A systematic review of complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction

被引:70
|
作者
Wagner, Ryan D. [1 ]
Braun, Tara L. [2 ]
Zhu, Huirong [3 ]
Winocour, Sebastian [1 ]
机构
[1] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Surg, Div Plast Surg, 1977 Butler Blvd,Suite E6-100, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Dermatol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Texas Childrens Hosp, Outcome & Impact Serv, Houston, TX 77030 USA
关键词
Capsular contracture; Prepectoral; Acellular dermal matrix; Breast reconstruction; ACELLULAR DERMAL MATRIX; CAPSULAR CONTRACTURE; EXPANDER/IMPLANT RECONSTRUCTION; SUBCUTANEOUS MASTECTOMY; TISSUE MATRIX; SILICONE-GEL; IMPLANT; METAANALYSIS; PLACEMENT; SURGERY;
D O I
10.1016/j.bjps.2019.04.005
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
The use of implants for breast reconstruction began over four decades ago, with implants initially placed in the prepectoral space. Concerns arose regarding the high incidence of capsular contracture and complication rates. With the introduction of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), plastic surgeons are again considering the advantages of prepectoral implant placement. A systematic review was conducted to examine complication profiles in prepectoral breast reconstruction alone versus prepectoral with ADM or mesh. A systematic review of the PubMed database was performed from inception to March 2017 to identify literature on postmastectomy patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without ADM or mesh. Study characteristics, complication rates, and outcomes were extracted for analysis. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and complication profiles were analyzed using the random-effects model. Twenty-seven studies met criteria for inclusion out of 550 identified for review. For 1881 total breasts, the complication rate with ADM was 23.4%, while the rate without an additional implant material was 27.5%. The difference in the capsular contracture rate with and without ADM was 2.3% and 12.4%, respectively. The use of ADM in prepectoral breast reconstruction correlated with lower capsular contracture and overall complications rates; however, rates of implant loss, infection, and mastectomy flap necrosis were higher with the use of ADM. Results were variable across studies, and in general, the quality of evidence reported was low. Because the methodology for outcome assessment was inconsistent, there is a need for further investigation with comparative studies and stan-dardized outcome reporting. (C) 2019 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1051 / 1059
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Prevention of Postoperative Complications by Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Kim, Yo-Han
    Yang, Yun-Jung
    Lee, Dong-Won
    Song, Seung-Yong
    Lew, Dae-Hyun
    Yang, Eun-Jung
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2024, 153 (01) : 10E - 24E
  • [2] Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: An Overview of the History, Technique, and Reported Complications
    Bloom, Joshua A.
    Patel, Krishnabhai
    Cohen, Stephanie
    Chatterjee, Abhishek
    Homsy, Christopher
    OPEN ACCESS SURGERY, 2020, 13 : 1 - 9
  • [3] A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction
    Liu, Jiameng
    Zheng, Xiaobin
    Lin, Shunguo
    Han, Hui
    Xu, Chunsen
    SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER, 2022, 30 (07) : 5659 - 5668
  • [4] A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction
    Jiameng Liu
    Xiaobin Zheng
    Shunguo Lin
    Hui Han
    Chunsen Xu
    Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022, 30 : 5659 - 5668
  • [5] Comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomies: A systematic review and meta analysis
    Li, Lun
    Su, Yonghui
    Xiu, Bingqiu
    Huang, Xiaoyan
    Chi, Weiru
    Hou, Jianjing
    Zhang, Yingying
    Tian, Jinhui
    Wang, Jia
    Wu, Jiong
    EJSO, 2019, 45 (09): : 1542 - 1550
  • [6] Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction
    Bonomi, Stefano
    Sala, Laura
    Cortinovis, Umberto
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2018, 142 (02) : 232E - 233E
  • [7] Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction
    Ter Louw, Ryan P.
    Nahabedian, Maurice Y.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2017, 140 (05) : 51S - 59S
  • [8] Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction
    Bhat D.
    Darrach H.
    Sacks J.M.
    Current Breast Cancer Reports, 2018, 10 (2) : 48 - 54
  • [9] Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction
    Graziano, Francis D.
    Lu, Jocelyn
    Sbitany, Hani
    CLINICS IN PLASTIC SURGERY, 2023, 52 (02) : 235 - 242
  • [10] Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction
    Kaplan, Jordan
    Wagner, Ryan D.
    Braun, Tara L.
    Chu, Carrie
    Winocour, Sebastian J.
    SEMINARS IN PLASTIC SURGERY, 2019, 33 (04) : 236 - 239