Early Complications in Prepectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral implant placement for postmastectomy breast reconstruction has increased in recent years. Benefits of prepectoral reconstruction may include lack of animation deformities and reduced postoperative pain, but its complication profile is currently unclear. This study aimed to examine the complication profile of prepectoral tissue expanders (TEs) to determine factors associated with TE loss. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to identify all patients who underwent immediate prepectoral TE reconstruction from January 2018 to June 2021. The decision to use the prepectoral technique was based on mastectomy skin quality and patient comorbidities. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative details were evaluated. Outcomes of interest included TE loss, seroma, hematoma, infection/cellulitis, mastectomy skin flap necrosis requiring revision, and TE exposure. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with TE loss. RESULTS: The study identified 1225 TEs. The most frequent complications were seroma (8.7%, n = 106), infection/cellulitis (8.2%, n = 101), and TE loss (4.2%, n = 51). Factors associated with TE loss in the univariate analysis included ethnicity, history of smoking, body mass index, mastectomy weight, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In the multivariate regression analysis, only mastectomy weight had a positive association with TE loss (odds ratio, 1.001; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction can be performed safely with an acceptable early complication profile. The study data suggest that increasing mastectomy weight is the most significant factor associated with TE loss. Further research examining the quality of the soft tissue envelope and assessing patient-reported outcomes would prove beneficial.

Continuous External Tissue Expansion for Closure of Forehead Flap Donor Site.

Continuous external tissue expansion has been shown to be effective in the management of craniofacial wounds resulting from tumor resection, trauma, and wound dehiscence. Forehead flap donor sites are typically managed with secondary intention healing. However, this can create esthetic problems in pigmented skin because of the tendency to form thick scars. Here, the authors describe the use of continuous external tissue expansion for the management of a paramedian forehead flap donor site. A Dermaclose device was used at the time of forehead flap elevation and removed at the pedicle division and inset. Sufficient skin expansion was achieved for primary closure. The final scar was esthetically pleasing. External tissue expansion is ideal for forehead flap donor sites as the second stage of the operation provides an opportunity for expander removal and wound closure.

Early Complications in Prepectoral Breast Reconstructions with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Preliminary Analysis of Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral tissue expander (TE) placement for two-stage postmastectomy reconstruction is usually performed in conjunction with insertion of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). However, the effects of ADM use on TE loss or other early complications remain unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare early postoperative complications in patients who underwent prepectoral breast implant reconstruction with or without ADM use. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients at their institution who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction from January of 2018 to June of 2021. The primary outcome was TE loss within 90 days of surgery; secondary outcomes included other complications such as infection, TE exposure, mastectomy skin flap necrosis requiring revision, and seroma. RESULTS: Data on 714 patients with 1225 TEs (1060 with ADM and 165 without) were analyzed. Baseline demographics did not differ by ADM use, although mastectomy breast tissue weight was higher in patients without ADM (750.3 g versus 540.8 g; P < 0.001). Rates of TE loss were similar in reconstructions with (3.8%) ADM and without (6.7%; P = 0.09). We also did not find differences in the rates of secondary outcomes between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: ADM use had no statistically significant effect on early complication rates among patients undergoing breast reconstruction with prepectoral TEs. Still, this study was underpowered, and data trended toward statistical significance; thus, larger studies are required in the future. Additional research and randomized studies should focus on larger cohorts and examine long-term complications such as capsular contracture and implant malposition. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Textured versus Smooth Tissue Expanders: A Comparison of Complications in 3526 Breast Reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: Increased understanding of breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma has led to a shift away from textured breast devices. A few small studies have compared the complication rates of textured and smooth tissue expanders (TEs). The aim of this study was to compare complication profiles in patients undergoing two-stage postmastectomy breast reconstruction with either textured or smooth TEs. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of female patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with textured or smooth TEs from 2018 to 2020 at their institution. Rates of seroma, infection/cellulitis, malposition/rotation, exposure, and TE loss were analyzed in the overall cohort and subgroups undergoing prepectoral and subpectoral TE placement. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to decrease the effects of confounders comparing textured and smooth TEs. RESULTS: The authors analyzed 3526 TEs (1456 textured and 2070 smooth). More frequent use of acellular dermal matrix, SPY angiography, and prepectoral TE placement was noted in the smooth TE cohort ( P < 0.001). Univariate analysis suggested higher rates of infection/cellulitis, malposition/rotation, and exposure in smooth TEs (all P < 0.01). Rates of TE loss did not differ. After propensity matching, no differences were noted in infection or TE loss. Prepectoral smooth expanders had increased rates of malposition/rotation. CONCLUSIONS: TE surface type did not affect rates of TE loss, although increased rates of expander malposition were noted in the smooth prepectoral cohort. Further research is needed to examine breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma risk with temporary textured TE exposure to improve decision-making. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCW: Therapeutic, III.

Biologic versus synthetic prosthesis for chest wall reconstruction: a matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes between biologic and synthetic reconstructions after chest wall resection in a matched cohort. METHODS: All patients who underwent reconstruction after full-thickness chest wall resection from 2000 to 2022 were reviewed and stratified by prosthesis type (biologic or synthetic). Biologic prostheses were of biologic origin or were fully absorbable and incorporable. Integer matching was performed to reduce confounding. The study end point was surgical site complications requiring reoperation. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify associated risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 438 patients underwent prosthetic chest wall reconstruction (unmatched: biologic, n = 49; synthetic, n = 389; matched: biologic, n = 46; synthetic, n = 46). After matching, the median (interquartile range) defect size was 83 cm2 (50-142) for the biologic group and 90 cm2 (48-146) for the synthetic group (P = 0.97). Myocutaneous flaps were used in 33% of biologic reconstructions (n = 15) and 33% of synthetic reconstructions (n = 15) in the matched cohort (P = 0.99). The incidence of surgical site complications requiring reoperation was not significantly different between biologic and synthetic reconstructions in the unmatched (3 [6%] vs 29 [7%]; P = 0.99) and matched (2 [4%] vs 4 [9%]; P = 0.68) cohorts. On the multivariable analysis, operative time [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.01; P = 0.006] and operative blood loss (aOR = 1.00, 95% CI, 1.00-1.00]; P = 0.012) were associated with higher rates of surgical site complications requiring reoperation; microvascular free flaps (aOR = 0.03, 95% CI, 0.00-0.42; P = 0.024) were associated with lower rates. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of surgical site complications requiring reoperation was not significantly different between biologic and synthetic prostheses in chest wall reconstructions.

Reconstruction of oncologic upper extremity defects with fibula free flaps has high union rates and excellent functional outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Limb salvage has better functional outcomes than amputation in the upper extremity. This can however be challenging after bony tumor resections. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series of patients who underwent humerus, ulna, or radius reconstruction with a fibula free flap. Data were collected on demographics, oncologic history, surgical details, and complications. Functional outcome measures included the patient's ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL), presence of pain, and musculoskeletal tumor society (MSTS) score. RESULTS: Over a 25-year period, 38 reconstructions were performed. The flap success rate was 97.5%. Bony union was obtained in 19 of 19 (100%) forearm reconstructions and in 15 of 19 (79%) humerus reconstructions (p = 0.10). All 19 forearm reconstruction patients and 18/19 humerus reconstruction patients were able to perform ADLs with no pain or only occasional pain. The MSTS scores were not significantly different between the humerus and forearm cohorts (27.1 vs. 27.3, p = 0.68). Functional outcomes were significantly better in limbs that achieved union (p < 0.001). Recipient and donor site complications occurred in 10 (26.3%) and 5 (13%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologic upper-extremity reconstruction with fibula free flaps has excellent functional outcomes. Bone union is a predictor of superior limb function.

A Cohort Analysis of Early Outcomes After AlloDerm, FlexHD, and SurgiMend Use in Two-Stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently utilized in prepectoral breast reconstruction, but few studies have examined the role of ADM type in complication risk. OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to determine the impact of ADM type on early complication rates in 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction. METHODS: We performed a cohort examination of all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction with ADM support at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2018 to 2021. ADM types utilized included AlloDerm (LifeCell Corporation, Branchburg, NJ), FlexHD (MTF Biologics, Edison, NJ), and SurgiMend (Integra LifeSciences Corporation, Princeton, NJ). Complication rates based on the number of tissue expanders (TEs) were determined for each ADM type. Performance of multivariate logistic regression determined the impact of ADM type on complication risk after accounting for confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 726 patients (1054 TEs: 194 AlloDerm, 93 FlexHD, 767 SurgiMend) were included. The 3 cohorts differed in terms of mastectomy type (nipple-sparing: 23.5% of AlloDerm, 33.3% of FlexHD, 19.1% of SurgiMend, P = .038); ADM perforation (perforated: 94.8% of AlloDerm, 98.2% of FlexHD, 100% of SurgiMend, P < .001); and ADM size (AlloDerm: 153.2 cm2 [37.6], SurgiMend: 198.7 cm2 [10.4], FlexHD: 223.7 cm2 [37.9], P < .001). On univariate examination, no differences existed between ADM types for seroma, infection, exposure, malposition, or TE loss. Additionally, after adjustment for confounders with multivariate regression, no ADM type had higher odds of TE loss. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of prepectoral reconstruction patients, ADM type did not significantly affect the risk of complications. Additional prospective studies are warranted to better evaluate ADM choice for prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Surgical Management of Textured Breast Implants: Assessing Risk and Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Textured implants have been linked to breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. Patients who undergo explantation have options for reconstruction, but data on safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is limited. The purpose of this study was to classify complications and PROs in patients opting for surgical management of textured implants. METHODS: Complication rates and BREAST-Q scores were compared between (i) asymptomatic patients who underwent conversion from textured to smooth implants (n=224), (ii) symptomatic patients who underwent conversion from textured to smooth implants (n=83), (iii) patients who underwent explantation without replacement (n=44), and (iv) patients who underwent replacement with autologous reconstruction (n=33). Linear regression examined PROs controlling for clinical and surgical variables. RESULTS: Overall complication rates in 384 patients (637 implants) differed across groups (p=0.034) with the highest rate (25%) in patients who underwent explantation without replacement. These patients were specifically more impacted by minor complications, notably seroma. Capsulectomy extent did not significantly impact complications. Asymptomatic and symptomatic smooth implant patients had improvements in satisfaction with breasts (<0.05). Autologous reconstruction patients had significant improvements in satisfaction with breasts sustained after 3 months postoperative (p<0.01) and sexual well-being sustained after 6-months postoperative (p<0.05). Patients who underwent removal without replacement had lower physical well-being of the chest scores at ≥1 year than the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Replacement of textured implants with smooth implants or flaps is safe and is associated with improved satisfaction with breasts and quality of life. The degree of capsulectomy does not appear to impact the incidence of perioperative complications.

Air versus Saline in Initial Prepectoral Tissue Expansion: A Comparison of Complications and Perioperative Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: One option to optimize prepectoral tissue expander fill volume while minimizing stress on mastectomy skin flaps is to use air as an initial fill medium, with subsequent exchange to saline during postoperative expansion. The authors compared complications and early patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on fill type in prepectoral breast reconstruction patients. METHODS: Prepectoral breast reconstruction patients who underwent intraoperative tissue expansion with air or saline from 2018 to 2020 were reviewed to assess fill-type utilization. The primary endpoint was expander loss; secondary endpoints included seroma, hematoma, infection/cellulitis, full-thickness mastectomy skin flap necrosis requiring revision, expander exposure, and capsular contracture. PROs were assessed with the BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being of the Chest scale 2 weeks postoperatively. Propensity-matching was performed as a secondary analysis. RESULTS: Of 560 patients (928 expanders) included in the analysis, 372 had devices initially filled with air (623 expanders), and 188 with saline (305 expanders). No differences were observed for overall rates of expander loss (4.7% versus 3.0%, P = 0.290) or overall complications (22.5% versus 17.7%, P = 0.103). No difference in BREAST-Q scores was observed ( P = 0.142). Utilization of air-filled expanders decreased substantially over the last study year. After propensity matching, no differences in loss, other complications, or PROs were observed across cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue expanders initially filled with air seem to have no significant advantage over saline-filled expanders in maintaining mastectomy skin flap viability or PROs, including after propensity matching. These findings can help guide choice of initial tissue expander fill type. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Paravertebral Blocks in Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: Propensity-Matched Analysis of Opioid Consumption and Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The paravertebral block (PVB) is an adjunctive perioperative pain control method for patients undergoing breast reconstruction that may improve perioperative pain control and reduce narcotic use. This study determined the efficacy of preoperative PVBs for perioperative pain management in patients undergoing tissue expander breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction from December of 2017 to September of 2019. Two patients with PVBs were matched using propensity scoring to one no-block patient. Perioperative analgesic use, pain severity scores on days 2 to 10 after discharge, and BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being scores before surgery and at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months after surgery were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The propensity-matched cohort consisted of 471 patients (314 PVB and 157 no block). The PVB group used significantly fewer morphine milligram equivalents than the no-block group (53.7 versus 69.8; P < 0.001). Average daily postoperative pain severity scores were comparable, with a maximum difference of 0.3 points on a 0-point to 4-point scale. BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being scores were significantly higher for the PVB group than the no-block group at 6 weeks after surgery (60.6 versus 51.0; P = 0.015) but did not differ significantly at 2 weeks or 3 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: PVBs may help reduce perioperative opioid requirements but did not reduce pain scores after discharge when used as part of an expander-based reconstruction perioperative pain management protocol. Continued research should examine additional or alternative regional block procedures as well as financial cost and potential long-term impact of PVBs. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Risk of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma in Patients with Textured Tissue Expanders.

BACKGROUND: The association between textured implants and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is well established, but the risk of BIA-ALCL in patients with transient exposure to a textured tissue expander (TE) is not as well documented. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and risk of BIA-ALCL in patients with temporary exposure to a textured TE with subsequent smooth implant placement. METHODS: This single-institution retrospective cohort study included all female patients who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction with placement of a textured TE from 1995 to 2016 with subsequent exchange to a smooth permanent implant. Primary outcome of interest was development of BIA-ALCL. Patients with exposure to textured implants were excluded. Follow-up was determined by last documented visit. The authors calculated summary statistics for exposure time and follow-up intervals. RESULTS: Overall, 3310 patients had temporary exposure to a textured TE with exchange to a smooth implant, totaling 5201 textured TEs. Average textured TE exposure time was 6.7 months (median, 5.8 months). Average follow-up was 6.8 years (median, 6.3 years), ranging from 3.7 months to 18 years. No cases of BIA-ALCL were identified. CONCLUSIONS: As no cases of BIA-ALCL were identified, the risk of BIA-ALCL with short exposure to textured TEs is likely lower than the risk from exposure to permanent textured implants. Although longer follow-up is needed, these results can help counsel patients with previous exposure to textured TEs who are concerned about their risk of BIA-ALCL and can contribute to discussions on potential continued utility of textured TEs. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, IV.

Quality of Life in Breast Reconstruction Patients after Irradiation to Tissue Expander: A Propensity-Matched Preliminary Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tissue expanders (TEs) are routinely placed as a first step in breast reconstruction for women who require postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). The final reconstruction can then be performed with implants or conversion to autologous tissues. The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes and surgical complications in autologous (ABR) versus implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) patients following TE-PMRT. METHODS: The authors performed a propensity score preliminary analysis (1:1 matching, no replacement) in patients undergoing ABR or IBR following TE-PMRT. Matched covariates included age, race/ethnicity, smoking status, body mass index, history of psychiatric diagnosis, and laterality of reconstruction. Outcomes of interest included complications and BREAST-Q scores for Satisfaction with Breasts, Physical Well-Being of the Chest, Sexual Well-Being, and Psychosocial Well-Being domains. RESULTS: Of 341 patients with TE-PMRT, a total of 106 patients were included in the matched analysis: 53 ABR patients and 53 IBR patients. ABR and IBR did not differ significantly in matched baseline, cancer, and surgical characteristics. ABR patients had higher scores for Satisfaction with Breasts (greater than the four-point minimal clinically important difference) at all postreconstruction time points compared with IBR patients ( P < 0.05). There were no significant postoperative differences in other BREAST-Q domains. The incidence of complications after definitive reconstruction did not differ significantly among cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In this matched preliminary analysis, patients who underwent ABR following irradiation to a TE demonstrated superior satisfaction with breast scores compared with IBR patients. Higher powered matched studies are needed to improve shared decision-making for patients who require mastectomy and PMRT as part of their treatment. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Outcomes and Perioperative Risk Factors after Oncologic Free-Flap Scalp Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the risk factors associated with complications after free flap scalp reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to identify patient, scalp defect, and flap characteristics associated with increased risk of surgical complications. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of free-flap scalp reconstruction in oncologic patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2002 to 2017. Data collection included patient, defect, flap, and complication characteristics. Complications were classified into major, defined as complications requiring surgical intervention, and minor, defined as complications requiring conservative treatment. Risk factors and outcome variables were compared using chi-square with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 63 free flaps to the scalp in 58 patients were performed; average follow-up was 3.5 years. Most flaps were muscle-only or musculocutaneous. One-third of patients with free flaps experienced complications (n = 21, 15 major and 6 minor). Examining risk factors for complications, patients with cardiovascular disease were nearly three times more likely to have suffered a major complication than patients without cardiovascular disease (36.7 vs. 12.1%, p = 0.04). This was the only significant risk factor noted. Perioperative radiotherapy, prior scalp surgery, flap type, and recipient vessel selection were found to be nonsignificant risk factors. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular disease may be a significant marker of risk for major complications in patients undergoing free-flap reconstruction of the scalp. This information should be used to help guide perioperative counseling and decision making in this challenging patient population.

Clinical Implications and Management of Non-BIA-ALCL Breast Implant Capsular Pathology.

SUMMARY: The breast implant capsule is a dynamic structure that forms following the implantation of a device. Although normally benign, increased awareness of breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) highlights that disease may arise from the capsule. BIA-ALCL presents as a late seroma or mass but explains few of the late seromas found in breast implant patients. To date, many of these seromas lack a clear cause and are often described as "idiopathic." Several benign and malignant breast implant capsular diseases can cause a late seroma or mass, including breast implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma. Similar to early reports of BIA-ALCL, these conditions are rare and largely limited to case reports or series. The purpose of this special topic is to present a narrative review highlighting capsular abnormalities that contribute to the formation of late seroma or mass in an attempt to broaden the differential diagnosis and help plastic surgeons identify the cause. Specifically, we review the presentation and management of BIA-ALCL, synovial metaplasia, capsular epithelialization, late hematoma, double capsule, breast cancer, squamous cell carcinoma, mesenchymal tumor, and B-cell lymphoma. Although rare, plastic surgeons should consider these capsular conditions as causes of late seromas and masses. Usually, these conditions may be diagnosed by following the National Comprehensive Cancer Network screening guidelines for BIA-ALCL. Thorough evaluation and workup of late seromas and masses may lead to improved characterization of these rare breast implant capsular conditions and improve our understanding of their pathophysiology and management.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Satisfaction and Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Although it is intuitive that nipple-sparing mastectomy in selected patients would result in excellent cosmetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction, studies of clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life are limited and show mixed results. This study aimed to use a propensity score-matching analysis to compare satisfaction and health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients who underwent implant-based reconstruction following bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy. METHODS: A propensity score-matching analysis (1:1 matching, no replacement) was performed comparing patients undergoing nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate bilateral implant-based breast reconstruction. Patients with a history of any radiation therapy were excluded. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, race, smoking history, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, bra size, and history of psychiatric diagnosis. Outcomes of interest included BREAST-Q scores and complications. RESULTS: The authors examined 1371 patients for matching and included 460 patients (nipple-sparing mastectomy, n = 230; skin-sparing mastectomy, n = 230) in the final analyses. The authors found no significant differences in baseline, cancer, and surgical characteristics between matched nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy patients, who also had similar profiles for surgical complications. Interestingly, the authors found that postoperative Satisfaction with Breasts scores and all other health-related quality-of-life domains were stable over a 3-year period and did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with skin-sparing mastectomy, bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy did not improve patient-reported or clinical outcomes when combined with immediate implant-based reconstruction. The impact that nipple-sparing mastectomy may have on breast aesthetics and the ability of the BREAST-Q to gauge an aesthetic result following nipple-sparing mastectomy warrant further investigation. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Association of Radiation Timing with Long-Term Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life in Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy is increasingly used after breast cancer surgery, which may impact patients' postoperative quality of life. This study assessed differences in long-term patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after radiation therapy administered at different stages of implant-based breast reconstruction or with no radiation after surgery. METHODS: In this observational study, long-term outcomes were evaluated for four cohorts of women who completed breast reconstruction and received (1) no radiation, (2) radiation before tissue expander placement, (3) radiation after tissue expander placement, or (4) radiation after permanent implant between 2010 and 2017 at Memorial Sloan Kettering. Satisfaction and health-related quality of life were assessed using the prospectively collected Satisfaction with Breasts and Physical Well-Being of Chest BREAST-Q subscales. Score distributions were examined by radiation exposure status for 3 years after surgery using nonparametric analyses and regression models. RESULTS: Of 2932 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 25.8 percent received radiation during breast cancer treatment, including before tissue expander placement ( n = 239; 8.2 percent), after tissue expander placement ( n = 290; 9.9 percent), and after implant placement ( n = 228; 7.8 percent). Radiotherapy patients had average scores 7 to 9 points lower at all postoperative time points for Satisfaction with Breasts and Physical Well-Being of Chest subscales ( p < 0.001). Although patient-reported outcomes did not differ by radiation timing, there were higher rates of severe capsular contracture with postimplant radiotherapy ( p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation therapy significantly affected patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following implant breast reconstruction through 3 years postoperatively. Patient perception of outcome was unaffected by radiotherapy timing; however, capsular contracture was higher after postimplant radiotherapy, suggesting there may be an advantage to performing radiotherapy before placement of the final reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.