Effectiveness of SCAR-Q for assessment of incisional SCAR after implant-based reconstruction in breast cancer patients: Can it be a tool for incision selection?

Incisional scarring is a factor of cosmetic appearance evaluated after breast reconstruction, along with the shape, position, and size of the breast. This study aimed to examine the effect of the incision scar location on patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction. Using the Japanese version of the SCAR-Q, we assessed the scar appearance, symptoms and psychosocial effects. Plastic surgeons performed assessments using the Manchester Scar Scale. The patients were divided into two groups: those with scars on the margins of the breast (MB group) and those with scars in the breast area (IB group). The results revealed that patients in the MB group reported significantly higher satisfaction with the scar appearance and psychological impact than those in the IB group. However, assessments using the Manchester Scar Scale did not reveal any significant differences between the two groups. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of scar satisfaction after breast reconstruction. Patients tend to prefer and have higher satisfaction with scars along the breast margin, which offers valuable insights into surgical decisions. Further studies with larger and more diverse sample sizes are required for validation.

Sonographic Assessment of Breast Implants Using Strain Elastography and Shear Wave Elastography in an Animal Model.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To date, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains the gold standard for diagnosing breast implant rupture. As MRI is an expensive procedure with limited availability, the improvement of sonographic assessment is desirable. A potentially useful tool in this regard is elastography. To evaluate the diagnostic benefits of strain elastography and shear wave elastography under standardized conditions we developed an animal model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An animal model was created by preparing an implant site in a chicken breast, imitating tissue layers covering a breast implant after mastectomy. Different broken and intact implants were inserted. Thereby, measurements were performed using strain elastography and shear wave elastography. For strain elastography, the resulting images were investigated on repeated patterns. The data generated by shear wave elastography were analyzed for significant differences between the ruptured and intact implants. RESULTS: The animal model using chicken breast generated realistic images and measurements comparable to those of a human breast. Hence, ruptured and intact implants could be compared under standardized conditions. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between intact and ruptured implants with respect to the data generated by shear wave elastography. Qualitative analysis using strain wave elastography showed different patterns between intact and ruptured implants in the animal model. Intact implants showed a characteristic sonographic image of three layers in certain levels. CONCLUSION: Shear wave elastography does not seem to produce reliable data for the evaluation of breast implants, whereas qualitative analysis using strain elastography might be a useful tool to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Technical Refinements and Outcomes Assessment in Prepectoral Pocket Conversion After Postmastectomy Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Several studies show how submuscular breast reconstruction is linked to animation deformity, shoulder dysfunction, and increased postoperative chest pain, when compared to prepectoral breast reconstruction. In solving all these life-impairing side effects, prepectoral implant pocket conversion has shown encouraging results. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to propose a refinement of the prepectoral implant pocket conversion applied to previously irradiated patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on 42 patients who underwent previous nipple- or skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate submuscular reconstruction, followed by radiotherapy. We performed fat grafting sessions as regenerative pretreatment. Six months after the last fat graft, we performed the conversion, with prepectoral placement of micropolyurethane foam-coated implants. We investigated the preconversion and postconversion differences in upper limb range of motion, Upper Extremity Functional Index, and patient satisfaction with the breast and physical well-being of the chest. RESULTS: We reported a resolution of animation deformity in 100% of cases. The range of motion and the Upper Extremity Functional Index scores were statistically improved after prepectoral implant pocket conversion. BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with the breast and physical well-being of the chest were also improved. CONCLUSIONS: The refined prepectoral implant pocket conversion is a reliable technique for solving animation deformity and improving quality of life in patients previously treated with submuscular reconstruction and radiotherapy.

Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction With Gas vs Saline Tissue Expanders: Does the Fill Type Matter?

The most common reconstruction technique following mastectomy is a 2-stage technique that involves tissue expansion followed by definitive implant-based reconstruction (IBR). Tissue expanders (TEs) have classically used saline for initial fill; however, TEs with an initial gas fill (GTE)-including the CO2-based AeroForm (AirXpanders, San Francisco, CA) TE and TEs initially filled with atmospheric air-have been increasingly used in the past decade. We aimed to compare the outcomes in breast reconstruction for tissue expanders initially filled with saline vs gas. PubMed was queried for studies comparing gas- and saline-filled tissue expanders (STEs) used in IBR. A meta-analysis was performed on major postoperative outcomes and the required expansion and definitive reconstruction time. Eleven studies were selected and included in the analysis. No significant differences existed between tissue expansion with GTEs vs STEs for 11 of the 13 postoperative outcomes investigated. Out of the complications investigated, only the risk of infection/cellulitis/abscess formation was significantly lower in the GTE cohort (odds ratio 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.82; P = .0009). The time to definitive reconstruction was also significantly lower in the GTE cohort (mean difference [MD], 45.85 days; 95% CI, -57.80 to -33.90; P < .00001). The total time to full expansion approached significance in the GTE cohort (MD, -20.33 days; 95% CI, -41.71 to 1.04; P = .06). A cost analysis considering TE cost and infection risk determined that GTE use saved a predicted $2055.34 in overall healthcare costs. Surgical outcomes for both fill types were predominantly similar; however, GTEs were associated with a significantly decreased risk of postoperative infection compared to saline-filled TEs. GTEs could also reduce healthcare expenditures and require less time until definitive reconstruction after placement.

Outcome analysis and assessment of the lower pole expansion following breast augmentation with ergonomic implants: Optimizing results with patient selection based on 5-year data.

BACKGROUND: Silicone implants have gone through adaptations to improve esthetic outcomes. With the progress of technology, including gel rheology, different properties have been introduced. Ergonomic style implants (ESI) feature enhanced rheological properties and provide a shaped contour with a round base. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated outcomes for ESI in breast augmentation concerning lower pole stretching (LPS) and implant stability and describes an algorithm to assist in decision-making. METHODS: A total of 148 patients (296 breasts) underwent breast augmentation with ESI; this procedure was indicated in patients with good skin quality and <6 cm between the nipple-areola complex and the inframammary fold. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 29.6 years (range: 19-39), and 93 patients (62.8%) underwent primary breast augmentation with demi/full projection (average volume of 245 cc [175-375 cc]). Axillary incision and subfascial pocket were indicated in 115 (77.7%) and 72 (48%) cases, respectively. Average LPS values were 32.2% (24.91 mm) and 10.86% (9.42 mm) at up to 10 days and 10 days to 12 months postprocedure, respectively. Patients were followed for a mean of 29.9 ± 26.4 months (range: 6-66). Complication rates per breast and per patient were 5% and 10%, respectively, and included subcutaneous banding in the axilla (1.6%), implant displacement (1.2%), and wound dehiscence (0.8%). No cases of infection, seroma, or rippling complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The present decision-making algorithm summarizes the process involved in breast augmentation using ESI and is intended to help standardize decisions. With correct planning, long-lasting outcomes can be achieved due to favorable interactions between ESI and the patient's tissues.

One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction With Polyurethane-Coated Device: Standardized Assessment of Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSMs) and implant-based breast reconstructions have evolved from 2-stage reconstructions with tissue expansion and implant exchange to direct-to-implant procedures. In this study, we tested safety and efficacy of polyurethane-based implants according to standard assessment tools. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to test safety and feasibility of polyurethane-coated implants with standardized assessment employing internationally acknowledged evaluation criteria. METHODS: Cases of NSMs followed by breast reconstruction in 1 stage with immediate prepectoral polyurethane-coated implant placement were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative characteristics of the population have been collected. Adherence to quality assurance criteria of the Association of Breast Surgery-British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons was verified. Complications were assessed with the Clavien Dindo classification, modified for the breast. Rippling, implant rotation, and malposition were also evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-three consecutive patients underwent 74 NSMs and immediate breast reconstruction with micro polyurethane foam-coated anatomic implants. In 5 cases we had unplanned readmissions with return to the operating room under general anesthesia (6.7%) and implant loss within 3 months from breast reconstruction (5 implants, 6.7%). Postoperative complications according to Clavien Dindo were grade 1 in 6 cases (8.1%), grade 2 in 3 cases (4%), and 3b in 5 cases (6.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Polyurethane-coated implants may prevent rotation and malposition and capsular contracture in the short term. Unplanned readmission rates and implant loss rates in the short term may be slightly higher.See the abstract translated into Hindi, Portuguese, Korean, German, Italian, Arabic, Chinese, and Taiwanese online here: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjad301.

Financial Toxicity in Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is a growing concern due to its considerable effects on medical adherence, quality of life, and mortality. The cost associated with breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is substantial from diagnosis to treatment, including adjuvant therapy and surgery. This study aims to assess the prevalence of financial toxicity in BIA-ALCL patients. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional, survey-based study on women with confirmed cases of BIA-ALCL from December 2019 to March 2023. The primary study outcomes were financial toxicity measured by Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) score and patient-reported financial burden measured by the responses to the Evaluation of the Financial Impact of BIA-ALCL survey. Lower COST scores signify higher financial toxicity. Responses were linked to patient data extracted from the medical records. RESULTS: Thirty-two women treated for confirmed BIA-ALCL were included. Patients were all White and were diagnosed at a median age of 51 years (range, 41-65 years). The mean COST score was 27.9 ± 2.23. Lower COST scores were associated with receipt of radiotherapy ( P = 0.033), exceeding credit card limits ( P = 0.036), living paycheck to paycheck ( P = 0.00027), requiring financial support from friends and family ( P = 0.00044), and instability in household finances ( P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Financial toxicity is prevalent in BIA-ALCL patients and has a substantial impact on patient reported burden. Insurance denial is frequent for patients with a prior history of cosmetic augmentation. Risk assessments and cost discussions should occur throughout the care continuum to minimize financial burden.

Significados atribuídos por mulheres com câncer de mama ao grupo de apoio / Meanings attributed by women with breast cancer to a support group / Significados atribuidos por las mujeres con cáncer de mama al grupo de apoyo

A sobrevivência ao câncer de mama é um problema de saúde pública que demanda serviços especializados com foco na reabilitação psicossocial. Entre as necessidades identificadas nesse contexto está o incentivo à adoção de estratégias de promoção de autocuidados pelas mulheres. Uma das estratégias adotadas consiste no grupo de apoio psicológico, que auxilia as pacientes a enfrentar a longa jornada do tratamento. Assim, o objetivo deste estudo é compreender os significados produzidos por mulheres com câncer de mama sobre sua participação em um grupo de apoio. Trata-se de um estudo qualitativo, descritivo e exploratório realizado com dez mulheres com câncer de mama usuárias de um serviço de reabilitação para mastectomizadas. Como referencial metodológico foi utilizada a Teoria Fundamentada nos Dados. A coleta de dados foi realizada por meio de entrevista aberta em profundidade e os conteúdos foram transcritos e codificados. A análise indutiva e o método de comparação constante foram aplicados nos processos de codificação aberta, axial e seletiva, que permitiram identificar três categorias nucleares: percepção das atividades realizadas no grupo, identificação de benefícios e barreiras do convívio no grupo e transformações decorrentes da participação. As participantes significaram sua presença no grupo como fonte de acolhimento, apoio, desenvolvimento de recursos pessoais e amizades, contribuindo para promover sua qualidade de sobrevida. Além dos potenciais benefícios, também foram identificadas barreiras que podem dificultar a adesão e continuidade da participação no grupo, o que sugere a necessidade de incorporar no cuidado um olhar para as dimensões subjetivas da saúde da mulher.(AU)

Surviving breast cancer is a public health problem and depends on services focused on psychosocial rehabilitation. Healthcare providers must encourage women to adopt strategies to promote their self-care. The psychological support group is a resource that helps women to face the long journey of treatment. This study aimed to understand the meanings women with breast cancer produced about their participation in a support group. This exploratory cross-sectional study was carried out with 10 women with breast cancer who use a rehabilitation service for mastectomized patients. Grounded Theory was used as a methodological reference. An open in-depth interview was applied for data collection. The contents were transcribed and coded. Inductive analysis and the constant comparison method were applied in the open, axial, and selective coding processes, which enabled the identification of three core categories: perception of the activities carried out in the group, identification of benefits and barriers of living in the group, and transformations resulting from participation. Participants denote their involvement with the group as a source of shelter, support, development of personal resources and friendships that helps promoting quality of life. Besides these potential benefits, participants also evinced barriers that can hinder adherence and continuity of participation in the group, suggesting the importance of incorporating a look at the subjective dimensions of women's health into care.(AU)

Sobrevivir al cáncer de mama es un problema de salud pública que depende de los servicios centrados en la rehabilitación psicosocial. Entre las necesidades identificadas en esta materia se encuentra el uso de estrategias para promover el autocuidado. Uno de los recursos que ayuda a afrontar el largo camino del tratamiento es el grupo de apoyo psicológico. El objetivo de este estudio es conocer los significados que producen las mujeres con cáncer de mama sobre su participación en un grupo de apoyo. Se trata de un estudio cualitativo, descriptivo y exploratorio, realizado con diez mujeres con cáncer de mama usuarias de un servicio de rehabilitación para mastectomizadas. Como referencia metodológica se utilizó la teoría fundamentada en los datos. Se aplicó una entrevista abierta en profundidad para la recogida de datos, cuyos contenidos fueron transcritos y codificados. El análisis inductivo y el método de comparación constante se aplicaron en los procesos de codificación abierta, axial y selectiva, lo que permitió identificar tres categorías centrales: percepción de las actividades realizadas en el grupo, identificación de los beneficios y las barreras de vivir en el grupo y transformaciones resultantes de la participación. Las mujeres denotan su participación en el grupo como una fuente de acogida, apoyo, desarrollo de recursos personales y amistades, que ayuda a promover la calidad de vida. Además de los beneficios potenciales, también se identificaron barreras que pueden dificultar la adherencia y continuidad de la participación en el grupo, lo que sugiere la necesidad de incorporar en la atención una mirada centrada en las dimensiones subjetivas de la salud de las mujeres.(AU)

ADMs and synthetic meshes improve implant-based breast reconstruction aesthetics, but at what cost?

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have shown promise for use in reconstructive breast surgery as they improve aesthetic outcomes and decrease capsular contracture rates. However, concerns about their use remain because of the higher cost and complication profile. We report a single institution's implant-based-reconstruction (IBR) experience between 2007 and 2021, including cases performed by 51 plastic surgeons. For each stage of IBR, data on age, comorbidities, type of mesh used, and acute complications were collected. Of 1379 patients who underwent subpectoral IBR, 937 received an ADM or synthetic mesh as part of their reconstruction. 256 patients out of 264 treated with prepectoral IBR received an ADM or mesh. Infection and wound dehiscence rates were highest for patients who underwent prepectoral IBR with ADM. Both subpectoral and prepectoral IBR with ADM were associated with higher rates of infection and wound complications compared to without ADM or mesh, but only the difference among the subpectoral cohort reached statistical significance. Prepectoral IBR with ADM or mesh had the lowest rates of capsular contracture and aesthetic reoperations. Although the use of Vicryl® mesh in subpectoral IBR was associated with a higher risk of capsular contracture and skin flap necrosis compared to reconstruction with ADMs (10.53% versus 3.29%; p < 0.05), Vicryl® was associated with fewer aesthetic revisions. Our study demonstrated that prepectoral IBR with ADM or mesh resulted in the fewest aesthetic reoperations and the lowest rates of capsular contracture. Infection and wound dehiscence rates were notably higher for patients who had reconstruction with ADM.

Comment on the Invited Discussion on "Assessment of Risk Factors for Rupture in Breast Reconstruction Patients with Macrotextured Breast Implants".

We here present a few comments on the invited discussion of Dr. van Heijningen on the paper "Assessment of Risk Factors for Rupture in Breast Reconstruction Patients with Macrotextured Breast Implants". Dr. van Heijningen made some reservations regarding paper conclusions due to the high dropout rate, the adopted exclusion criteria and the location and mechanism of implant rupture. First of all, a high dropout rate is not unbeknown to researchers in surveys-based studies and may be expected when recalling in 6 months a population observed during last 20 years. In our study data are missing at random not affecting the risk of bias, while the population accurately depicts the people we care, mainly but not only reconstructive. Patients who did not respond to the questionnaire could not participate to the survey, while those who did not hold recent imaging were excluded because of the risk of false negative due to possible silent rupture, accounting to 10% in some reports. MRI imaging often shows that implants fold back on their selves when capsular contracture reduces implant pocket. As the use of the underwire bra prevents implant inferior displacement, repeated muscular contraction may worsen implant folds and the chronic wear-and-tear mechanism may be responsible for the rupture. Finally, folding is presumably easier to occur at the upper quadrants where anatomical implant shell is thinnest and gel concentration reduced than the opposite, therefore is not surprising that the higher percentage of ruptures is located in the upper implant quadrants.Level of evidence V 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 .

Prospective Study of Clinical Outcomes From a Breast Implant Assessment Service.

BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation remains the commonest cosmetic surgical procedure worldwide, in spite of recent regulatory action. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate women with breast implants attending a breast implant assessment clinic and to capture clinical and implant data in women presenting to the service. METHODS: Patients were enrolled prospectively between January 2018 and December 2021. Clinical, implant, and practitioner data were recorded. Patients reported satisfaction on size, shape, and overall outcome as well as the presence or pain. Radiological evaluation, where indicated, was performed and data were included on these findings. RESULTS: A total of 603 patients were assessed. Their mean age was 42.7 years and mean age at implantation was 29.1 years. The most common complications were capsular contracture followed by pain, waterfall deformity, and double bubble, with rupture/contracture rates increasing after the 10-year mark. The risk of double bubble was significantly lower if patients were operated on by certified practitioners (odds ratio = 0.49, P = 0.011). There was almost universally poor awareness of the risks of breast implants in patients presenting for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown benefit in a breast implant assessment clinic to gather information on adverse events and patient-reported outcomes following breast implant surgery. Having appropriately trained and certified practitioners perform cosmetic augmentation significantly lowers the risk of implant malposition and deformity. Any adverse event occurring within 5 years of initial surgery should be flagged as a mandatory reportable clinical indicator and trigger further investigation.

Assessment of Risk Factors for Rupture in Breast Reconstruction Patients with Macrotextured Breast Implants.

BACKGROUND: Breast implants (BI) are widely used in plastic surgery, though they are not lifetime devices. Average life before rupture is reported to be around 10-15 years. No consensus exists regarding which factors are involved. OBJECTIVES: Following FDA recommendations, this study aims at identifying potential risk factors by evaluating their effect on BI rupture cases. METHODS: In this observational study, 763 BI patients were operated between 2003 and 2019, with a mean implant indwelling of 12.2 years. Patients that returned for follow-up were administered a questionnaire regarding postoperative lifestyle and habits. Implant rupture rate was 15.1%, while BI lifespan was 10.1 years. We obtained complete data from 191 breast implant patients (288 implants). Twenty-three potential risk factors were evaluated and divided in four categories: patient-related, surgery-related, postoperative complications/symptoms, and postoperative care/lifestyle habits. Odds Ratio (OR) for each factor was calculated. Linear regression analysis was calculated for those with a significant OR. RESULTS: We report 120 patients (195 implants) with intact and 71 (93 implants) with ruptured devices. BIs were macrotextured in 95.1% of cases (86.8% Allergan BIOCELL). OR was significant for underwire bra use (OR: 2.708), car seat belts (OR: 3.066), mammographic imaging (OR: 2.196), weightlifting (OR: 0.407) and carry-on heavy purses and backpacks (OR: 0.347). CONCLUSION: Wearing underwire bras, seat belts and undergoing mammography increases the risk of rupture. Weightlifting and carry heavy bags do not increase that risk. Implant rupture is directly linked with time of indwelling. Postoperative recommendations in BI patients should consider findings from our study, though larger multicenter studies should be encouraged. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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 .

Assessment, Complications, and Surveillance of Breast Implants: Making Sense of 2022 FDA Breast Implant Guidance.

As more information about the potential risks and complications related to breast implants has become available, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responded by implementing changes to improve patient education, recalling certain devices and updating the recommendations for screening for silicone implant rupture. In addition to staying up-to-date with FDA actions and guidance, radiologists need to maintain awareness about the types of implants they may see, breast reconstruction techniques including the use of acellular dermal matrix, and the multimodality imaging of implants and their complications. Radiologists should also be familiar with some key differences between the updated FDA guidelines for implant screening and the imaging recommendations from the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. The addition of US as an acceptable screening exam for silicone implant rupture by the FDA is one of the most notable changes that has potentially significant implications.

Cost analysis of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction.

With improvement in mastectomy skin flap viability and increasing recognition of animation deformity following sub-pectoral implant placement, there has been a transition toward pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. While studies have explored the cost effectiveness of implant-based breast reconstruction, few investigations have evaluated cost with respect to pre-pectoral versus sub-pectoral breast reconstruction. A retrospective review of 548 patients who underwent mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction was performed from 2017 to 2020. The demographic and surgical characteristics of the pre-pectoral and sub-pectoral cohorts were well matched, except for reconstructive staging, as patients who underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction were more likely to undergo single-stage instead of two-stage reconstruction. Comparison of institutional cost ratios by reconstructive technique revealed that the sub-pectoral approach was more costly (1.70 ± 0.44 vs 1.58 ± 0.31, p < 0.01). However, further stratification by laterality and reconstructive staging failed to demonstrate difference in cost by reconstructive technique. These results were confirmed by multivariable linear regression, which did not reveal reconstructive technique to be an independent variable for cost. This study suggests that pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is a cost-effective alternative to sub-pectoral breast reconstruction and may confer cost benefit, as it is more strongly associated with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Quality of life, pain of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with a discussion on cost: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PIBR) has regained popularity, despite decades-long preference for subpectoral implant placement. This paper aims to compare patient-reported outcomes (PRO) between prepectoral and subpectoral approaches to implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The primary PRO was with the BREAST-Q, and postoperative pain scores, while the secondary outcomes were complication rates. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed library was performed. All studies on patients undergoing IBBR after mastectomy that compared prepectoral to subpectoral placement and PROM or postoperative pain were included. RESULTS: A total of 3789 unique studies of which 7 publications with 216 and 332 patients who received prepectoral and subpectoral implants, respectively, were included for meta-analysis. Patients with prepectoral implant placement had significantly higher satisfaction with the outcome (p = 0.03) and psychosocial well-being (p = 0.03) module scores. The pain was lower in patients with prepectoral implants on postoperative day 1 (p<0.01) and day 7 (p<0.01). The subgroup analysis of prepectoral breast implants showed that complete acellular dermal matrix coverage had lower rates of wound dehiscence (p<0.0001), but there were no significant differences in complications between one-stage and two-stage procedures. CONCLUSION: Overall, patients with prepectoral implants reported higher BREAST-Q scores and lower postoperative pain and lower complications rates than patients with subpectoral implants. In appropriately selected patients, prepectoral implant placement with ADM coverage, be it the primary placement of an implant or placement of a tissue expander before definitive implant placement, should be the modality of choice in patients who choose IBBR. Further research should focus on patient selection, strategies to reduce cost and cost-benefit analysis of PIBR.

The impact of parity in primary breast augmentation: A clinical and cost-effective case control study.

INTRODUCTION: Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed aesthetic procedures in women. Despite the structural changes which occur during pregnancy and lactation have been extensively studied, there is no clarity in terms of the time required for the parenchymal angiogenic changes to regress or if these neovessels are preserved even years after the last lactating period. This study investigated whether these post-pregnancy structural changes on the breasts may influence the surgical efficiency, affect the rates of complications and have an impact on cost-effectiveness in primary breast augmentation. METHODS: This study encompasses a retrospective review of all patients who underwent implant-based bilateral primary breast augmentation, through inframammary fold (IMF) incision under general anaesthetic, by a single surgeon. The age, height, weight and parity (nulliparous or multiparous status), characteristics of implants used and clinical outcomes after a minimum of 6-month post-operative follow-up were recorded. A further prospective comparative trial investigated the effects of parity in the surgical efficiency and cost-effectiveness in primary breast augmentation. The surgical efficiency (total operative time) and the immediate complications of 85 consecutive cohort of patients were recorded by an independent observer. Statistical correlation investigated the relevance of parity as predictors of surgical efficiency and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 894 patients were included with a minimum of 6-month follow-up following implants-based primary breast augmentation. There were 445 (49.8%) nulliparous and 449 (50.2%) patients had at least one child at the time of surgery. The average parity index was calculated to be 1.05. The average body mass index (BMI) was 20.8 kg/m2 (15.9-30.8). The mean implant volume used was 314 ml. Fifteen percent (n = 134) presented with post-operative complications, with an average follow-up period of 12.8 (6-116) months. The differences between parity and incidence of complications were not statistically significant (p = 0.82). Surgical efficiency parameters from 85 women (54 multiparous and 31 nulliparous) demonstrated total operative time difference; 35 ± 6.3 min for multiparous and 30.2 ± 5 min for nulliparous. There was a clinical average difference of 4.8 min, with a maximum difference of 16.1 min. These statistically significant difference account for an average increase of 13.7% in the operating time in multiparous versus nulliparous (p-value=0.0004, 95% CI = 2.2-7.4 min). CONCLUSION: Primary breast augmentation in parous women faces parenchymal and vascular histological breast tissue transformations which may not fully revert to the pre-pregnant state. These changes encountered during pocket dissection seem to have an impact on the operating time, cost-effectiveness and can therefore affect negatively surgical efficiency. Nevertheless, when surgical technique is based on sharp, precise dissection and proactive haemostasis, parity does not show to have an impact on the rates of complications, despite longer operation times.