Comparative Analysis of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction.

Recent advances in mastectomy and reconstruction have allowed for an evolution in implant-based breast reconstruction to a muscle-sparing, prepectoral approach. Advantages of this technique may include reductions in postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, less narcotic usage, and improved aesthetic outcomes. Postoperative complication rates are described as comparable to subpectoral techniques; however, little comparative data exist to adequately assess prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement. METHODS: To address this knowledge gap, we performed a single institution retrospective review of 186 (83 prepectoral, 103 subpectoral) consecutive immediate breast reconstructions. All cases were tracked for a minimum of 2 years between 2016 and 2021. RESULTS: Prepectoral patients demonstrated an overall higher seroma rate (P = 0.001), with all other postoperative complications being comparable. Prepectoral patients tolerated higher intraoperative tissue expander fill volumes (P < 0.001), shorter hospital stays (P = 0.007), fewer clinic visits for tissue expansion (P < 0.001), and experienced less animation deformity (P = 0.005). Both groups demonstrated similar pain scores (P = 0.65) and needs for narcotics (P = 0.8) as well as comparable scores of capsular contracture (P = 0.791). CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative analysis of consecutive immediate implant-based breast reconstructions finds prepectoral reconstruction to be safe and effective. Compared with subpectoral reconstruction, the prepectoral approach may offer quicker tissue expansion, less postoperative office visits, less need for muscle relaxants, and a shorter hospital stay with a comparable complication profile.

Spinal manipulative therapy and cervical artery dissection: A retrospective comparison with spontaneous, traumatic, and iatrogenic etiologies at a single academic medical center.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical artery dissection (CAD) has been associated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Although uncommonly reported, SMT-associated CADs hold devastating neurological consequences, warranting further exploration. We endeavored to investigate this association through the comparison of all CAD etiologies at a single academic medical center. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients diagnosed with CAD or transferred to our institution for primary management of CAD during the 10-year period from 2010 to 2020 (n = 578). Patients were divided into SMT-associated (within 1 month of presentation), spontaneous, traumatic, and iatrogenic cohorts. RESULTS: SMT-associated dissections represented 23/578 (4%) of all dissections and 5.9% of vertebral artery dissections specifically. These patients were generally younger than those in the spontaneous (p = .004) and iatrogenic groups (p < .001), and more often non-smokers or former smokers compared to the spontaneous (p = .009), traumatic (p = .001), and iatrogenic (p = .008) groups. Additionally, the SMT group had a higher mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) than the spontaneous (p = .009) and traumatic (p = .003) types. SMT-associated CADs were more often vertebral and bilateral, compared to the spontaneous (p = .003; p < .001), traumatic (p = .047; p = .004), and iatrogenic (p = .002; p = .002) groups. Outcomes including infarct (p = .112), medical treatment (p = .523), intervention (p = .47), and length of stay (p = .512) were similar between the SMT and spontaneous groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this unique study comparing SMT-associated CADs with other dissection etiologies, SMT-associated CADs were uncommon and not associated with worse clinical outcomes. However, SMT-associated CADs were more likely to be bilateral and affected the vertebral arteries in young, non-smoking patients with high LDL.