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jul;134(1 Suppl):12S-17S [PMID: 25057743]
  8. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Dec;124(6):1743-1753 [PMID: 19952629]
  9. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Feb;137(2):415-421 [PMID: 26818275]
  10. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016 Apr;69(4):e77-86 [PMID: 26922050]
  11. Can J Plast Surg. 2012 Summer;20(2):75-89 [PMID: 23730154]
  12. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Dec;189(6):1612-8; discussion 1618-9 [PMID: 14710083]
  13. Breast. 2017 Aug;34 Suppl 1:S82-S84 [PMID: 28673535]
  14. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021 Feb;45(1):51-60 [PMID: 32860077]
  15. Ann Plast Surg. 2004 Feb;52(2):188-94 [PMID: 14745271]
  16. Eplasty. 2014 Nov 11;14:e42 [PMID: 25525481]
  17. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012 Sep;65(9):1199-203 [PMID: 22542703]
  18. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018 Aug;18(4):e703-e711 [PMID: 29275104]
  19. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Nov;128(5):1005-1014 [PMID: 21738086]
  20. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Sep;140(3):432-443 [PMID: 28574950]
  21. Aesthet Surg J. 2018 Apr 6;38(5):519-526 [PMID: 29365064]
  22. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jan;127(1):41-46 [PMID: 21200198]
  23. Ann Plast Surg. 2013 Jan;70(1):103-10 [PMID: 21862916]
  24. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2013 Oct;47(5):344-9 [PMID: 23547540]
  25. Gland Surg. 2019 Feb;8(1):43-52 [PMID: 30842927]
  26. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Feb;139(2):287-294 [PMID: 28121858]
  27. Aesthet Surg J. 2017 May 1;37(5):531-536 [PMID: 28158447]
  28. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Oct;120(5):1276-1280 [PMID: 17898600]
  29. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Jan;131(1):15-23 [PMID: 23271515]
  30. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Nov;130(5 Suppl 2):44S-53S [PMID: 23096984]
  31. Arch Plast Surg. 2019 Jan;46(1):34-38 [PMID: 30685939]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0=0tissueexpansionmLmeanversusbreastexpandervolumenumberdaysmastectomyADMplacementfilloutcomesvisitsrequiredcompleteamountpostoperativeratioprepectoralgroup508significantdifferencesfinalTissueExpansionAlthoughskin-nipple-sparingpopulartreatmentcancerradicalexcisionunavoidablecertaincircumstancesHoweverabilityacellulardermalmatrixexpandremainsquestionablesituationmayhinderOctober2017January2020patientsunderwentimmediatereconstructionusingwhoseinitialless50retrospectivelyreviewedprimarysecondaryexpansions26subpectoral39814688643656991exhibitedAdditionally314233153895035333962481898635twogroupsThereforesuggestconventionalcanvalidoptionNon-Skin-SparingMastectomy:ComparativeStudyCoursesPrepectoralSubpectoralExpanderPlacementAcellularDermalMatrixneoplasmsmammaplasty

Similar Articles

Cited By