The Impact of Premastectomy Versus Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on Outcomes in Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is being increasingly performed over subpectoral reconstruction because of the reduced invasiveness of the procedure, postoperative pain, and risk of animation deformity. Radiation therapy is a well-known risk factor for complications in implant-based breast reconstruction. The effect of premastectomy versus postmastectomy radiation therapy on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction has not been well-defined. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of premastectomy versus postmastectomy radiation therapy on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with inferior dermal flap and acellular dermal matrix performed by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2019. Demographic, clinical and operative data were reviewed and recorded. Outcomes were assessed by comparing rates of capsular contracture, infection, seroma, hematoma, dehiscence, mastectomy skin flap necrosis, rippling, implant loss, local recurrence and metastatic disease, between patients receiving premastectomy and postmastectomy radiation therapy and nonradiated patients. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-nine patients (592 breasts) underwent prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Twenty-six patients (28 breasts) received premastectomy radiation, 45 patients (71 breasts) received postmastectomy radiation, and 305 patients (493 breasts) did not receive radiation therapy. Patients with premastectomy radiation had higher rates of seroma (14.3% vs 0.2%), minor infection (10.7% vs 1.2%), implant loss (21.4% vs 3.4%) and local recurrence (7.1% vs 1.0%), compared with nonradiated patients (P < 0.05). Patients with postmastectomy radiation had higher rates of major infection (8.4% vs 2.4%), capsular contracture (19.7% vs 3.2%), implant loss (9.9% vs 3.4%), and local recurrence (5.6% vs 1.0%) when compared with nonradiated patients (P < 0.03). Outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction were comparable between premastectomy and postmastectomy radiation patients, respectively, with regard to major infection (7.1% vs 8.4%), dehiscence (3.6% vs 1.4%), major mastectomy skin flap necrosis (7.1% vs 2.8%), capsular contracture (10.7% vs 19.7%), implant loss (21.4% vs 9.9%), and local recurrence (7.1% vs 5.6%) (P ≥ 0.184). However, premastectomy radiation patients had a higher rate of seroma compared with postmastectomy radiation patients (14.3% vs 0%; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In prepectoral implant breast reconstruction, premastectomy and postmastectomy radiation therapy were associated with higher rates of infection and implant loss compared with nonradiated patients. Postmastectomy radiation was associated with a higher rate of capsular contracture compared with nonradiated patients, and a comparable rate of capsular contracture compared with premastectomy radiation therapy patients. Premastectomy radiation was associated with a higher rate of seroma compared with postmastectomy radiation and nonradiated patients.

A Comparison of BREAST-Q Scores between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Subpectoral breast implant placement has in recent history predominated in breast reconstruction, but there has been more recent adoption of prepectoral implant reconstruction. There has been limited study to date of patient-reported outcomes comparing the two techniques. METHODS: Patients who underwent direct-to-implant breast reconstruction between 2013 and 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients were asked to complete BREAST-Q domains comparing quality of life and satisfaction. Descriptive, t test, chi-square test, and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to compare BREAST-Q scores. Significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: There were 64 patients (114 breasts) who underwent prepectoral reconstruction and 37 patients (68 breasts) who underwent subpectoral reconstruction. Among the 101 women (182 breasts), there were no significant differences between BREAST-Q scores and implant position for the Satisfaction with Breasts domain (adjusted p = 0.819), Psychosocial Well-being domain (adjusted p = 0.206), or Physical Well-being Chest domain (adjusted p = 0.110). The subpectoral implant cohort was associated with higher scores, 53 versus 47, for the Sexual Well-being module (adjusted p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction had comparable BREAST-Q satisfaction scores for most modules regardless of implant plane. The subpectoral implant cohort scored higher for sexual well-being.