Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using Intraoperative Fluorescence Imaging: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Limited comparability between study groups can generate significant selection and observer bias when evaluating the efficacy of the SPY system and fluorescence imaging for implant-based breast reconstruction. In this study, the authors compared the surgical outcomes and complications during the first stage of reconstruction between reconstructions evaluated intraoperatively with fluorescence imaging using the SPY system and clinical assessment using a matched analysis. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing total mastectomy and immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with TEs from January of 2011 to December of 2020. The rate of complication, time for TE-to-implant exchange, and time to start radiotherapy were compared between groups (intraoperative fluorescence imaging versus clinical assessment) using a propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 198 reconstructions were evaluated. There were 99 reconstructions in each group. The median time for TE-to-implant exchange (140 days versus 185 days; P = 0.476) and time to initiate adjuvant radiotherapy (144 days versus 98 days; P = 0.199) were comparable between groups. The 30-day rate of wound-related complications (21% versus 9%; P = 0.017) and 30-day rate of wound-related unplanned interventions were significantly higher in reconstructions evaluated with clinical assessment when compared with the SPY system (16% versus 5%; P = 0.011). A higher 30-day rate of seroma (19% versus 14%; P = 0.041) and hematoma (8% versus 0%; P = 0.004) were found in reconstructions assessed intraoperatively with the SPY system. CONCLUSIONS: After matching, reconstructions evaluated with fluorescence imaging exhibited a lower incidence of early wound-related complications when compared with clinical evaluation alone. Nonetheless, the Wise pattern for mastectomy was found to be the only independent predictor associated with early wound-related complications. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Wise Pattern versus Transverse Pattern Mastectomy in Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Wise pattern adapted to mastectomy incisions has become a valuable asset for breast reconstruction in patients with large and ptotic breasts. The authors compared the time for exchange, time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy, and complication rates between Wise pattern and transverse incision pattern reconstructions. METHODS: Records of patients who underwent immediate, two-stage, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) between January of 2011 and December of 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Two cohorts were compared according to the incision pattern: Wise pattern versus transverse incision pattern. Complications were compared after propensity score matching. RESULTS: The authors initially analyzed 393 two-stage immediate IBBRs in 239 patients [91 IBBRs (23.2%) in the Wise pattern group and 302 (76.8%) in the transverse pattern group]. Expansion time (53 days versus 50 days, P = 0.9), time for tissue expander-to-implant exchange (154 versus 175 days, P = 0.547), and time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy (144 days versus 126 days, P = 0.616) were not different between groups. Before propensity score matching, the 30-day rate of wound-related complications (32% versus 10%, P < 0.001) and the 30-day rate of wound complications requiring excision/débridement and closure procedures (20% versus 7%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the Wise pattern group. After propensity score matching, the 30-day rate of wound complications was persistently higher (25% versus 10%, P = 0.03) in the Wise pattern group. CONCLUSIONS: The Wise pattern mastectomy independently increases the incidence of wound-related complications versus only transverse patterns during two-stage IBBR, even after propensity score matching. Delayed tissue expander placement may improve the safety profile of this procedure. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Subpectoral versus prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction: A propensity score-matched analysis of 30-day morbidity and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of patients undergoing total mastectomy in the US opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). A two-stage reconstruction with tissue expander (TE) remains the most common technique. Since the implementation of ADMs, a prepectoral approach has gained popularity and is becoming the standard of care. Herein, we compared the surgical and postoperative outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage IBBR. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed between January 2011 and December 2020. We included female patients undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR. The primary outcomes of this study were to compare the 30-day morbidity and the overall rate of complications during the first and second stages of reconstruction, and to compare the time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Propensity score matching was implemented. RESULTS: After matching, 154 reconstructions were analyzed, 77 in each group. The two matched groups exhibited comparable (p > 0.05) characteristics for all analyzed demographic and intraoperative independent variables. Reconstructions in the prepectoral group had a shortened median time for drain removal (13-days vs. 15-days, p = 0.001). The intraoperative expansion volumes were higher in the prepectoral group (300 ml versus 200 ml, p = 0.025). The 30-day morbidity and first- and second-stage complication rates were not significantly different between groups. The time to start postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) was not significantly different between groups (134-days versus 126.5-days, p = 0.58). CONCLUSION: Prepectoral and subpectoral TE placement had comparable complication rates during the first and second stages of IBBR. Timing for TE-to-Implant exchange and initiation of PMRT were comparable between the two approaches.

Simultaneous Fat Grafting During Tissue Expander-to-Implant Exchange: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most common technique for breast reconstruction. The primary resource for correcting deformities, once patients have achieved an adequate volume with two-stage IBBR, is autologous fat grafting. We compared the surgical outcomes of simultaneous fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange (SFG + TtIE) versus no fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange (No-FGX). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all consecutive patients undergoing two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with TE from January 2011 to December 2020. Propensity score matching was implemented to optimize comparability. The control group did not receive fat grafting at the time of TE-to-implant exchange. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 196 reconstructions were evaluated, 98 in each group. Reconstructions in the SFG + TtIE received larger implants during exchange in comparison with the No-FGX group (539 ± 135.1-cc versus 495.97 ± 148-cc, p=0.035). The mean volume of fat lipoinjected during TE-to-implant exchange in the SFG + TtIE group was 88.79 ± 41-ml. A higher proportion of reconstructions in the SFG + TtIE group underwent additional fat grafting after exchange versus the No-FGX group (19% versus 9%, p = 0.041). After propensity score matching, only the rate of fat necrosis after exchange was significantly higher in the SFG + TtIE group (10% versus 2%, p = 0.017). The rate of breast cancer recurrence (3% versus 5%, p = 1.00) was comparable between the groups. CONCLUSION: SFG + TtIE is a safe procedure to improve the envelope of reconstructed breasts during two-stage IBBR. SFG + TtIE does not increase the rate of periprosthetic infection or wound-related complication versus no fat grafting during TE-to-implant exchange, but increases the rate of fat necrosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: Therapeutic study. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.