Does 2-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Allow for a Larger Volume of the Definite Implant Compared With 1-Stage Reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION: Breast reconstruction using implants is still the main breast reconstruction technique worldwide. Current debate within implant-based breast reconstruction is whether to perform a 1-stage (direct implant) or 2-stage (tissue expander/implant) reconstruction. Volume differences between a woman's native breast and changes in volume after breast reconstruction might be an important factor for a patient's choice between these types of reconstruction. Three-dimensional imaging facilitates objective breast volume estimates. The goal of this study was to investigate differences between the patient's natural breast and the volume after completed breast reconstruction. One- and two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction techniques were compared. Finally, it was assessed whether patient satisfaction is causally related with the final breast volume after reconstruction. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 38 patients were included in the study, including 35 two-stage breast reconstructions and 27 one-stage reconstructions. Preoperative and postoperative 3-dimensional images of the breast with the Vectra XT Imaging system were taken. Volume analysis was performed to estimate the patient's native breast volume. Implant size were derived from the operation report. A mean volume reduction for the 1-stage reconstruction group was found -1 mL, whereas an increase of +80 mL was found in the 2-stage reconstruction group (P < 0.005). Patient satisfaction related to volume outcome was not significantly different between both groups, using the Breast-Q questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a 2-stage breast reconstruction has the potential of an increased breast volume compared with a similar breast volume in 1-stage reconstruction.

Biomechanical Properties of the Skin in Patients with Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema Compared to Healthy Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Biomechanical skin changes in breast cancer-related lymphedema (BRCL) have barely been described and objectively tested. This study aims to compare the skin of upper limb lymphedema with skin of the healthy contralateral arm, in order to demonstrate changes of elasticity, viscoelasticity, and level of hydration of the skin in BCRL. The secondary aim is to investigate the correlation between biomechanical skin changes and measurements that are currently used in clinical practice, such as volume measurement and lymph-ICF score. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighteen patients with BCRL and 18 healthy individuals were included in the study. A Cutometer® was used for measurements for skin elasticity and viscoelasticity on both arms of each subject. A Corneometer® was used for measurements of skin hydration. Measurements of both test groups were compared. In BCRL patients, there was a significant difference (p = < 0.028) between the elasticity of the skin of the lymphedema arm compared to the healthy contralateral arm. There were no significant differences for level of skin hydration or viscoelasticity in lymphedema patients between the measurements on the skin of the lymphedematous and healthy arm. In healthy individuals, there were no significant differences for all measurements between skin of both arms. Spearman's correlation was significant (p = < 0.01) for difference in volume and difference in elasticity in BCRL patients. CONCLUSION: This study shows an impaired elasticity for the skin of the lower arm in patients with lymphedema compared to the contralateral healthy arm. Promising evidence is suggested for the use of the Cutometer device in the diagnostic evaluation of BCRL.