A Single-center Comparison of Surgical Outcomes following Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction.
Karie Villanueva, Harsh Patel, Durga Ghosh, Alexandra Klomhaus, Ginger Slack, Jaco Festekjian, Andrew Da Lio, Charles Tseng
Author Information
Karie Villanueva: From the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.
Harsh Patel: From the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.
Durga Ghosh: Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif.
Alexandra Klomhaus: Department of Medicine Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif.
Ginger Slack: From the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.
Jaco Festekjian: From the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.
Andrew Da Lio: From the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.
Charles Tseng: From the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.
Background: Prepectoral implant placement continues to gain widespread acceptance as a safe and effective option for breast reconstruction. Current literature demonstrates comparable rates of complications and revisions between prepectoral and subpectoral placement; however, these studies are underpowered and lack long-term follow-up. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent immediate two-staged tissue expander or direct-to-implant breast reconstruction at a single center from January 2017 to March 2021. Cases were divided into prepectoral and subpectoral cohorts. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications, aesthetic deformities, and secondary revisions. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models were performed to compare the demographic characteristics and outcomes between the two cohorts. Results: We identified 996 breasts (570 patients), which were divided into prepectoral (391 breasts) and subpectoral (605 breasts) cohorts. There was a higher rate of complications ( < 0.001) and aesthetic deformities ( = 0.02) with prepectoral breast reconstruction. Secondary revisions were comparable between the two cohorts. Multivariable regression analysis confirmed that prepectoral reconstruction was associated with an increased risk of complications (odds ratio 2.39, < 0.001) and aesthetic deformities (odds ratio 1.62, = 0.003). Conclusions: This study evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing prepectoral or subpectoral breast reconstruction from a single center with long-term follow-up. Prepectoral placement was shown to have an inferior complication and aesthetic profile compared with subpectoral placement, with no difference in secondary revisions. These findings require validation with a well-designed randomized controlled trial to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.
