Evaluation of post-operative complications and adjuvant treatments following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix

被引:0
|
作者
Bassi, Romane [1 ]
Jankowski, Clementine [1 ]
Dabajuyo, Sandrine [1 ]
Burnier, Pierre [1 ]
Coutant, Charles [1 ,2 ]
Vincent, Laura [1 ]
机构
[1] Georges Francois Leclerc Canc Ctr, Dept Surg Oncol, 1 Rue Prof Marion, F-21000 Dijon, France
[2] Univ Burgundy, 7 Blvd Jeanne Arc, F-21000 Dijon, France
关键词
Immediate breast reconstruction; Subpectoral implant; Prepectoral implant; Post-operative complications; Adjuvant treatments;
D O I
10.1016/j.bjps.2024.04.0111748-6815
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: In immediate breast reconstruction (IBR), it is unclear whether there is any difference in the complication rates between prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement without acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Aim: To compare the rates of early post-operative complications and time to initiation of adjuvant treatment in patients undergoing IBR between prepectoral and subpectoral implant placement without ADM for the two surgical procedure. Methods: We retrospectively retrieved data of patients who underwent IBR with prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022 in a large cancer center in France. Results: We included 192 patients: 119 in the prepectoral and 73 in the subpectoral group. Their clinical characteristics were similar. Thirty patients (15.6%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, among them 27 (14.1%) received it within 12 weeks, and there was no difference between the groups (p = 0.12). In the prepectoral group, 39 patients (32.8%) received adjuvant radiotherapy versus 5 (6.8%) in the subpectoral group (p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in time to treatment commencement. Overall, 35 patients (29.4%) in the prepectoral group and 17 (23.3%) in the subpectoral group experienced post-operative complications (p = 0.44). Using multivariable analysis, the only factor associated with post-operative complications was determined to be mastectomy weight (odds ratio 1.98 (1.10-3.59) for weight >= 500 g; p = 0.02). Conclusion: Prepectoral implant placement without ADM can be proposed to patients undergoing IBR with an indication for adjuvant treatment. However, in our study, the reoperation rate with this technique was slightly higher (p = 0.008). This is partly due to the learning curve for surgeons using this new technique. (c) 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.
引用
收藏
页码:402 / 410
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of capsular contracture following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction
    Nikhil Sobti
    Rachel E. Weitzman
    Kassandra P. Nealon
    Rachel B. Jimenez
    Lisa Gfrerer
    David Mattos
    Richard J. Ehrlichman
    Michele Gadd
    Michelle Specht
    William G. Austen
    Eric C. Liao
    Scientific Reports, 10
  • [2] Evaluation of capsular contracture following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction
    Sobti, Nikhil
    Weitzman, Rachel E.
    Nealon, Kassandra P.
    Jimenez, Rachel B.
    Gfrerer, Lisa
    Mattos, David
    Ehrlichman, Richard J.
    Gadd, Michele
    Specht, Michelle
    Austen, William G.
    Liao, Eric C.
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2020, 10 (01)
  • [3] Immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: Evaluation of complications and safety
    Kalstrup, Julie
    Willert, Cecilie Balslev
    Weitemeyer, Marie Brinch-Moller
    Chakera, Annette Hougaard
    Holmich, Lisbet Rosenkrantz
    BREAST, 2021, 60 : 192 - 198
  • [4] Immediate Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Traditional Subpectoral Technique versus Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix
    Franceschini, Gianluca
    Scardina, Lorenzo
    Di Leone, Alba
    Terribile, Daniela Andreina
    Sanchez, Alejandro Martin
    Magno, Stefano
    D'Archi, Sabatino
    Franco, Antonio
    Mason, Elena Jane
    Carnassale, Beatrice
    Murando, Federica
    Orlandi, Armando
    Barone Adesi, Liliana
    Visconti, Giuseppe
    Salgarello, Marzia
    Masetti, Riccardo
    JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2021, 11 (02): : 1 - 12
  • [5] A comparison of clinical outcomes of acellular dermal matrix with and without radiation sterilization process in immediate prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction
    Han, Woo Yeon
    Han, Seong John
    Kim, Eun Key
    Han, Hyun Ho
    Eom, Jin Sup
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2023, 87 : 461 - 466
  • [6] Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct to Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction
    Mirhaidari, Shayda J.
    Azouz, Vitali
    Wagner, Douglas S.
    ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2020, 84 (03) : 263 - 270
  • [7] Short- to Medium-term Outcome of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Direct-to-implant Reconstruction using Acellular Dermal Matrix
    Mathew, John
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN, 2021, 9 (08)
  • [8] Direct-to-Implant Extracellular Matrix Hammock-based Breast Reconstruction; Prepectoral or Subpectoral?
    Diana L. Dyrberg
    Gudjon L. Gunnarsson
    Camilla Bille
    Jens A. Sørensen
    Jørn B. Thomsen
    Trials, 21
  • [9] Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction without Placement of Acellular Dermal Matrix or Mesh after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy
    Urban, Cicero
    Gonzalez, Eduardo
    Fornazari, Alessandra
    Berman, Gaston
    Spautz, Cleverton
    Kuroda, Flavia
    Anselmi, Karina Furlan
    Rabinovich, Iris
    Doria, Maira
    Nissen, Leonardo
    Schunemann, Eduardo, Jr.
    Sobreiro, Bernardo
    Lima, Rubens
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2022, 150 (05) : 973 - 983
  • [10] Direct-to-Implant Extracellular Matrix Hammock-based Breast Reconstruction; Prepectoral or Subpectoral?
    Dyrberg, Diana L.
    Gunnarsson, Gudjon L.
    Bille, Camilla
    Sorensen, Jens A.
    Thomsen, Jorn B.
    TRIALS, 2020, 21 (01)