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
  • [21] Funnel usefulness in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using periareolar incision with prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with acellular dermal matrix
    Woo, Joohyun
    Seung, Ik Hyun
    Hong, Seung Eun
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2020, 73 (11): : 2016 - 2024
  • [22] Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q
    Cogliandro, Annalisa
    Salzillo, Rosa
    De Bernardis, Riccardo
    Loria, Francesco Saverio
    Petrucci, Valeria
    Barone, Mauro
    Tenna, Stefania
    Cagli, Barbara
    Persichetti, Paolo
    AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2023, 47 (04) : 1291 - 1299
  • [23] Outcome of complete acellular dermal matrix wrap with polyurethane implant in immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction
    Naemonitou, Foteini
    Mylvaganam, Senthurun
    Salem, Fathi
    Vidya, Raghavan
    ARCHIVES OF PLASTIC SURGERY-APS, 2020, 47 (06): : 567 - 573
  • [24] Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction without the Use of an Acellular Dermal Matrix Is Cost Effective and Oncologically Safe
    Parisi, Domenico
    Ciancio, Francesco
    Portincasa, Aurelio
    Innocenti, Alessandro
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2017, 140 (06) : 820E - 821E
  • [25] Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction without the Use of an Acellular Dermal Matrix Is Cost Effective and Oncologically Safe
    Serrurier, L. Charles. J.
    Rayne, Sarah
    Venter, Marisse
    Benn, Carol-Ann
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2017, 139 (04) : 809 - 817
  • [26] Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q
    Scarabosio, Anna
    Parodi, Pier Camillo
    Caputo, Glenda
    AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2024, 48 (15) : 3006 - 3007
  • [27] Complications after Perforated versus Nonperforated Acellular Dermal Matrix Use in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score Analysis
    Wood, Kasey Leigh
    Margulies, Ilana G.
    Shay, Paul L.
    Ashikari, Andrew Y.
    Salzberg, C. Andrew
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN, 2020, 8 (03) : e2690
  • [28] Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant versus Staged Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison of Complications
    Finkelstein, Emily R.
    Laureano, Natalia Vidal
    Azizi, Armina
    Smartz, Taylor
    Zheng, Caiwei
    Lessard, Anne-Sophie
    Panthaki, Zubin
    Oeltjen, John
    Kassira, Wrood
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2024, 154 (02) : 224e - 232e
  • [29] Outcomes Following 500 Cases of Immediate Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Using Acellular Dermal Matrix
    Quinn, Edel
    Highton, Lyndsey
    Johnson, Richard
    Murphy, John
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 27 (SUPPL 2) : S526 - S526
  • [30] Effect of acellular dermal matrix thickness and surface area on direct-to-implant breast reconstruction
    Kong, Tae Hyun
    Chung, Kyu-Jin
    Kim, Taegon
    Lee, Jun-Ho
    GLAND SURGERY, 2022, 11 (08) : 1301 - 1308