Predicting Final Implant Volume in Two-stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Andrew N Atia, Amanda R Sergesketter, Miranda X Morris, Sonali Biswas, Gloria Zhang, Hannah C Langdell, Andrew W Hollins, Brett T Phillips
Author Information
  1. Andrew N Atia: Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
  2. Amanda R Sergesketter: Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
  3. Miranda X Morris: Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
  4. Sonali Biswas: Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
  5. Gloria Zhang: Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
  6. Hannah C Langdell: Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
  7. Andrew W Hollins: Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
  8. Brett T Phillips: Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

Abstract

Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction remains the most commonly performed reconstructive modality following mastectomy. Although prior studies have explored the relationship between tissue expander (TE) features and permanent implant (PI) size in subpectoral reconstruction, no such study exists in prepectoral reconstruction. This study aims to identify pertinent TE characteristics and evaluate their correlations with PI size for prepectoral implant-based reconstruction.
Methods: This study analyzed patients who underwent two-stage prepectoral tissue expansion for breast reconstruction followed by implant placement. Patient demographics and oncologic characteristics were recorded. TE and PI features were evaluated. Significant predictors for PI volume were identified using linear and multivariate regression analyses.
Results: We identified 177 patients and 296 breast reconstructions that met inclusion criteria. All reconstructions were performed in the prepectoral plane with the majority using acellular dermal matrix (93.8%) and primarily silicone implants (94.3%). Mean TE size was 485.4 cm with mean initial fill of 245.8 cm and mean final fill of 454.4 cm. Mean PI size was 502.9 cm with a differential fill volume (PI-TE) of 11.7 cm. Multivariate analysis identified significant features for PI size prediction, including TE size (R = 0.60; < 0.0001) and TE final fill volume (R = 0.57; < 0.0001). The prediction expression for TE final fill and TE size was calculated as 26.6 + 0.38*(TE final fill) + 0.61*(TE size).
Conclusions: TE size and final expansion volume were significant variables for implant size prediction. With prepectoral implant placement gaining popularity, the predictive formula may help optimize preoperative planning and decision-making in prepectoral reconstructions.

References

  1. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 May 21;6(5):e1790 [PMID: 29922567]
  2. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1966 May;37(5):438-45 [PMID: 5932033]
  3. Ann Plast Surg. 2014 Aug;73(2):141-9 [PMID: 23407253]
  4. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981 Mar;67(3):312-7 [PMID: 7232564]
  5. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Dec;118(7 Suppl):35S-45S [PMID: 17099482]
  6. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 Sep;102(4):1259-65 [PMID: 9734454]
  7. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990 Mar;85(3):368-72 [PMID: 2304987]
  8. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1987;11(1):23-8 [PMID: 3577940]
  9. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Jan;131(1):15-23 [PMID: 23271515]
  10. Clin Plast Surg. 2015 Oct;42(4):405-11 [PMID: 26408432]
  11. Ann Plast Surg. 2019 Jun;82(6S Suppl 5):S399-S403 [PMID: 30570559]
  12. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 Jun 11;6(6):e1797 [PMID: 30276046]
  13. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016 Aug 09;4(8):e831 [PMID: 27622099]
  14. Ann Plast Surg. 2021 Jun 1;86(6S Suppl 5):S585-S592 [PMID: 34100818]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0TEsizePIprepectoralfillreconstructionfinal0implantvolumebreastfeaturesstudyidentifiedreconstructionspredictionTwo-stageimplant-basedperformedtissuecharacteristicspatientsexpansionplacementusingMean4 cmmeansignificantR=<0001remainscommonlyreconstructivemodalityfollowingmastectomyAlthoughpriorstudiesexploredrelationshipexpanderpermanentsubpectoralexistsaimsidentifypertinentevaluatecorrelationsMethods:analyzedunderwenttwo-stagefollowedPatientdemographicsoncologicrecordedevaluatedSignificantpredictorslinearmultivariateregressionanalysesResults:177296metinclusioncriteriaplanemajorityacellulardermalmatrix938%primarilysiliconeimplants943%485initial2458 cm4545029 cmdifferentialPI-TE117 cmMultivariateanalysisincluding6057expressioncalculated266 + 038*+61*Conclusions:variablesgainingpopularitypredictiveformulamayhelpoptimizepreoperativeplanningdecision-makingPredictingFinalImplantVolumePrepectoralBreastReconstruction

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)