Dual-Plane versus Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction in High–Body Mass Index Patients

Dual-Plane versus Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction in High–Body Mass Index Patients

by Gabriel, Allen; Sigalove, Steven; Storm-Dickerson, Toni L.; Sigalove, Noemi M.; Pope, Nicole; Rice, Jami; Maxwell, G. Patrick

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: June 2020 - Volume 145 - Issue 6 - p 1357-1365

Background: Breast reconstruction in patients with a high body mass index (BMI) (≥30 kg/m2) is technically challenging and is associated with increased postoperative complications. The optimal reconstructive approach for these patients remains to be determined. This study compared outcomes of prepectoral and dual-plane reconstruction in high-BMI patients to determine whether there was an association between postoperative complications and the plane of reconstruction. 

Methods: High-BMI patients who underwent immediate dual-plane or prepectoral expander/implant reconstruction were included in this retrospective study. Patients were stratified by reconstructive approach (dual-plane or prepectoral), and postoperative complications were compared between the groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine whether the plane of reconstruction was an independent predictor of any complication after adjusting for potential confounding differences in patient variables between the groups.

Results: Of 133 patients, 65 (128 breasts) underwent dual-plane and 68 (129 breasts) underwent prepectoral reconstruction. Rates of seroma (13.3 percent versus 3.1 percent), surgical-site infection (9.4 percent versus 2.3 percent), capsular contracture (7.0 percent versus 0.8 percent), and any complication (25.8 percent versus 14.7 percent) were significantly higher in patients who had dual-plane versus prepectoral reconstruction (p < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression identified dual-plane, diabetes, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy as significant, independent predictors of any complication (p < 0.05). Dual-plane reconstruction increased the odds of any complication by 3-fold compared with the prepectoral plane.

Conclusion: Compared with the dual-plane approach, the prepectoral approach appears to be associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications following immediate expander/implant breast reconstruction and may be a better reconstructive option in high-BMI patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Patient-Reported Outcomes after Irradiation of Tissue Expander versus Permanent Implant in Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Prospective Study

Patient-Reported Outcomes after Irradiation of Tissue Expander versus Permanent Implant in Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Prospective Study

by Yoon, Alfred P.; Qi, Ji; Kim, Hyungjin M.; Hamill, Jennifer B.; Jagsi, Reshma; Pusic, Andrea L.; Wilkins, Edwin G.; Kozlow, Jeffrey H.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: May 2020 - Volume 145 - Issue 5 - p 917e-926e

Background: Whether to irradiate the tissue expander before implant exchange or to defer irradiation until after exchange in immediate, two-stage expander/implant reconstruction remains uncertain. The authors evaluated the effects of irradiation timing on complication rates and patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing immediate expander/implant reconstruction.

Methods: Immediate expander/implant reconstruction patients undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy at 11 Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium sites with demographic, clinical, and complication data were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed with BREAST-Q, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer–Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire surveys preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Survey scores and complication rates were analyzed using bivariate comparison and multivariable regressions.

Results: Of 317 patients who met inclusion criteria, 237 underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy before expander/implant exchange (before-exchange cohort), and 80 did so after exchange (after-exchange cohort). Timing of radiation had no significant effect on risks of overall complications (OR, 1.25; p = 0.46), major complications (OR, 1.18; p = 0.62), or reconstructive failure (OR, 0.72; p = 0.49). Similarly, radiation timing had no significant effect on 2-year patient-reported outcomes measured by the BREAST-Q or the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer survey. Outcomes measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System showed less anxiety, fatigue, and depression in the after-exchange group. Compared with preoperative assessments, 2-year patient-reported outcomes significantly declined in both cohorts for Satisfaction with Breasts, Physical Well-Being, and Sexual Well-Being, but improved for anxiety and depression.

Conclusions: Radiation timing (before or after exchange) had no significant effect on complication risks or on most patient-reported outcomes in immediate expander/implant reconstruction. Although lower levels of anxiety, depression, and fatigue were observed in the after-exchange group, these differences may not be clinically significant. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction with Simultaneous Nipple-Sparing Mastopexy Utilizing an Inferiorly Based Adipodermal Flap: Our Experience with Prepectoral and Subpectoral Techniques

Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction with Simultaneous Nipple-Sparing Mastopexy Utilizing an Inferiorly Based Adipodermal Flap: Our Experience with Prepectoral and Subpectoral Techniques

by Mosharrafa, Ali M.; Mosharrafa, Tamir M.; Zannis, Victor J. 

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: May 2020 - Volume 145 - Issue 5 - p 1125-1133

Background: Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction continues to grow in popularity among reconstructive breast surgeons and patients alike. Women with large breasts and ptosis are often thought not to be candidates for nipple sparing or direct-to-implant reconstruction. The authors utilized a single-stage, nipple-sparing, direct-to-implant reconstruction with simultaneous mastopexy, while the nipple-areolar complex was kept viable on an inferiorly based adipodermal flap in a single stage. They report their experience and outcomes using this approach in women with breast ptosis and/or macromastia.

Methods: The authors reviewed all direct-to-implant reconstructions with simultaneous nipple-sparing mastopexies performed from June of 2015 to March of 2019. Sixty-five patients and 125 breast reconstructions were analyzed.

Results: Among the 65 patients (125 breast reconstructions), 15 (23 percent) had implants placed in the prepectoral space, and 50 (77 percent) had them placed subpectorally. Forty-seven patients (72 percent) had acellular dermal matrix used. Partial nipple-areolar complex necrosis occurred in six patients (9 percent). Other complications included partial mastectomy flap necrosis (n = 8 patients, 12 percent), implant exposure (n = 3, 4 percent), infection (n = 1, 1 percent), capsular contracture (n = 4, 6 percent), and reoperation (n = 11, 16 percent). Mean follow-up was 17 months (range, 3 to 47 months). There have been no cancer recurrences reported in any participants to date.

Conclusions: Nipple-sparing mastectomy with mastopexy and immediate direct-to-implant reconstruction dramatically improved the authors’ results for implant-based breast reconstruction patients. The higher than expected explantation rate of 7 percent early in the study has since improved. This approach provides an opportunity to expand indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant reconstruction to women with breast ptosis and/or macromastia. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Immediate Contralateral Mastopexy/Breast Reduction for Symmetry Can Be Performed Safely in Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery

Immediate Contralateral Mastopexy/Breast Reduction for Symmetry Can Be Performed Safely in Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery

by Deigni, Olivier A.; Baumann, Donald P.; Adamson, Karri A.; Garvey, Patrick B.; Selber, Jesse C.; Caudle, Abigail S.; Smith, Benjamin D.; Hanson, Summer E.; Robb, Geoffrey L.; Schaverien, Mark V.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: May 2020 - Volume 145 - Issue 5 - p 1134-1142

Background: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery expands the indications for breast conservation. When performed using modified mastopexy/breast reduction techniques, the optimal timing of the contralateral symmetrizing mastopexy/breast reduction remains unclear. This study examined the effect of the timing of symmetrizing mastopexy/breast reduction on oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery outcomes.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of all patients who underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery using mastopexy/breast reduction techniques at a single center from 2010 to 2016. Patients who received synchronous (immediate) contralateral breast symmetrizing mastopexy were compared with those who underwent a delayed symmetrizing mastopexy procedure. Demographic, treatment, and outcome data were collected. Descriptive statistics were used and multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the various relationships.

Results: There were 429 patients (713 breasts) included in the study; of these, 284 patients (568 breasts) underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery involving mastopexy/breast reduction techniques and immediate symmetrizing mastopexy, and 145 patients underwent delayed contralateral symmetrizing mastopexy. The overall complication rate was similar between the immediate and delayed groups (25.4 percent versus 26.9 percent, respectively; p = 0.82), as was the major complication rate (10.6 percent versus 6.2 percent; p = 0.16). Complications resulted in a delay in adjuvant therapy in 18 patients (4.2 percent); in two patients (0.7 percent), this delay resulted from a complication in the contralateral symmetrizing mastopexy breast. Immediate contralateral symmetrizing mastopexy was not associated with increased risk of complications per breast (p = 0.82) or delay to adjuvant therapy (p = 0.6).

Conclusion: Contralateral mastopexy/breast reduction for symmetry can be performed at the time of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in carefully selected patients without significantly increasing the risk of complications or delay to adjuvant radiation therapy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Outcome of Quality of Life for Women Undergoing Autologous versus Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction following Mastectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Outcome of Quality of Life for Women Undergoing Autologous versus Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction following Mastectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by Eltahir, Yassir; Krabbe-Timmerman, Irene S.; Sadok, Nadia; Werker, Paul M. N.; de Bock, Geertruida H. 

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: May 2020 - Volume 145 - Issue 5 - p 1109-1123

Background: This review aimed to meta-analyze the quality of life of alloplastic versus autologous breast reconstruction, when measured with the BREAST-Q.

Methods: An electronic PubMed and EMBASE search was designed to find articles that compared alloplastic versus autologous breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q. Studies that failed to present BREAST-Q scores and studies that did not compare alloplastic versus autologous breast reconstruction were excluded. Two authors independently extracted data from the included studies. A standardized data collection form was used. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The mean difference and 95 percent confidence intervals between breast reconstruction means were estimated for each BREAST-Q subscale. Forest plots and the I2 statistic were used to assess heterogeneity and funnel plot publication bias. The Z test was used to assess overall effects. Results: Two hundred eighty abstracts were found; 10 articles were included. Autologous breast reconstruction scored significantly higher in the five subscales than alloplastic breast reconstruction. The Satisfaction with Breasts subscale indicated the greatest difference, with a mean difference of 6.41 (95 percent CI, 3.58 to 9.24; I2 = 70 percent). The Satisfaction with Results subscale displayed a mean difference of 5.52. The Sexual Well-Being subscale displayed a mean difference of 3.85. The Psychosocial Well-Being subscale displayed a mean difference of 2.64. The overall difference in physical well-being was significant, with high heterogeneity (mean difference, 3.33; 95 percent CI, 0.18 to 6.48; I2 = 85).

Conclusion: Autologous breast reconstruction had superior outcomes compared with alloplastic breast reconstruction as measured by the BREAST-Q.

Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Safety Outcome Endpoints and Delineation of Risk Factors

Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Safety Outcome Endpoints and Delineation of Risk Factors

by Nealon, Kassandra P.; Weitzman, Rachel E.; Sobti, Nikhil; Gadd, Michele; Specht, Michelle; Jimenez, Rachel B.; Ehrlichman, Richard; Faulkner, Heather R.; Austen, William G. Jr; Liao, Eric C.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: May 2020 - Volume 145 - Issue 5 - p 898e-908e

Background: Continued evolution of implant-based breast reconstruction involves immediate placement of the implant above the pectoralis muscle. The shift to prepectoral breast reconstruction is driven by goals of decreasing morbidity such as breast animation deformity, range-of-motion problems, and pain, and is made possible by improvements in mastectomy skin flap viability. To define clinical factors to guide patient selection for direct-to-implant prepectoral implant reconstruction, this study compares safety endpoints and risk factors between prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction cohorts. The authors hypothesized that prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Methods: Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, performed by a team of five surgical oncologists and two plastic surgeons. Univariate analysis compared patient characteristics between cohorts. A penalized logistic regression model was constructed to identify relationships between postoperative complications and covariate risk factors.

Results: A cohort of 114 prepectoral direct-to-implant patients was compared with 142 subpectoral direct-to-implant patients. The results of the penalized regression model demonstrated equivalence in safety metrics between prepectoral direct-to-implant and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, including seroma (p = 0.0883), cancer recurrence (p = 0.876), explantation (p = 0.992), capsular contracture (p = 0.158), mastectomy skin flap necrosis (p = 0.769), infection (p = 0.523), hematoma (p = 0.228), and revision (p = 0.122).

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction. Given the low morbidity and elimination of animation deformity, prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction should be considered when the mastectomy skin flap is robust. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

[Articles] Quality of life after breast-conserving therapy and adjuvant radiotherapy for non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01): 2-year results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

[Articles] Quality of life after breast-conserving therapy and adjuvant radiotherapy for non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01): 2-year results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

by Madeleine T King, Emma K Link, Tim J Whelan, Ivo A Olivotto, Ian Kunkler, Antonia Helen Westenberg, Guenther Gruber, Penny Schofield, Boon H Chua, BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 trial investigators

The Lancet Oncology:  VOLUME 21, ISSUE 5, P685-698, MAY 01, 2020

Tumour bed boost was associated with persistent adverse effects on cosmetic status and arm and shoulder functional status, which might inform shared decision making while local recurrence analysis is pending.

Radiological audit of interval breast cancers: Estimation of tumour growth rates

Radiological audit of interval breast cancers: Estimation of tumour growth rates

by Emma G. MacInnes, Stephen W. Duffy, Julie A. Simpson, Matthew G. Wallis, Anne E. Turnbull, Louise S. Wilkinson, Keshthra Satchithananda, Rumana Rahim, David Dodwell, Brian V. Hogan, Oleg Blyuss, Nisha Sharma

The Breast: VOLUME 51, P114-119, JUNE 01, 2020

This multicentre, retrospective study aimed to establish correlation between estimated tumour volume doubling times (TVDT) from a series of interval breast cancers with their clinicopathological features. The potential impact of delayed diagnosis on prognosis was also explored.

What are the appropriate thresholds for High Quality Performance Indicators for breast surgery in Australia and New Zealand?

What are the appropriate thresholds for High Quality Performance Indicators for breast surgery in Australia and New Zealand?

by Shehnarz Salindera, Michelle Ogilvy, Andrew Spillane 

The Breast:  VOLUME 51, P94-101, JUNE 01, 2020

To evaluate BreastSurgANZ members’ compliance at various threshold rates for 4 evaluable High-Quality Performance Indicators (HQPIs) introduced to improve patient care. To benchmark global best practice to assist in determining the eventual threshold standards.