Although many factors in prepectoral breast reconstruction such as mastectomy weight and flap quality are out of the plastic surgeon's control, some elements such as intraoperative tissue expander (TE) fill can be optimized. This study assesses the impact of intraoperative TE fill on postoperative complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction and posits the optimal fill.

All consecutive, prepectoral TE reconstructions performed between March 2017 and December 2022 at a single center were reviewed. A "fill ratio" or ratio of intraoperative TE fill to mastectomy weight (TEF/MW) was constructed to quantify deadspace in the breast pocket, with values closer to 1 signifying less deadspace. Major complications include those requiring readmission or reoperation and minor complications include those that could be treated as an outpatient. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 200 patients (318 breasts) with average follow-up of 22 months were included. Patients were, on average, 53 years old, were nonsmoker (98%), were nondiabetic (91%), and had a body mass index of 26 kg/m2. Only immediate reconstructions were included and were performed following prophylactic mastectomies in 34% and therapeutic mastectomies in 66% of cases. Seventy-six (24%) breasts were radiated, and 93 (47%) patients received chemotherapy. Mean mastectomy weight was 546 g, median intraoperative TE fill was 175 ± 250 cc, and median final TE fill was 390 ± 220 cc.Major complications occurred in 64 (20%) breasts and were associated with less deadspace (0.49 vs 0.36, P < 0.05). In multivariable models, a higher fill ratio was associated with 2.4 times higher odds of major complications (95% CI, 1.2-4.7; P = 0.01). Optimal intraoperative TE fill for avoiding major complications was 80 cc, and optimal fill ratio was 0.09.Explantation occurred in 44 (14%) breasts and was associated with less deadspace (0.51 vs 0.35, P < 0.05); the optimal fill for avoiding explantation was 80 cc, and optimal ratio was 0.12.

Higher intraoperative TE fill and less deadspace were associated with postoperative complications. Filling a TE to 80 cc or approximately a tenth of mastectomy weight may reduce complications.

Breast reconstruction (BR) following mastectomy plays a critical role in restoring breast contour and improving patients' quality of life. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have emerged as valuable adjuncts in BR, providing structural support and enhancing soft tissue integration. However, their radiological characteristics remain underexplored, leading to potential misinterpretation and diagnostic challenges. This study aims to evaluate the imaging features of ADM in post-mastectomy patients using conventional imaging modalities, identifying its temporal evolution and clinical implications for radiologists and surgeons.

This single-centre retrospective study included breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy followed by ADM-assisted BR. Patients were monitored using standardised radiological follow-up protocols, including digital mammography (DM) and ultrasound (US), at 6 (T0), 12 (T1), and 18 months (T2) postoperatively. The primary outcomes assessed were the presence and evolution of ADM-related imaging findings, differentiation between normal ADM integration and pathological changes, and the role of different imaging modalities in ADM evaluation.

Sixty-three patients met the inclusion criteria and underwent radiological follow-up. At T0, ADM was identified in 16% of cases, primarily as a peri-capsular hypoechoic thickening on US and a linear peri-implant density on DM. At T1, these findings were partially resolved, with 11% of cases still displaying peri-capsular changes. By T2, imaging signs of ADM were further reduced, with only 7% of cases showing residual peri-capsular thickening or pseudonodular formations. No ADM-related complications, graft rejection, or implant loss were detected. These findings suggest a progressive integration of ADM into the host tissue over time, with characteristic imaging changes that must be recognised to avoid misdiagnosis or unnecessary interventions.

ADM exhibits a dynamic radiological evolution in post-mastectomy BR, with its imaging characteristics gradually fading. Recognising these features is critical for radiologists and surgeons to ensure accurate interpretation and optimised patient management. A structured imaging follow-up protocol, incorporating US as the primary modality and MRI in cases of inconclusive findings, is recommended to improve diagnostic accuracy. Future multicentre studies with extended follow-up and advanced imaging techniques are necessary to refine radiological criteria and further explore ADM integration patterns. A multidisciplinary approach is essential to enhance clinical decision-making, reduce unnecessary interventions, and optimise patient outcomes in ADM-assisted BR.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction poses unique challenges, including a lower tolerance for mastectomy flap skin necrosis and seroma formation. With appropriate patient selection, prepectoral breast reconstruction is a valuable reconstructive option with numerous benefits. Although mastectomy skin necrosis is largely out of the control of the reconstructive surgeon, mitigation of seroma formation is critical. Strategies to reduce its incidence have been thoroughly discussed. Whereas there are many contributing factors, one tenet of prepectoral breast reconstruction is adequate pocket control. Reducing dead space and microshifting of the implant in the breast pocket is an important factor for averting seroma formation and implant displacement. Textured devices allowed the breast implant to sit more securely in the soft-tissue pocket. Given widespread concern for their involvement with breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, macrotextured devices are no longer used in the United States. The authors describe their method of using poly-4-hydroxybutyrate synthetic absorbable mesh to effectively create a textured breast implant for use in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction.

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most used approach for breast reconstruction following mastectomy. Prosthetic breast reconstruction helps achieve optimal results with reduced operation time, offering advantages over direct-to-implant and subpectoral reconstruction in selected patients. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction.

A systematic literature search was performed, and the search was conducted across the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases by adhering to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. The inclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials or randomized clinical trials related to completed two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction. Statistical analyses were conducted to synthesize the data and evaluate outcomes.

A total of 48 articles were included for analysis, evaluating 4461 patients and 3894 breasts. The most commonly performed mastectomy type was skin-sparing mastectomy, followed by nipple-areola complex-sparing mastectomy. For the first surgical step, the mean tissue expander size was 423.64 cc, with a mean final expander fill of 349.10 cc. The mean time between the first and second surgery stages was 6.21 months, and the mean follow-up time was 17.10 months. A total of 21.27% of the patients experienced at least one complication. Specifically, seroma was identified in 11.19%, infection in 8.97%, skin flap necrosis in 8.48%, capsular contracture in 6.74%, rippling/wrinkling in 11.30%, expander or implant exposure in 2.38%, and implant removal in 8.62% of the patients.

Two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction is a viable surgical option for selected patients. The most frequent complication was seroma. Adjuvant radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of infection and implant removal.

The emergence of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) revolutionized prepectoral breast reconstruction, allowing partial or complete implant coverage. ADM had been described to possess several important benefits; nevertheless, the literature described an increased postoperative complication rate.

The aim of this study was to delineate H.Y.K.'s experience with ADM in direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction, and to describe complication rate and patient satisfaction.

This was a retrospective patient cohort that underwent primary or revisional breast reconstruction (DTI) utilizing DermaCell, from Jan 2017 to Jan 2024.

A total of 230 consecutive patients, 410 breasts, and 801 DermaCell sheets were evaluated. All were DTI breast reconstructions. Complication rate was described per breast. A total of 92 cases of complication occurred (22.4%). Rippling was seen in 18 breasts (4.39%), skin ischemia in 21 breasts (5.12%), hematoma in 5 (1.21%), and seroma in 9 (2.19%). Seventeen breasts experienced capsular contraction. In the nonirradiated group, capsular contracture (CC), Baker grade 3 to 4, was seen in 4 breasts (1.11%), with 9 (18%) in the irradiated group. The postoperative follow-up period was 18 months (range: 6-84 months). BREAST-Q satisfaction with the breast increased by a mean of 10.45. Satisfaction with the implant was 6.61 out of 8.

This cohort study represents the most comprehensive and up-to-date experience with DermaCell for DTI breast reconstructive surgery. The favorable complication profile suggests that DermaCell ADM offers a safe and reliable option, making it an important tool in the armamentarium of reconstructive plastic surgeon. DermaCell is an important component in prepectoral breast reconstruction, contributing to better results, an improved complication profile, and patient satisfaction.

The placement of breast implants in a prepectoral plane has become increasingly popular in breast reconstruction, although data on how this affects radiation delivery in women with breast cancer are limited. This study aimed to assess the dosimetric differences in radiation plans for immediate breast reconstruction between prepectoral and subpectoral implants.

In this study, a retrospective review and dosimetric analysis of patients with breast cancer who underwent immediate implant-based reconstruction and postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) were performed. Patients with pre- or subpectoral implants were matched 1:1 by use of boost and radiation field. Demographics and complications were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables. Dosimetric data were analyzed to compare doses to the target, heart, lungs, and pectoralis major using a Mann-Whitney U test.

The study identified 42 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Planning target volume (PTV) coverage was better in the prepectoral group (PTV D95%, 45.61 vs. 43.38 Gy; p = 0.04). The heart and lung doses did not differ. The patients with subpectoral implants had a lower absolute volume of pectoralis major receiving 20 to 45 Gy.

This assessment of radiation dosimetry for patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction found that the primary dosimetric difference between prepectoral and subpectoral implants was the dose to the pectoralis major. Otherwise, no significant difference in target coverage was found. These data suggest that implant placement can be selected to optimize reconstructive outcomes, with less concern for compromise to the oncologic quality of PMRT.

In recent years, different approaches to implant-based breast reconstruction have increasingly become an important option to meet both the treatment and postoperative aesthetic needs of breast cancer patients. This study selected two commonly used techniques for the prepectoral approach: single-incision, gas-inflated endoscopic prepectoral breast reconstruction (SIE-BR) and open prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (C-BR), as well as a commonly used technique for the subpectoral approach: open subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (SI-BR). By comparing the clinical efficacy and aesthetic outcomes of these three techniques in the treatment of breast cancer patients, this study aims to summarize the advantages of the prepectoral approach.

This study screened the clinicopathological data of a total of 136 breast cancer patients from January 2023 to December 2023. Among them, 38 patients underwent SIE-BR, 51 patients underwent C-BR, and 47 patients underwent SI-BR. The patient characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative conditions were analyzed in detail, and satisfaction was assessed using the BREAST-Q questionnaire.

The SIE-BR group had the longest surgery time, followed by the SI-BR group, with the C-BR group having the shortest surgery time. The C-BR group had the least blood loss, while the SIE-BR group had the most. The C-BR group also had the lowest drainage volume, and the SIE-BR group had the highest. Patients were categorized into a prepectoral implant-based reconstruction group (PIBR) and a subpectoral implant-based reconstruction group (SIBR). None of the patients experienced implant loss or flap necrosis. The PIBR group had significantly lower rates of wound infection, capsular contracture, and chest muscle pain compared to the SIBR group. The rates of wound dehiscence and implant wrinkling were statistically similar between the two groups. BREAST-Q scores indicated similar satisfaction in terms of breast appearance and sexual life between the groups, but the PIBR group showed significantly better scores in physical health (chest muscle function preservation) and mental health. Additional advantages of the prepectoral approach, including less postoperative pain, reduced movement-related deformity, and shorter surgery time, have contributed to the steady growth of this technique in recent years.

The three implant-based breast reconstruction techniques mentioned above are safe and feasible. Compared to the previously more common subpectoral approach, the prepectoral approach improves patients' postoperative physical and psychological comfort, making it an ideal surgical option.

This study aimed to determine the location of superficial fascial system condensations in relation to classic anatomical breast boundaries. Cadaveric studies have provided some understanding, but knowledge about the precise location of these condensations remains limited.

Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was conducted to assess the fascial condensations defining the breast footprint relative to landmarks such as the latissimus, clavicle, sternal border, and inframammary fold. Concurrently, cadaveric mastectomies were performed to measure the breast borders in relation to these landmarks for comparison.

A total of 290 breasts underwent preoperative MRI. Eight cadaveric breast dissections were completed. Radiographically, the lateral breast fascial condensation was 3.9 cm medial to the latissimus dorsi, whereas cadaveric measurements were 4.5 cm. The medial condensation was 2.1 cm lateral to the sternal border radiographically and 4.8 cm to the midline in cadavers. The superior fascial condensation was 2.3 cm inferior to the clavicle radiographically and 5.5 cm by dissection. The inferior condensation was above the inframammary fold in 82.7% of breasts by MRI and 100% of cadaveric breasts. MRI and cadaveric investigation showed similar patterns of breast tissue fascial condensations relative to standard breast boundaries. Breast skin flap thickness was greater peripherally (MRI, 11.5 mm; cadaver, 11.1 mm) than centrally (MRI, 6.6 mm; cadaver, 5.5 mm).

MRI and cadaveric analysis demonstrated a close correlation between the superficial fascial system and standard breast boundaries, although variations existed between subjects. Collaborating with breast oncologists and using preoperative imaging to identify individual fascial condensations may enhance the camouflage of prepectoral implants after mastectomy.

Large-scale defects of body in the reconstructive surgical practice, and the helplessness of their repair with autologous tissues, have been an important factor in the development of artificial biological products for the temporary, definitive, or staged repair of these defects. A major advance in the field of plastic and other reconstructive surgery in this regard has been the introduction and successful use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs). In recent years, not only the type of tissue from which ADMs are produced, product range, diversity and areas of use have increased, but their use in reconstructive fields, especially in post oncologic breast surgery, has become highly regarded and this has favored ADMs to be a potential cornerstone in specific and well-defined surgical fields in future. It is essential that reconstructive surgeons become familiar with some of the ADM's as well as the advantages and limitations to their use. This review not only provides basic science and clinical evidence of the current use of ADMs in wide range of surgical fields but also targets to keep them as an important backdrop in the armamentarium of reconstructive surgeons. Brief considerations of possible future directions for ADMs are also conducted in the end.

Human acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) remain the most used matrices in prosthetic breast reconstruction. However, the availability and cost of ADMs limit their use in prepectoral reconstruction-which requires large amounts of ADM-and alternative matrices are therefore being explored.

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of human-porcine ADM constructs via clinical outcomes and histologic evidence of graft integration.

Consecutive patients undergoing tissue-expander/implant reconstructions with human-porcine ADM constructs were included. Biopsies of both ADMs were obtained at expander/implant exchange and evaluated for cellularization, vascularization, and inflammation. Postoperative complications were retrieved from patient records.

Fifty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean [standard deviation] follow-up was 6.7 [0.56] years; minimum follow-up was 5 years. Any complication rate was 8.6%, including skin necrosis (6.9%), seroma (1.7%), expander/implant exposure (1.7%), and return to the operating room (2.6%). A total of 138 ADM biopsy specimens were obtained from 38 patients at expander/implant exchange. Histologic analyses revealed lower fibroblast infiltration and vascularization and higher inflammatory response in porcine vs human ADM specimens, consistent with published results in nonhuman primates. Despite these differences, there were no cases of graft rejection, capsular contracture, or expander/implant loss.

Porcine ADM performs clinically in a similar manner to human ADM, albeit with minor differences in cellular ingrowth and vascularization, suggesting that it may be an alternative to human ADM in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Background/Objectives: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is increasingly favored over autologous reconstruction due to its procedural simplicity and recovery benefits. Conducting this reconstruction using either the subpectoral or prepectoral planes has varied aesthetic outcomes. This study utilizes VECTRA XT 3D imaging to objectively assess breast symmetry differences between these surgical techniques. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted analyzing data from patients undergoing unilateral total mastectomy followed by immediate silicone implant reconstruction via subpectoral or prepectoral techniques. The VECTRA XT 3D system provided measurements, including sternal-notch-to-nipple (SN-N), midline-to-nipple (ML-N), and nipple-to-inframammary fold (N-IMF) distances, as well as breast width, volume, and projection, taken more than a year postoperatively, to assess symmetry and aesthetic outcomes. Results: The study included 63 patients-29 in the subpectoral group and 38 in the prepectoral group. The SN-N ratio was 0.91 for the subpectoral group compared to 0.95 for the prepectoral group (p = 0.014). Among patients with a BMI of 25 or higher, the prepectoral group had an SN-N ratio significantly closer to 1 (0.97 ± 0.07) than the subpectoral group (0.89 ± 0.06) (p = 0.027). No statistically significant differences were found in metrics based on the surgical method across age categories divided at 50. Conclusions: The prepectoral IBBR technique shows improved nipple positioning and breast symmetry compared to subpectoral methods, as assessed via precise 3D imaging. This finding suggests potential advantages for surgical planning and patient satisfaction, indicating the need for large cohort studies to further investigate the factors influencing breast symmetry.

Background Pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has become increasingly popular because it is associated with less postoperative pain and earlier recovery than traditional sub-pectoral techniques. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in pre-pectoral reconstruction is thought to provide additional support for the implant and improve cosmetic outcomes. However, it leads to additional costs. This study aimed to compare the early outcomes of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh. Methodology An observational, single-surgeon, retrospective cohort analysis was conducted to evaluate patients who underwent one-stage pre-pectoral breast reconstruction between May 2019 and July 2023 at Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust. Patient characteristics such as demographics, implant size, and postoperative complications were noted and compared. Statistical significance between groups was evaluated using chi-square tests, and a p-value <0.05 was deemed statistically significant. Results A total of 101 patients were included, with 52 patients with ADM and 49 patients without ADM. In total, 60 implant reconstructions were included in each group. Patients in the ADM group were younger than patients in the cohort without the mesh (median = 50 versus 56 years). Patients with ADM also had a higher median volume of breast implants than patients without mesh (430 vs. 330 cc). There were statistically more patients requiring postoperative radiotherapy in the ADM mesh group (p = 0.049). The early postoperative outcomes in both groups were comparable with no statistical differences in the rate of infection, seroma requiring aspiration, or implant loss. Conclusions This study which is one of the few studies comparing one-stage pre-pectoral implant reconstruction with and without mesh demonstrated that pre-pectoral reconstruction with no ADM is cost-effective and associated with comparable early postoperative outcomes. Our early observational series showed satisfactory outcomes; however, further studies are required to investigate longer-term and patient-related outcomes.

Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with direct to implant (DTI) is the preferred method of reconstruction by many surgeons and patients, however, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and other synthetic meshes are expensive especially in low- and middle-income countries. AIM OF THE WORK: To evaluate the technique, indications, aesthetic outcomes, and short and long-term complications of DTI breast reconstruction performed with Ultrapro®, a low-cost alternative mesh to ADM and other synthetic meshes.

Our study is a prospective cohort study that was conducted on 133 patients who experienced IBR following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) or skin sparing mastectomy (SSM) using silicone implants and Ultrapro® mesh between December 2020 and December 2023. Techniques used were either sub-pectoral or pre-pectoral, evaluating aesthetic outcome, complication rate and patient satisfaction using breast Q questionnaire.

We included 133 patients (141 breasts) with a median age of 39 years. Mean duration of follow up: 20.364 ± 5.39 months. The sub-pectoral and the pre pectoral techniques were used for 80 breasts and 61 breasts respectively. We used the Ultrapro® mesh in all our patients. Smooth round silicone implants were used. The overall Major complications rate was 16.3%. 8 implants (5.7%) were lost within 6 months post-operatively while 2 implants were removed in the late post-operative period (after 6 months) one due to rupture and the other due to local recurrence. Capsular contracture Baker 3 and 4 was observed in 36 breasts (25%), 31 of them had post mastectomy radiotherapy treatment. 11 (7.8%) were managed by capsulotomies and re-insertion of the same implant. Radiotherapy was a significant risk factors for major complications and capsular contracture with p value of (0.01) and (0.0001) respectively.

DTI in properly selected patients offers excellent outcomes and patient satisfaction. The complication rate is low and improves with the experience of the surgeon. The Ultrapro® mesh is a safe, low-cost alternative to ADM or other synthetic meshes especially in low socioeconomic countries. Radiotherapy is a significant risk factor for major complications and capsular contractures.

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database provides an important resource for determining complication rates and risk factors for surgical procedures. However, NSQIP is limited to 30-day follow-up, and it is unclear whether this is reliable for evaluating prosthetic breast reconstruction outcomes.

A single-institution, cross-sectional, retrospective review was performed for patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate, prepectoral tissue expander reconstruction. Timing of complications was stratified as early (within 30 days of operation) versus late (after 30 days). Categorical variables were compared using χ2 (or Fisher exact) tests, and continuous variables were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

There were 301 patients (509 reconstructed breasts) included with a median follow-up time of 11 months. Of them, 176 patients (58%) experienced a postoperative complication-140 patients (47%) experienced an early complication and 36 patients (12%) experienced a late complication. Patients with late complications had a significantly higher rate of reconstructive failure compared with the early complication group (17% versus 10%; P = 0.001) and were more likely to require a flap (28% versus 7%; P = 0.001) for final reconstruction. Revision surgery rates after final implant placement were higher in the late complication group (36% versus 64%; P = 0.285).

Late complications after prepectoral breast reconstruction have a more prominent impact on reconstructive failure and revisions than early complications. This finding may inform strategies to revise national databases such as NSQIP to include more detailed information and longer capture periods.

Background: In an effort to shed light on the recent resurgence of prepectoral breast reconstruction and mounting concerns regarding acellular dermal matrices (ADMs), the senior author's experience with non-ADM-assisted immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction and its associated complications are presented. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of the senior author's prepectoral breast reconstruction practice without ADM from November 2019 to May 2021 was carried out. Data regarding patient demographics, oncologic management, and surgical outcomes were recorded. Results: A total of 66 patients (88 breasts) were included, with an average follow-up of 7.8 months (SD: 5.4). Of these, 24 (36.4%) underwent immediate expander and 42 (63.6%) direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstructions. Major complications included nipple-areolar complex necrosis (2%), hematoma (3%), device exposure (2%), and periprosthetic infections (5.7%). The overall rate of implant failure was 5.7%. Minor complications included simple cellulitis (10%) and minor wound dehiscence (4.5%). Increasing implant size (p < .005) in the DTI cohort and increasing body mass index (BMI) were associated with an increased likelihood of adverse events. Postmastectomy radiation had no effect on surgical complications. Conclusions: The authors hope that in the absence of large, prospective trials, our data demonstrate the safety of immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction without ADM. Our data demonstrate that our algorithm is particularly safe in patients with a low BMI and with an implant size <500cc in DTI reconstruction. Further large prospective studies are required to further support our data in demonstrating that foregoing ADM in immediate prepectoral reconstruction is a safe option.

Background/Objectives: The rising incidence of breast cancer has led to more mastectomies and increased demand for reconstruction. While retropectoral reconstruction with expanders is common, it has complications like postoperative pain and animation deformity. Prepectoral reconstruction, aided by advancements in biological and synthetic meshes, offers a promising alternative. Methods: This study prospectively evaluated the "Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment Score" on 20 patients undergoing mastectomy at Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, from July 2022 to February 2024. Patients with scores between 5 and 8 were included. The procedure involved the use of ADM (Acellular Dermal Matrix) or titanium-coated polypropylene mesh, followed by postoperative expansions and final implant placement after six months. Results: The mean age of patients was 51.85 years, with a mean BMI of 24.145 kg/m2. ADM was used in 15 cases and synthetic mesh in 5. Complications were one exposure of the expander, one superficial skin necrosis and one seroma. Statistical analysis showed a trend toward fewer complications with higher scores, though this was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.139). Conclusions: Prepectoral reconstruction with expanders is a viable option, offering benefits such as reduced operating time, better volume control, and a more natural breast contour compared to the retropectoral approach. Although the trend suggests fewer complications with higher assessment scores, further studies with larger samples are needed for confirmation.

Background and Objectives: Breast cancer in patients with prior breast augmentation poses unique challenges for detection, diagnosis, and management. Mastectomy rates are increasing, and patients with prior augmentation often have a lower body mass index, making autologous techniques unsuitable. This study aims to assess the best reconstructive option in patients with a history of subglandular or dual-plane breast augmentation. Materials and methods: A prospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Patients with subglandular or dual-plane breast augmentation were included. Patients were divided into submuscular breast reconstruction (Group 2) or prepectoral breast reconstruction (Group 1) groups. Demographic and surgical data were collected. Results: A total of 47 patients were included, with 23 in Group 1 and 24 in Group 2. Complications occurred in 11 patients (23.4%), with significant differences between groups. The most common complication was seroma formation. Implant loss occurred in 4.3% of cases in Group 1, while no implant loss was observed in Group 2. Patient-reported satisfaction scores were similar between groups at 12 months postoperatively. Conclusions: Subpectoral breast reconstruction with a tissue expander seems a safer and effective technique for patients with prior breast augmentation. It resulted in fewer complications. This approach should be considered as an option for breast reconstruction after mastectomy in this cohort of patients.

Background: Post-mastectomy implant-based reconstruction can be performed as direct-to-implant (DTI) or two-staged reconstruction (TSR). Rigorous studies have explored postoperative complications between TSR or DTI, yet few have stratified outcomes by relevant populations, pre-operative findings, mastectomy characteristics, or plane of implant placement. We sought to compare the outcomes between these cohorts at our institution. Methods: All patients who underwent skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by DTI or TSR from 2011 to 2021 at a large academic medical center were included. Data included demographics, ADM use, mastectomy weight, plane of implant placement, and postoperative complications. Results: 295 patients were included. 271 (91.9%) received TSR, and 24 (8.1%) underwent DTI. Compared to TSR, DTI had a higher rate of NAC necrosis (P = .007) and dehiscence (P = .016). There was no difference in rate of other complications. Regardless of procedure, higher BMI (P = .002), higher grade ptosis (P = .01), and larger mastectomy weights (P = .022) were associated with increased risk of complication. Pre-pectoral placement was not associated with risk of NAC or mastectomy skin necrosis. Prior tobacco use was associated with higher risk of infection (P = .036) and dehiscence (P = .025). Neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with increased risk of capsular contracture(P = .009). Conclusions: Our study suggests that TSR may be preferred to minimize risk of NAC necrosis and wound dehiscence, especially in high-risk patients. Pre-pectoral placement did not significantly affect risk of mastectomy or NAC necrosis and should be considered in all cases to minimize morbidity. Higher risk conditions for alloplastic reconstruction include higher degrees of ptosis, history of tobacco use, and higher BMIs.

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the complications associated with prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) compared to subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) in patients diagnosed with breast cancer.

A comprehensive search was performed in four databases, including Medline, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL, to collect literature published up until December 31, 2024. In addition, we conducted a thorough manual examination of the bibliographies of the identified papers, as well as pertinent reviews and meta-analyses. We conducted a search on three clinical trial registries, namely ClinicalTrials.gov, Controlled-trials.com, and Umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm. Meta-analyses were conducted on total complications, hematoma, infection, wound healing issues, necrosis, capsular contracture, rippling, animation deformity, and reoperation.

A total of 40 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with SBR, PBR significantly reduced the incidence of animated malformations (OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.70, P=0.003, I ²=12%), but increased the incidence of ripples (OR=2.39, 95% CI: 1.53 to 3.72, P=0.0001, I ²=10%) and seroma (OR=1.55, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.35, P=0.04, increasing I ²=70%).

Our findings indicate that PBR and SBR have comparable safety profiles, with similar total complication rates. Specifically, PBR is more likely to cause rippling and seroma, whereas SBR is more prone to causing animation deformity.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024565837, identifier CRD42024565837.

Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction has multiple advantages over a staged tissue expander (TE) approach. However, its use may be limited by concerns of increased complications. This study is the largest series to date comparing postoperative outcomes for DTI versus TE reconstruction in the prepectoral plane.

The authors retrospectively reviewed 348 patients who underwent 536 total immediate, prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions between January of 2018 and December of 2021. The authors compared the presence of risk factors and the rate of six separate complications between patients who underwent DTI versus TE reconstruction up to 1 year after surgery.

Of 348 patients, 147 (42%) and 201 (58%) underwent TE and DTI reconstruction ( P = 0.1813), respectively. The overall infection rate was 16.4% ( n = 57). DTI patients had a significantly greater incidence of wounds ( P < 0.0001), including minor ( P < 0.0011) and major wounds ( P < 0.0053). Significantly greater mastectomy resection weights were found for DTI patients who experienced any complication ( P < 0.0076), postoperative wounds ( P < 0.0001), and major wounds specifically ( P < 0.0035). Compared with medium-thickness acellular dermal matrix (ADM), extra thick ADM was associated with significantly increased rates of infection ( P < 0.0408) and wounds ( P < 0.0001).

Prepectoral DTI reconstruction in patients with adequate flap perfusion may have complication rates comparable to staged TE reconstruction, apart from a higher incidence of postoperative wounds. Greater mastectomy resection weights and thickness of ADM may specifically contribute to infection and wound-healing complications. Prepectoral DTI reconstruction is encouraged in the patients with adequate flap perfusion and moderate to low mastectomy resection weights who desire comparable or smaller implant volumes.

Therapeutic, III.

Absorbable mesh has been used to mitigate the potential drawbacks of acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-based breast reconstruction. Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) has been demonstrated to be a lower-cost, safe, and effective alternative to ADM in subpectoral breast reconstruction. In this study, the authors used P4HB for pocket control and implant support in immediate two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction, examining nonintegration, capsular contracture, implant malposition, patient comorbidities, and risk factors.

A retrospective review of a single surgeon's (K.M.) experience was performed over a 4-year span for patients who had undergone immediate two-stage prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with P4HB mesh. Complications (implant loss, rippling, capsular contracture, and malposition) and patient satisfaction were examined.

From 2018 to 2022, 105 patients underwent breast reconstruction using P4HB mesh on a total of 194 breasts. P4HB mesh integration was 97%. Sixteen breasts (8.2%) experienced minor complications, and 10.3% of devices required explantation, which was significantly higher in the irradiated group at 28.6% ( P < 0.01). Patients who were older, had a higher body mass index, were active smokers, or had an increased mastectomy specimen size were more likely to undergo explantation. The capsular contracture rate and overall lateral malposition rate were 1.0%. Visible rippling was present in 15.6% of breasts. There was no significant difference between smile mastopexy and inferolateral incision with regard to capsular contracture, lateral malposition, and rippling. Overall, patients demonstrated a high level of satisfaction. There were no significant predictors of capsular contracture, lateral malposition, or visible rippling.

The authors show the safety and efficacy of P4HB in two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction. There appears to be equal, if not reduced, capsular contracture rates when compared with the published data on ADM. This represents a large cost reduction to both the patient and the health care system.

Therapeutic, IV.

The impact of timing of genetic testing on uptake of risk reducing mastectomy (RRM) in affected female BRCA1/2 or PALB2 carriers remains an area of evolving interest, particularly with the introduction of mainstream genetic testing initiatives.

Women with stage I-III breast cancer and a confirmed germline pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2 or PALB2 between 2000 and 2023 were identified from an institutional genetics database. Uptake of RRM was evaluated according to disclosure of genetic testing results before or after index surgery for a first diagnosis of breast cancer.

The cohort included 287 female BRCA1/2 or PALB2 carriers with a median age of 44 years (IQR, 36-52). Overall, 155 (54 %) carriers received genetic testing results before and 132 (46 %) after index breast surgery. Receipt of genetic testing results before surgery was associated with a higher rate of index bilateral mastectomy (58.7 % vs. 7.6 %, p < 0.001) and a commensurate decrease in adjuvant radiation (41.9 % vs. 74.2 %, p < 0.001). At a median follow up of 4.4 years after genetic testing, 219 (76.3 %) affected carriers had undergone bilateral RRM, including 83.9 % with preoperative knowledge and 67.4 % of patients with postoperative knowledge of their germline pathogenic variant (log rank, p < 0.001). On multivariate regression, disclosure of genetic testing results before index breast surgery was independently associated with long-term uptake of bilateral mastectomy (HR 1.69, 95 % CI 1.21-2.38).

Genetic testing results delivered prior to index breast surgery increase uptake of bilateral RRM in affected BRCA1/2 and PALB2 carriers. Efforts to mainstream genetic testing would help optimize surgical decision-making.

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has become popularized with the concurrent use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). The authors sought to compare 3-month postoperative complication rates and explantation rates for first-stage, tissue-expander-based, prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without the use of ADM.

A single-institution retrospective chart review was performed to identify consecutive patients undergoing prepectoral tissue-expander-based breast reconstruction from August of 2020 to January of 2022. Chi-square tests were used to compare demographic categorical variables, and multiple variable regression models were used to identify variables associated with 3-month postoperative outcomes.

The authors enrolled 124 consecutive patients. Fifty-five patients (98 breasts) were included in the no-ADM cohort and 69 patients (98 breasts) were included in the ADM cohort. There were no statistically significant differences between the ADM and no-ADM cohorts with regard to 90-day postoperative outcomes. On multivariable analysis, there were no independent associations between seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, mastectomy skin flap necrosis, infection, unplanned return to the operating room, or explantation in the ADM and no-ADM groups after controlling for age, body mass index, history of diabetes, tobacco use, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and postoperative radiotherapy.

The authors' results reveal no significant differences in odds of postoperative complications, unplanned return to the operating room, or explantation between the ADM and no-ADM cohorts. More studies are needed to evaluate the safety of prepectoral, tissue expander placement without ADM.

Therapeutic, III.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy and other modifiable radiation factors have been associated with decreased radiation toxicity. These factors could allow for improved reconstructive outcomes in patients requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). However, they have not yet been well studied in implant-based breast reconstruction.

The authors performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate tissue expander placement followed by PMRT. Radiation characteristics were collected, including radiation technique, bolus regimen, x-ray energy, fractionation, maximum radiation hot spot, and tissue volume receiving more than 105% or more than 107% of the prescription dose. Reconstructive complications occurring after initiation of PMRT were analyzed with respect to these radiation characteristics.

Sixty-eight patients (70 breasts) were included in this study. The overall complication rate was 28.6%, with infection being the most common complication (24.3%), requiring removal of the tissue expander or implant in greater than half of infections (15.7%). Maximum radiation hot spot was greater in patients who required explantation after PMRT, and this approached statistical significance (114.5% ± 7.2% versus 111.4% ± 4.4%; P = 0.059). Tissue volume receiving more than 105% and 107% were also greater in patients who required explantation after PMRT (42.1% ± 17.1% versus 33.0% ± 20.9% and 16.4% ± 14.5% versus 11.3% ± 14.6%, respectively); however, this was not statistically significant ( P = 0.176 and P = 0.313, respectively). There were no significant differences in complication rates between patients with respect to radiation technique or other radiation characteristics studied.

Minimizing the radiation hot spots and volumes of tissue receiving greater than the prescription dose of radiation may improve reconstructive outcomes in patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction followed by PMRT.

Therapeutic, III.

For women undergoing mastectomy, breast reconstruction can be performed by using implants or autologous tissue flaps. Mastectomy options include skin- and nipple-sparing techniques. Implant-based reconstruction can be performed with saline or silicone implants. Various autologous pedicled or free tissue flap reconstruction methods based on different tissue donor sites are available. The aesthetic outcomes of implant- and flap-based reconstructions can be improved with oncoplastic surgery, including autologous fat graft placement and nipple-areolar complex reconstruction. The authors provide an update on recent advances in implant reconstruction techniques and contemporary expanded options for autologous tissue flap reconstruction as it relates to imaging modalities. As breast cancer screening is not routinely performed in this clinical setting, tumor recurrence after mastectomy and reconstruction is often detected by palpation at physical examination. Most local recurrences occur within the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Diagnostic breast imaging continues to have a critical role in confirmation of disease recurrence. Knowledge of the spectrum of benign and abnormal imaging appearances in the reconstructed breast is important for postoperative evaluation of patients, including recognition of early and late postsurgical complications and breast cancer recurrence. The authors provide an overview of multimodality imaging of the postmastectomy reconstructed breast, as well as an update on screening guidelines and recommendations for this unique patient population. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Two-stages pre-pectoral breast reconstruction may confer advantages over direct to implant (DTI) and subpectoral reconstruction in selected patients who have no indication for autologous reconstruction. The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate and compare the incidence of capsular contracture in the pre-pectoral two-stages technique versus the direct to implant technique. Complications related to the two surgical techniques and patient satisfaction were also evaluated.

A retrospective review of 45 two stages and 45 Direct-to-implant, DTI patients was completed. Acellular dermal matrix was used in all patients. An evaluation of anthropometric and clinical parameters, surgical procedures and complications was conducted. Minimum follow-up was 12 months after placement of the definitive implant.

There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of capsular contracture in the two groups. Rippling occurred more in DTI reconstruction. In the two-stages reconstruction, lipofilling was applied more often and there was a higher incidence of seroma. Patient satisfaction extrapolated from the Breast Q questionnaire was better for patients submitted to two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction.

Dual-stage pre-pectoral reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix appears to be a good reconstructive solution in patients with relative contraindications for one-stage heterologous reconstruction with definitive prosthesis and no desire for autologous reconstruction.

Rippling remains one of the most common complications following prepectoral implant-based reconstruction (IBR).

The purpose of this study was to assess how implant cohesivity, a measure of elasticity and form stability, affects the incidence of rippling in prepectoral IBR.

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 2-stage prepectoral IBR performed between January 2020 and June 2022 at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comparing outcomes in patients who received Allergan Natrelle least cohesive, moderately cohesive, and most cohesive silicone gel implants. Outcomes of interest were rippling and reoperation for fat grafting.

A total of 129 patients were identified, of whom 52 had the least cohesive implants, 24 had the moderately cohesive implants, and 53 patients had the most cohesive implants. The mean follow-up time was 463 (±220) days. A decreased incidence of rippling was seen with moderately cohesive (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, P < .05) and most cohesive (OR 0.39, P < .05) implants. Third stage reoperation for fat grafting was less frequent in patients with the most cohesive implant (OR 0.07, P < .05). In subgroup analyses, the patients with the most cohesive implant, who did not receive fat grafting at the time of initial implant placement, did not require reoperation for fat grafting (0%).

The use of highly cohesive implants in prepectoral IBR is associated with decreased rippling and fewer reoperations for fat grafting.

As reconstructive surgeons have increasingly transitioned to the prepectoral plane for prosthetic breast reconstruction, the implications of mastectomy skin flap necrosis have become more concerning. Our goal was to evaluate the effect of skin flap necrosis on reconstructive outcomes in patients undergoing immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction.

A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing immediate two-stage prepectoral reconstruction at a single center with at least 3 months follow-up. Postoperative complications, reconstructive outcome, and time to final implant were compared between patients with and without mastectomy skin necrosis.

A total of 301 patients underwent 509 prepectoral breast reconstructions. Forty-four patients (14.6%) experienced postoperative mastectomy skin flap necrosis. Demographic and reconstructive characteristics were similar between the necrosis and no necrosis cohorts. Patients with skin necrosis were more likely to undergo reoperation after tissue expander (64% vs 19%, p < 0.01) and undergo expander replacement (13.6% vs 3.5%, p = 0.02). However, rates of reconstructive failure (6.8% vs 6.2%), major infection (9.1% vs 9.0%), and minor infection (13.6% vs 17.5%) after expander placement were statistically similar. Patients with skin necrosis trended toward longer time before final implant placement, although the difference was not statistically significant (6.5 vs 5.0 months, p = 0.08). There was no difference in complication rates between the necrosis and no necrosis cohort after final implant placement. There was a higher rate of revision surgery after implant placement in the necrosis cohort (12.5% vs 4.1%, p = 0.047).

Mastectomy skin flap necrosis is a concerning postoperative event, particularly in patients with prepectoral prostheses. We observed that patients with skin necrosis experience higher reoperation rates in the expander period, yet have similar infection rates and achieve similar final reconstructive outcomes compared to patients without necrosis.

Interfaces continue to be used in prepectoral breast reconstruction to refine breast appearance, but more clinical data are required to assess their effectiveness. This study compares the rates of capsular contracture, breast esthetics, and patient satisfaction between two commonly used interface materials, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and polyurethane (PU) foam.

A cross-sectional assessment was conducted on all patients who underwent prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction with an interface material between June 2018 and June 2022. We compared capsular contracture rates (assessed in-person), esthetic outcomes (evaluated by a three-member panel using a specially designed scale), and patient satisfaction (measured using the Breast-Q questionnaire) among the members of the interface groups.

Among the 79 reconstructed breasts (20 bilateral cases), 35 were reconstructed using ADM and 44 using PU implants. The ADM group had a significantly higher frequency of Baker III/IV capsular contracture compared with the PU group (14.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.014) and lower ratings from the panel in terms of capsular contracture (median 3.7 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001). PU reconstructions scored worse in implant visibility (median 2.3 vs. 3.3, p < 0.001) and rippling (median 3.0 vs. 3.7, p < 0.001). However, after appropriate adjustment for confounders, no significant differences in overall appearance and patient satisfaction were found.

ADM reconstructions are prone to capsular contracture with all their related esthetic issues, but PU implants have certain cosmetic flaws, such as implant visibility and malposition. Since each technique has its own limitations, neither the experienced surgeons nor patients exhibited a clear preference for either approach.

This study aims to compare the rate of nipple necrosis between the submuscular (SM) versus the prepectoral (PP) implant placement after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR).

An institutional review board-approved database was reviewed of patients who underwent nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) with IBR at our institution between 2016 and 2019. Patients who had SM versus PP IBR were compared. Incidence of nipple necrosis was evaluated between the two groups.

A total of 525 NSM with IBR were performed in 320 patients with SM reconstruction in 61% (n ​= ​322) and PP in 39% (n ​= ​203) of the mastectomies. Overall, 43 nipples experienced some form of necrosis with 1% of mastectomies experiencing nipple loss. There was no difference between SM group and PP group at the rate of nipple necrosis (9 ​% vs 7 %, P ​= ​0.71).

In patients undergoing NSM with IBR, the rate of nipple necrosis, nipple loss or complications did not differ between groups whether the implant was placed SM or PP, supporting the safety of this newer procedure.

Although there is increasing interest in minimally invasive prosthesis breast reconstruction (PBR), whether meshes application in minimally invasive PBR can improve complications and cosmetic effects remains controversial. The author retrospectively analyzed postoperative complications and evaluated patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in minimally invasive PBR with and without mesh.

This study enrolled patients who underwent minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) followed by PBR. We used the TiLOOP bra for the mesh-assisted procedure. Patient demographics and postoperative complications data were compared between the procedures. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with the Breast-Q.

A total of 158 patients underwent 160 minimally invasive NSM-PBR (with mesh, n = 64; without, n = 94). Postoperative complications were comparable in the mesh-assisted (5 [7.7%]) and non-mesh-assisted (5 [5.3%]) groups (p = 0.533). The most common complication in non-mesh-assisted group was infection, with four (4.2%) cases. In mesh-assisted group, implant exposure occurred in two (3.1%) patients. Removal of prosthesis was uncommon, with two (3.1%) and three (3.2%) cases in the mesh-assisted and non-mesh groups, respectively (p = 0.977). The BREAST-Q questionnaire was completed by 52 (81.3%) patients in the mesh-assisted group and 68 (72.3%) in the non-mesh-assisted group. Comparing the non-mesh group, patients in mesh-assisted group had improved scores on the BREAST-Q Satisfaction with breast (66.0) (p < 0.05), Physical Well-being (80.0), and Sexual Well-being (56.0).

Mesh-assisted minimally invasive NSM-PBR has good aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the mesh-assisted and non-mesh-assisted groups.

We aimed to evaluate the risk and benefit of (y)pN1 breast cancer patients in a Bayesian network model.

We developed a Bayesian network (BN) model comprising three parts: pretreatment, intervention, and risk/benefit. The pretreatment part consisted of clinical information from a tertiary medical center. The intervention part regarded the field of radiotherapy. The risk/benefit component encompasses radiotherapy (RT)-related side effects and effectiveness, including factors such as recurrence, cardiac toxicity, lymphedema, and radiation pneumonitis. These factors were evaluated in terms of disability weights and probabilities from a nationwide expert survey. The overall disease burden (ODB) was calculated as the sum of the probability multiplied by the disability weight. A higher value of ODB indicates a greater disease burden for the patient.

Among the 58 participants, a BN model utilizing discretization and clustering techniques revealed five distinct clusters. Overall, factors associated with breast reconstruction and RT exhibited high discrepancies (24-34 %), while RT-related side effects demonstrated low discrepancies (3-11 %) among the experts. When incorporating recurrence and RT-related side effects, the mean ODB of (y)pN1 patients was 0.258 (range, 0.244-0.337), with a higher tendency observed in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or mastectomy cases. The ODB for TNBC patients undergoing mastectomy without postmastectomy radiotherapy was 0.327, whereas for non-TNBC patients undergoing breast conserving surgery with RT, the disease burden was 0.251. There was an increasing trend in ODB as the field of RT increased.

We developed a Bayesian network model based on an expert survey, which helps to understand treatment patterns and enables precise estimations of RT-related risk and benefit in (y)pN1 patients.

In 2023, 62,000 patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in France. Every year, 22,000 mastectomies are performed. Breast reconstruction (BR) should be an integral part of breast cancer management. Yet the MR rate in France is only 28% within 3 years of mastectomy, of which 14% are immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The number of contraindications to RMI has steadily declined over the last few decades, although some of them remain definitive, such as inflammatory cancer (T4d). Today, many specialists involved in the management of breast cancer consider that IBR can be proposed in cases where adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy is indicated, if it is not expected to delay carcinological management. The surgical team must then inform the patient of all available BR techniques. If a team does not offer a particular technique, the patient should be referred to a center that does. In all cases, the proposal for curative and reparative treatment should be the subject of a multidisciplinary discussion involving, in particular, a surgeon, a radiotherapist and a medical oncologist. When adjuvant radiotherapy is indicated, the patient must be informed of the increased risk of complications and deterioration of the aesthetic result. In this indication, RMI by prosthesis is a validated technique. However, if the patient has a history of radiotherapy, autologous techniques should be preferred. In a context of shared decision-making, the choice of whether or not to undergo MR and the type of technique must ultimately be made by the patient, in agreement with the multidisciplinary team.

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common reconstructive approach after mastectomy. Prepectoral implants offer advantages over submuscular implants, such as less animation deformity, pain, weakness, and postradiation capsular contracture. However, clinical outcomes after prepectoral reconstruction are debated. The authors performed a matched-cohort analysis of outcomes after prepectoral and submuscular reconstruction at a large academic medical center.

Patients treated with implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy from January of 2018 through October of 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were propensity score exact matched to control demographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative differences. Outcomes assessed included surgical-site occurrences, capsular contracture, and explantation of either expander or implant. Subanalysis was done on infections and secondary reconstructions.

A total of 634 breasts were included (prepectoral, 197; submuscular, 437). A total of 292 breasts were matched (146 prepectoral:146 submuscular) and analyzed for clinical outcomes. Prepectoral reconstructions were associated with greater rates of SSI (prepectoral, 15.8%; submuscular, 3.4%; P < 0.001), seroma (prepectoral, 26.0%; submuscular, 10.3%; P < 0.001), and explantation (prepectoral, 23.3%; submuscular, 4.8%; P < 0.001). Subanalysis of infections revealed that prepectoral implants have shorter time to infection, deeper infections, and more Gram-negative infections, and are more often treated surgically (all P < 0.05). There have been no failures of secondary reconstructions after explantation in the entire population at a mean follow-up of 20.1 months.

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is associated with higher rates of infection, seroma, and explantation compared with submuscular reconstructions. Infections of prepectoral implants may need different antibiotic management to avoid explantation. Secondary reconstruction after explantation can result in long-term success.

Therapeutic, III.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is commonly performed for breast cancer treatment or prevention. The authors present one of the largest breast reconstruction series in the literature.

A single-institution retrospective review was conducted from 2007 to 2019.

The authors' query identified 3035 implant-based breast reconstructions after nipple-sparing mastectomy, including 2043 direct-to-implant and 992 tissue expander-to-implant reconstructions. The overall major complication rate was 9.15%, and the nipple necrosis rate was 1.20%. Therapeutic mastectomy was associated with higher overall complications and explantations compared with prophylactic mastectomy ( P < 0.01). In comparisons of unilateral and bilateral procedures, bilateral mastectomy had an increased risk for complications (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.997 to 2.145; P = 0.05). Tissue-expander reconstructions had higher rates of nipple necrosis (1.9% versus 0.88%; P = 0.015), infection (4.2% versus 2.8%; P = 0.04), and explantation (5.1% versus 3.5%; P = 0.04) compared with direct-to-implant reconstruction. When assessing plane of reconstruction, the authors found similar rates of complications between subpectoral dual-plane and prepectoral reconstruction. There was no difference in complications between reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix or mesh compared with total or partial muscle coverage without acellular dermal matrix/mesh (OR, 0.749; 95% CI, 0.404 to 1.391; P = 0.361). Multivariable regression analysis revealed preoperative radiotherapy (OR, 2.465; 95% CI, 1.579 to 3.848; P < 0.001), smoking (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.581 to 4.054; P < 0.001), and a periareolar incision (OR, 3.657; 95% CI, 2.276 to 5.875; P < 0.001) to be the strongest predictors of complications and nipple necrosis ( P < 0.05).

Nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction has a low rate of complications. In this series, radiation therapy, smoking, and incision choice predicted overall complications and nipple necrosis, whereas direct-to-implant reconstruction and acellular dermal matrix or mesh did not increase risk.

Therapeutic, III.

As prepectoral implant placement becomes widely adopted, recent studies investigating the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) during tissue expander placement have demonstrated no major benefit with regard to postoperative outcomes. We sought to evaluate second-stage outcomes 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant with and without ADM. Consecutive patients who underwent prepectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction with and without ADM were identified. Patients were followed up for 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest including implant rippling, capsular contracture, implant explantation, additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported outcomes were collected and compared. Sixty-eight breasts in the ADM cohort and sixty-one breasts in the no ADM cohort underwent tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest were similar between the ADM and no ADM cohorts with no statistically significant differences identified regarding incidences of implant rippling (24.6% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.08), capsular contracture (4.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 1.00), and explantation (6.6% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.67) between the two cohorts. BREAST-Q scores were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of physical wellbeing and satisfaction in terms of implant rippling, as can be seen, which improved in the no ADM cohort (p = 0.04). Our study reports no major benefit for the inclusion of ADM with respect to implant rippling, capsular contracture, explantation, need for additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported satisfaction in prepectoral second-stage implant-based breast reconstruction.

Female BRCA1/2 and PALB2 germline pathogenic variant carriers have an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer and may wish to consider risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) for surgical prevention. Quantifying the residual lifetime risk and absolute benefit from RRM requires careful consideration of a patient's age, pathogenic variant, and their personal history of breast or ovarian cancer. Historically, patients have been counselled that RRM does not necessarily prolong survival relative to high-risk surveillance, although recent studies suggest a possible survival benefit of RRM in BRCA1 carriers. The uptake of RRM has increased dramatically over the last several decades yet varies according to sociodemographic factors and geographic region. The increased adoption of nipple-sparing mastectomy techniques, ability to avoid axillary staging, and availability of reconstructive options for most germline pathogenic variant carriers has helped to minimize the morbidity of RRM. Preoperative discussions should include evidence regarding postmastectomy sensation, the potential for supplemental surgery, pregnancy-related chest wall changes, and the need for continued clinical surveillance. Approaches that include sensation preservation and robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy are an area of evolving research that may be more widely adopted in the future.

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently utilized in prepectoral breast reconstruction, but few studies have examined the role of ADM type in complication risk.

This study was performed to determine the impact of ADM type on early complication rates in 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction.

We performed a cohort examination of all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction with ADM support at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2018 to 2021. ADM types utilized included AlloDerm (LifeCell Corporation, Branchburg, NJ), FlexHD (MTF Biologics, Edison, NJ), and SurgiMend (Integra LifeSciences Corporation, Princeton, NJ). Complication rates based on the number of tissue expanders (TEs) were determined for each ADM type. Performance of multivariate logistic regression determined the impact of ADM type on complication risk after accounting for confounders.

Overall, 726 patients (1054 TEs: 194 AlloDerm, 93 FlexHD, 767 SurgiMend) were included. The 3 cohorts differed in terms of mastectomy type (nipple-sparing: 23.5% of AlloDerm, 33.3% of FlexHD, 19.1% of SurgiMend, P = .038); ADM perforation (perforated: 94.8% of AlloDerm, 98.2% of FlexHD, 100% of SurgiMend, P < .001); and ADM size (AlloDerm: 153.2 cm2 [37.6], SurgiMend: 198.7 cm2 [10.4], FlexHD: 223.7 cm2 [37.9], P < .001). On univariate examination, no differences existed between ADM types for seroma, infection, exposure, malposition, or TE loss. Additionally, after adjustment for confounders with multivariate regression, no ADM type had higher odds of TE loss.

In this large cohort of prepectoral reconstruction patients, ADM type did not significantly affect the risk of complications. Additional prospective studies are warranted to better evaluate ADM choice for prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are commonly used in prepectoral breast reconstruction. However, ADM is associated with high cost and potentially infection and seroma. Comparative studies on prepectoral reconstruction with and without ADM are limited to small, single-institution series. The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of prepectoral reconstruction with and without ADM. A systematic literature review was performed to identify studies comparing prepectoral reconstruction with and without ADM using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Pooled rates of patient demographics and outcomes were analyzed. Meta-analytic effect size estimates were calculated for reconstructive complications in studies comparing reconstruction with and without ADM. In total, 515 reconstructions from four studies were included. Most cases were nipple-sparing mastectomies and utilized tissue-expander reconstructions. Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the rate of complications between cohorts with and without ADM. Short-term complications included reconstructive failure (1.2% in ADM cohort and 2.8% in no-ADM), seroma (1.2% and 8.3%, respectively), hematoma (1.2% and 2.1%), infection (4.7% and 4.2%), and mastectomy flap ischemia and/or necrosis (2.4% and 5.2%). Long-term complications included rippling (3.3% in ADM and 5.1% in no-ADM cohorts) and capsular contracture (6.8% and 3.4%, respectively). This meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in the rate of complications between cases with and without ADM. However, the outcomes data from no-ADM reconstruction mostly reflect robust mastectomy flaps. Surgeon discretion as informed by specific clinical scenarios should guide decisions regarding the use of ADM in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

In prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) the acellular dermal matrix (ADM)'s integration capacity into the tissue is known. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of the ADM on development and composition of the peri-implant breast capsule in a dynamic setting of breast tissue expansion during two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction.

This is a prospective single-center study in which 50 patients who underwent mastectomy and breast reconstruction with prepectoral tissue expander and Braxon ADM (group A) and submuscular tissue expander (group B) were enrolled. One-year post implantation hematoxylin & eosin (H&E) staining and immunohistochemistry analyses were done on capsule tissue samples.

The analysis conducted on H&E-stained samples showed a significant reduction of cellular density and a decrease of the cellular infiltration in capsules of ADM-covered expanders compared with naked expander capsules (P < 0.05). The immunohistochemical analyses showed that group A capsules presented significantly less M1 CD68+ macrophages (P < 0.05), lower alfa-SMA expression levels, and a lower number of myofibroblasts (P < 0.05) compared with group B capsules. Presence of lymphatic vessels was minimally detected in both groups.

The ADM presence around the prepectoral tissue expander influences the development of the peri-implant capsule, causing a significant reduction of the number of cells and inflammatory infiltrate, especially M1 macrophages and myofibroblasts. The ADM Braxon is therefore effective in creating a noninflamed capsule around the implant and in dynamic tissue conditions, and such an environment is maintained in time.

Prepectoral direct-to-implant insertion (DTI) with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is the currently preferred operation for breast reconstruction. There are different placements of ADM, which are largely classified as wraparound placement or anterior coverage placement. Because there are limited data comparing these two placements, this study aimed to compare the outcomes of these two methods.

This was a retrospective study of immediate prepectoral DTI breast reconstructions performed by a single surgeon between 2018 and 2020. Patients were classified depending on the ADM placement type used. Surgical outcomes and breast shape changes using nipple position during follow-up were compared.

A total of 159 patients were included in the study, with 87 in the wraparound group and 72 in the anterior coverage group. Demographics were similar between the two groups, excluding ADM amount used (154.1 cm 2 versus 137.8 cm 2 ; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the overall rate of complications between the two groups, including seroma (6.90% versus 5.56%; P = 1.0), total drainage amount (762.1 mL versus 805.9 mL; P = 0.45), and capsular contracture (4.6% versus 1.39%; P = 0.38). The wraparound group had a significantly longer distance change than that of the anterior coverage group in the sternal notch-to-nipple distance (4.44% versus 2.08%; P = 0.03) and midclavicle-to-nipple distance (4.94% versus 2.64%; P = 0.04).

Wraparound and anterior coverage placement of ADM in prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction showed similar complication rates, including seroma, drainage amount, and capsular contracture. However, wraparound placement can make the breast more ptotic in shape compared with anterior coverage placement.

Therapeutic, III.

This study reports the preliminary results of da Vinci robot XI robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy immediate breast reconstruction (R-NSMIBR) with gel implant and latissimus dorsi muscle flap.

A total of 15 patients who underwent R-NSMIBR with gel implant and latissimus dorsi muscle flap surgery for breast cancer between September 2022 and November 2022 were evaluated.

Mean total operative time for R-NSMIBR was 361.9 ± 77.0 min. As the learning curve increased, the robot arm docking time decreased rapidly from the initial 25-10 min. Average total blood loss was 27.8 ± 10.7 mL and posterior surgical margin positivity rate was 0%. Perioperative complications and local recurrences or deaths were not observed at a mean follow-up of 3 ± 1 month 15 patients were satisfied with postoperative aesthetic results.

R-NSMIBR with a gel implant and latissimus dorsi muscle flap could be a new therapeutic option for breast reconstruction.