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
  • [31] One-stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix
    Benson, John R.
    LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2018, 19 (09): : 1141 - 1143
  • [32] Reply: 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, 140 (06) : 821E - 822E
  • [33] An 8-Year Experience of Direct-to-Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction Using Human Acellular Dermal Matrix (AlloDerm)
    Salzberg, C. Andrew
    Ashikari, Andrew Y.
    Koch, R. Michael
    Chabner-Thompson, Elizabeth
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2011, 127 (02) : 514 - 524
  • [34] INVITED DISCUSSION ON: Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q
    Ceravolo, Mario Pelle
    de Vita, Roy
    AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2023, 47 (04) : 1300 - 1302
  • [35] Predictors of complications after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix from a multicentre randomized clinical trial
    Negenborn, V. L.
    Dikmans, R. E. G.
    Bouman, M. B.
    Winters, H. A. H.
    Twisk, J. W. R.
    Ruhe, P. Q.
    Mureau, M. A. M.
    Smit, J. M.
    Tuinder, S.
    Hommes, J.
    Eltahir, Y.
    Posch, N. A. S.
    van Steveninck-Barends, J. M.
    Meesters-Caberg, M. A.
    van der Hulst, R. R. W. J.
    Ritt, M. J. P. F.
    Mullender, M. G.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2018, 105 (10) : 1305 - 1311
  • [36] Discussion: The Broad Application of Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix Drape and Fluorescent Imaging in a Community Setting
    Sbitany, Hani
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2020, 145 (02) : 301 - 302
  • [37] Acellular Dermal Matrix without Basement Membrane in Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Han, Woo Yeon
    Kim, Dong Jin
    Lee, Young Soon
    Eom, Jin Sup
    Kim, Eun Key
    Han, Hyun Ho
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2024, 154 (04) : 649e - 655e
  • [38] Direct to implant breast reconstruction without the use of an acellular-dermal matrix
    Serrurier, L. C.
    Benn, C.
    Rayne, S.
    BREAST, 2015, 24 : S135 - S135
  • [39] INVITED DISCUSSION ON: Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient’s Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q
    Mario Pelle Ceravolo
    Roy de Vita
    Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2023, 47 : 1300 - 1302
  • [40] Comparison of Implant-Based Immediate Breast Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix
    Vardanian, Andrew J.
    Clayton, John L.
    Roostaeian, Jason
    Shirvanian, Vaheh
    Da Lio, Andrew
    Lipa, Joan E.
    Crisera, Christopher
    Festekjian, Jaco H.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2011, 128 (05) : 403E - 410E