A Comparative Study of Secondary Procedures after Subpectoral and Prepectoral Single-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most commonly used procedure to reconstruct the breast after mastectomy. The advantages and disadvantages of subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement remain a matter of debate. This study compares the need for secondary aesthetic procedures between prepectoral and subpectoral IBR. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent subpectoral or prepectoral IBR between 2015 and 2018 under a single surgeon at a tertiary breast unit. The primary endpoint was the number of secondary procedures performed to improve the aesthetic outcome. Secondary endpoints included the number of secondary procedures during the first year. RESULTS: A total of 271 one-stage IBRs were performed (subpectoral, n = 128 in 74 patients; prepectoral, n = 143 in 84 patients). Overall, more patients required secondary procedures in the subpectoral group (36.5% versus 19%; P = 0.014), although through longer follow-up. The most common procedures were pocket revision and implant exchange [11.7% versus 3.5% ( P = 0.010); 11.7% versus 4.2% ( P = 0.021)], whereas fat grafting was similar between the two groups (46% versus 40.5%; P = 0.777). When adjusted for follow-up time, there was no significant difference in the number of secondary procedures undertaken in the subpectoral versus the prepectoral group (21% versus 16%, respectively; P = 0.288) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The requirement for secondary procedures at 1 year was not different between groups. The need for fat grafting was not increased following prepectoral IBR. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Pre-pectoral one-stage breast reconstruction with anterior biological acellular dermal matrix coverage.

BACKGROUND: Pre-pectoral implant breast reconstruction (IBR) is gaining popularity. Several techniques using different types of meshes and methods of placement have been described, but no method is currently considered standard. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of pre-pectoral IBR using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for anterior implant cover. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent pre-pectoral IBR between November 2016 to August 2018. Data on demographics, adjuvant therapies and operative technique was collected. Postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and secondary cosmetic procedures were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics, non-parametric tests and logistic regression. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven pre-pectoral IBR were performed in 65 patients. Median age was 41 [interquartile range (IQR), 35-51.5] years, and BMI 22 (IQR, 20.4-24.4) kg/m2. Therapeutic mastectomy was performed in 33 procedures with nipples preservation in 78 cases. The median mastectomy weight and implant volume was 360 (IQR, 220-533) gr, and 445 (IQR, 400-475) cc respectively. At a median follow-up of 18 (IQR, 12-22.5) months, 37 mastectomies had at least 1 complication, but only 12 required surgery. The implant loss rate was 4.5% (5 cases). Lipofilling as secondary procedure was performed in 10.8% of cases. Factors associated with post-operative complications on univariate analysis were nipple preservation (P=0.028), BMI (P=0.01) and implant volume (P=0.027) but these did not remain significant on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-pectoral IBR using ADM for anterior implant cover is associated with low complication and reconstructive failure rate. Patient selection and meticulous surgical technique are important for successful outcome.

Mechanical and surface chemical analysis of retrieved breast implants from a single centre.

INTRODUCTION: Breast implants are associated with complications such as capsular contracture, implant rupture and leakage often necessitating further corrective surgery. Re-operation rates have been reported to occur in up to 15.4% of primary augmentation patients and up to 27% in primary reconstructions patients within the first three years (Cunningham, 2007). The aim of this study was to examine the mechanical and surface chemical properties as well as the fibroblast response of retrieved breast implants in our unit to determine the in vivo changes which occur over time. METHODS: Ethical approval was obtained. 47 implants were retrieved. Implantation time ranged from 1 month to 388 months (Mean 106.1 months). Tensile strength, elongation, Young's modulus and tear strength properties were measured using Instron 5565 tensiometer on anterior and posterior aspects of the implant. Attenuated total reflectance-fourier transform infra-red spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR), wettability and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis was performed on the shell surfaces. Bicinchoninic acid assay was performed to determine shell protein content. The fibroblast response was determined by seeding HDFa cells on the retrieved implants and cell metabolism measured using Alamar Blue™ assay. RESULTS: Mechanical properties fall with increasing duration of implantation. There were no significant changes in ATR-FTIR spectra between ruptured and intact implants nor significant changes in wettability in implants grouped into 5 year categories. SEM imaging reveals surface degradation changes with increasing duration of implantation. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing duration of implantation, mechanical properties of the breast implants fall. However this was not associated with surface chemical changes as determined by ATR-FTIR and wettability nor protein content of the shells. Thus the reduction in mechanical properties is associated with breast implant failure but further research is required to elucidate the mechanisms.