A descriptive comparison of satisfaction and well-being between expander-based and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: The literature that has explored differences between direct-to-implant (DTI) and expander-based (EB) breast reconstruction has mainly focused on complications, with results not always unambiguous. Moreover, there are limited data 1) comparing DTI and EB breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and 2) from the patient's perspective. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare satisfaction and well-being in patients undergoing DTI and EB reconstruction after NSM in a Comprehensive Cancer Center, exploring what factors can be related to satisfaction and well-being. METHOD: The study design is monocentric, observational and retrospective. The participants completed an online questionnaire containing the Breast-Q and some socio-demographic variables (year of birth, level of education, civil status). Clinical information was obtained from the institutional database. Surgical techniques in the two branches of NSM were similar: all skin incisions, lateral to the areola; all implants, subpectoral (EB: conventionally submuscular; DTI: dual-plane pocket); all without synthetic mesh or acellular tissue matrix. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients (45% with EB and 55% with DTI) completed the questionnaire. We found that there are no differences between EB and DTI concerning the satisfaction and well-being of NSM patients, except for satisfaction with information, which is greater in the DTI group. In EB patients, no variables among those explored are related to satisfaction and well-being. In DTI patients, level of education is positive related to satisfaction with implants and physical well-being, Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) and body mass index (BMI) are negative related to satisfaction with information and TNM also with satisfaction for plastic surgery. CONCLUSION: EB and DTI do not differ in terms of patient well-being, but EB requires a more careful counselling by the surgeon. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .

Classification of breast tissue expander infections: Back to the basics.

BACKGROUND: Infections following tissue expander (TE) placement are frequent complications in breast reconstruction. While breast surgery is a clean case, implant-based breast reconstruction has rates of infection up to 31%, decidedly higher than the typical 1% to 2% rate of surgical site infections (SSI). Few authors use the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) SSI definition for TE infections. We highlight how adoption of a consistent definition of TE infection may change how infections are researched, categorized, and ultimately managed. METHODS: Two researchers with definitional discrepancies of infection performed an independent analysis of all postmastectomy patients receiving TEs (n = 175) in 2017. RESULTS: Researcher One, using a clinical definition, delineated an infection rate of 19.4%. Antibiotics alone successfully treated 50% of cases. Researcher Two found an infection rate of 13.7% using CDC criteria. These infections were further delineated by a SSI rate of 6.3% and a TE infection rate post port access of 7.4%. Only 45.5% SSI's and 15.4% of TE infections were salvaged with antibiotics alone. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous adoption of CDC criteria for infection characterization in published research will help standardize the definition of infection and allow surgeons to create evidence-based infection prevention regimens.

Infections after mastectomy and tissue expander placement: A multivariate regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: While breast surgery is considered a clean case, tissue expander-based breast reconstruction (TE-BR) has infection rates quoted up to 31%, decidedly higher than the typical 1% to 2% rate of surgical site infections. Through multivariate regression, we sought to analyze risk factors that contribute to infections following TE placement. METHODS: A retrospective study reviewed all patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate or delayed TE placement over a 22-month period. Infections were defined as clinically documented cellulitis or infection, return to the operating room (RTOR) for suspected infection, or positive operative or seroma cultures. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients underwent mastectomy and TE placement to 490 breasts. 13.5% of breasts developed an infection prior to second stage reconstruction. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that patients who developed infections were older (52.8 vs. 47.6 years, OR 1.04, p = 0.02), had higher rates of full-thickness necrosis (24.6% vs. 3.6%, OR 6.64, p<0.01), had higher rates of seromas requiring drainage (33.3% vs. 11.5%, OR 2.79, p<0.01), and had longer periods of drain therapy (24.9 vs. 21.0 days, OR 1.04, p = 0.04). Logistic regression established that longer discharge antibiotic length was not protective against the development of infection. CONCLUSION: Patients were more likely to develop an infection as the length of surgical drain retention increased, patient age increased, or if they developed seromas and full-thickness necrosis. Longer post-operative antibiotics were not protective against the development of infection in this sample. Prospective studies are needed to assess how antibiotic lengths can affect the morbidity of patients undergoing TE-BR.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction and radiotherapy-a closer look.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) has historically been plagued by complications and poor outcomes. We study the effects of PMRT in the setting of prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction in an attempt to ascertain the value of this muscle sparing technique as it relates to complications and outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent immediate, prepectoral, direct-to-implant or two-staged expander/implant breast reconstruction following skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and had postmastectomy radiotherapy. Results and complications were recorded. RESULTS: In patients who underwent two-staged reconstruction, at the second stage, on visual inspection, the acellular dermal matrix was noted to be completely integrated in all breasts, including those that had been irradiated after expander placement. Postoperative complications in irradiated breasts were limited to two breasts. In one breast, there was one incidence of wound dehiscence after expander irradiation, which led to expander removal and salvage with transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap reconstruction. In the second breast, there was one incidence of seroma after implant irradiation, which was managed conservatively as an outpatient. The seroma was drained and the patient treated with oral antibiotics. There were no complications in nonirradiated breasts. There was no incidence of clinically significant capsular contracture (grade III/IV) in irradiated or nonirradiated breasts. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has been an important addition to our reconstructive armamentarium and is proving to be a safe and effective means of performing prosthetic breast reconstruction in a wide array of patient populations. We have seen excellent physiologic and aesthetic outcomes in our patients following PMRT with minimal complications. Indeed, long-term follow-up will be required to elucidate the true effectiveness of this technique but preliminary results are quite promising.

Local safety of immediate reconstruction during primary treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant versus expander-based surgery.

INTRODUCTION: After mastectomy, immediate breast reconstruction is paramount. With the growing number of nipple-sparing mastectomies, the chances of successful one-stage reconstruction with implants are also increasing. Local safety is one of the main issues. This study investigated the factors that could lead to major or minor complications after expander-based versus direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction. METHODS: The studied factors were age, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, smoking, diabetes, type of mastectomy (nipple-sparing/total), implant size, neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. The study sample included 294 immediate reconstructions over 3 years. The primary outcome was the incidence of complications, major or minor depending on the necessity of revision surgery. For the DTI pocket, we applied a variant of the conventional submuscular technique. RESULTS: In DTI reconstructions (median follow-up 26 months), the complication rate was 17.2% (4.3% major and 12.8% minor) with no significant association with clinical variables. In expander-based reconstructions (median follow-up 19 months), the complication rate was 18.3% (12.5% major and 5.8% minor). Univariate analysis showed a significant association between overall complications and radiotherapy (P = 0.01) as well as between major complications and expander size (P < 0.005), BMI (P < 0.005), and radiotherapy (P < 0.01); radiotherapy and BMI retained significance in multivariate analysis. Neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy did not affect the complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: There was evidence of an association between major complications and clinical variables in the expander-based cohort. Larger expander size was a predictor of failure, especially combined with radiation. Direct-to-implant reconstruction proved to be safe. We describe a reliable method of reconstruction and a safe range of implant sizes even beyond 500 g.

Prophylactic amifostine prevents a pathologic vascular response in a murine model of expander-based breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Although expander-based breast reconstruction is the most commonly used method of reconstruction worldwide, it continues to be plagued with complication rates as high as 60% when radiotherapy is implemented. We hypothesized that quantitative measures of radiotherapy-induced vascular injury can be mitigated by utilizing amifostine in a murine model of expander-based breast reconstruction. METHODS: 30 rats were divided into three groups: expander placement (Control), expander placement followed by radiotherapy (XRT), and expander placement followed by radiotherapy with amifostine (AMF/XRT). All groups underwent placement of a sub-latissimus tissue expander. After a 45 day recovery period, all groups underwent vascular perfusion and micro-CT analysis. RESULTS: Micro-CT analysis was used to calculate vessel volume fraction (VVF), vessel number (VN), and vessel separation (VSp). A significant increase in VN was seen in the XRT group as compared to the Control (p = 0.021) and the AMF/XRT (p = 0.027). There was no difference between Control and AMF/XRT (p = 0.862). VVF was significantly higher in XRT than either Control (p = 0.043) and AMF/XRT (p = 0.040), however no difference was seen between Control and AMF/XRT (p = 0.980). VSp of XRT was smaller when compared to both Control and AMF/XRT specimens (p = 0.05 and p = 0.048, respectively), and no difference was seen between Control and AMF/XRT (p = 0.339). CONCLUSIONS: Amifostine administered prior to radiotherapy preserved vascular metrics similar to those of non-radiated specimens. Elevated vascularity demonstrated within the XRT group was not seen in either the Control or AMF/XRT groups. These results indicate that amifostine protects soft tissue in our model from a radiotherapy-induced pathologic vascular response.