-
Aesthetic Surgery Journal Nov 2015Breast augmentation and reconstruction mammaplasty have been in practice for decades and are highly prevalent surgeries performed worldwide. While overall patient... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Breast augmentation and reconstruction mammaplasty have been in practice for decades and are highly prevalent surgeries performed worldwide. While overall patient satisfaction is high, common long-term effects include breast tissue atrophy, accelerated ptosis and inframammary fold breakdown. Increasing evidence attributes these events to the durative loading and compressive forces introduced by the breast implants. Mechanical challenges exceeding the elastic capacity of the breast tissue components, eventually lead to irreversible tissue stretching, directly proportional to the introduced mass. Thus, it is suggested that, contrary to long-standing dogmas, implant weight, rather than its volume, stands at the basis of future tissue compromise and deformation. A novel lightweight implant has been developed to address the drawbacks of traditional breast implants, which demonstrate equivalence between their size and weight. The B-Lite(®) breast implant (G&G Biotechnology Ltd., Haifa, Israel) design allows for a reduction in implant weight of up to 30%, while maintaining the size, form, and function of traditional breast implants. The CE-marked device can be effectively implanted using standard of care procedures and has been established safe for human use. Implantation of the B-Lite(®) breast implant is projected to significantly reduce the inherent strains imposed by standard implants, thereby conserving tissue stability and integrity over time. In summary, this novel, lightweight breast implant promises to reduce breast tissue compromise and deformation and subsequent reoperation, further improving patient safety and satisfaction.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Breast Implantation; Breast Implants; Esthetics; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Mammaplasty; Middle Aged; Prosthesis Design; Prosthesis Failure; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome; Weights and Measures
PubMed: 26333989
DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjv080 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Oct 2022Multifocal or complex breast lesions are a challenge for breast-conserving surgery, particularly surgery in small breasts or those located in the upper inner quadrant....
BACKGROUND
Multifocal or complex breast lesions are a challenge for breast-conserving surgery, particularly surgery in small breasts or those located in the upper inner quadrant. The dual-layer rotation technique exploits the idea of manipulating the skin and glandular tissue in separate layers to fill the resection cavity via vertical mammoplasty if skin excision is not required, except in the central area.
METHODS
The authors performed a retrospective review of consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent DLR mammoplasty between 2017 and 2019 at a single institution. Clinical data, reoperations, surgical complications, delays in adjuvant treatments, and the need for late revisional surgery were evaluated. Aesthetic outcomes were evaluated objectively and subjectively from photographs.
RESULTS
The study included 46 breasts of 40 patients. Tumors were located in the UIQ (30%, 14/46) or in multiple quadrants (22%, 10/46). One third (33%, 13/40) of the patients had a small breast cup size (A-B). Negative margins were primarily achieved in 45 of the 46 breasts. Major complications occurred in three patients, who needed reoperation, and adjuvant therapy was delayed for one of these patients. Late refinement surgery was needed for two patients. The objective and subjective aesthetic outcomes were good or excellent regardless of the tumor position.
CONCLUSION
As a novel oncoplastic approach, DLR mammoplasty offers a one-step procedure to treat selected breast cancer patients with challenging resection defects due to different breast sizes or lesion locations. The technique preserves the breast's natural appearance.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Esthetics; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy, Segmental; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35711016
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-11977-4 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Feb 2022Because of the multiplying number of patients undergoing breast augmentation, nonprimary augmentation mastopexy will be increasingly requested in the future; this...
BACKGROUND
Because of the multiplying number of patients undergoing breast augmentation, nonprimary augmentation mastopexy will be increasingly requested in the future; this operation represents an even more significant challenge than primary augmentation mastopexy. The authors describe a standardized approach for subglandular-to-subpectoral implant pocket conversion in mastopexy that provides a tight neopocket with inferolateral muscular support, which minimizes implant displacement complications and allows operative strategies to reduce the risk of bacterial load on implants.
METHODS
The authors' technique proposes the following: (1) modified subpectoral pocket, with muscular inferolateral support for the implant; (2) independent approaches to the submuscular pocket and subglandular (preexisting) pocket; and (3) preestablished four-step surgical sequence. The authors collected data from their private practices for 46 patients who underwent the technique from March of 2017 to April of 2020. Patient perception about aesthetic outcomes, photographs from multiple postoperative follow-ups, and surgical complications/reoperation rates were analyzed.
RESULTS
Overall results were positive; 89.1 percent of patients reported satisfaction with their aesthetic outcomes. No major complications occurred. The total revision rate was 15.2 percent, but only 2.1 percent in the last year, as the learning curve progressed.
CONCLUSIONS
Secondary augmentation mastopexy is a complicated procedure. The four-step sequence approach is one reliable option for subglandular-to-subpectoral pocket conversion, once it produced high levels of patient satisfaction while producing low complication rates. Other surgeons' experiences with the technique and further studies are necessary to validate these findings.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic, IV.
Topics: Adult; Breast Implantation; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mammary Glands, Human; Middle Aged; Pectoralis Muscles; Retrospective Studies; Young Adult
PubMed: 35077413
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008775 -
Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand... 2023Implant-related breast reconstruction can be divided into subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR) and prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) according to the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Implant-related breast reconstruction can be divided into subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR) and prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) according to the different anatomical planes. The previous stereotype was that PPBR had a high complication rate and was not suitable for clinical use. However, with the emergence of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), the clinical effect of PPBR has been improved. To compare the outcomes difference between SPBR and PPBR, We conducted this meta-analysis. Articles on SPBR versus PPBR were searched in PubMed, Web of Sciences, Embase, and Cochrane databases, strictly following the PRISMA guidelines. According to the set criteria, we included the literature that met the requirements. Extracted data were the incidence of adverse events and the duration of drainage. Results show that SPBR has a higher incidence rate in capsular contracture, animation deformity, infection, hematoma and delayed healing wound than PPBR. There are no significant differences in skin flap necrosis, seroma, implant loss, reoperation and duration of drainage between the two groups. Hence, PPBR is no longer a high complication surgical method and can be used in the clinical practice. However, there are few large sample studies at present, so it is necessary to carry out further studies on PPBR.
Topics: Humans; Acellular Dermis; Mammaplasty; Postoperative Complications; Tissue Expansion; Reoperation; Breast Implants; Breast Implantation
PubMed: 34581645
DOI: 10.1080/2000656X.2021.1981351 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Jan 2023Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) remains the standard and most popular option for women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy worldwide. Recently,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) remains the standard and most popular option for women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy worldwide. Recently, prepectoral IBBR has resurged in popularity, despite limited data comparing prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2021, was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, data were extracted by independent reviewers. Studies that compared prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR for breast cancer were included.
RESULTS
Overall, 15 studies with 3,101 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that patients receiving prepectoral IBBR experienced fewer capsular contractures (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.92; P = 0.02), animation deformity (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.25; P = 0.002), and prosthesis failure (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference between prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR in overall complications (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.09; P = 0.19), seroma (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.59-2.51; P = 0.60), hematoma (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18; P = 0.22), infection (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.63-1.20; P = 0.39), skin flap necrosis (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.45-1.08; P = 0.11), and recurrence (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.52-3.39; P = 0.55). Similarly, no significant difference was found in Breast-Q scores between the prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that prepectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction is a safe modality and has similar outcomes with significantly lower rates of capsular contracture, prosthesis failure, and animation deformity compared with subpectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Prosthesis Failure
PubMed: 36245049
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12567-0 -
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Jun 2023Because of poor knowledge of risks and benefits, prophylactic explantation of high BIA-ALCL risk breast implant (BI) is not indicated. Several surgical risks have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Because of poor knowledge of risks and benefits, prophylactic explantation of high BIA-ALCL risk breast implant (BI) is not indicated. Several surgical risks have been associated with BI surgery, with mortality being the most frightening. Primary aim of this study is to assess mortality rate in patients undergoing breast implant surgery for aesthetic or reconstructive indication.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this retrospective observational cohort study, Breast Implant Surgery Mortality rate (BISM) was calculated as the perioperative mortality rate among 99,690 patients who underwent BI surgery for oncologic and non-oncologic indications. Mean age at first implant placement (A1P), implant lifespan (IL), and women's life expectancy (WLE) were obtained from a literature review and population database.
RESULTS
BISM rate was 0, and mean A1P was 34 years for breast augmentation, and 50 years for breast reconstruction. Regardless of indication, overall mean A1P can be presumed to be 39 years, while mean BIL was estimated as 9 years and WLE as 85 years.
CONCLUSION
This study first showed that the BISM risk is 0. This information, and the knowledge that BI patients will undergo one or more revisional procedures if not explantation during their lifetime, may help surgeons in the decision-making process of a pre-emptive substitution or explant in patients at high risk of BIA-ALCL. Our recommendation is that patients with existing macrotextured implants do have a relative indication for explantation and total capsulectomy. The final decision should be shared between patient and surgeon following an evaluation of benefits, surgical risks and comorbidities.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Implants; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Breast Implantation; Mammaplasty; Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic; Breast Neoplasms; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36376583
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-022-03138-5 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Apr 2022Breast cancer is the most common cancer in females worldwide. One option for total breast reconstruction following total breast amputation is autologous fat transfer... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in females worldwide. One option for total breast reconstruction following total breast amputation is autologous fat transfer (AFT). However, this is still an upcoming reconstruction technique, and little is known about the donor site complications and their influence on the patient's overall satisfaction.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aims to review the current literature regarding donor site complications and donor site satisfaction following AFT for total breast reconstruction.
SEARCH METHODS
A literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, TRIP pro, and Prospero. All published original literature reporting on complications or satisfaction at the donor site in patients who underwent liposuction, followed by high-volume lipofilling was considered.
MAIN RESULTS
This systematic review resulted in the inclusion of 21 cohort studies, consisting of 2241 participants. None of the studies reported donor site satisfaction scores of any kind. The most frequently reported donor site complication was ecchymosis (268 cases), followed by pain (122 cases), haematoma (58 cases), irregularities (12 cases), burns (four cases), and infection (three cases). Reports on follow-up and management of donor site complications were generally lacking.
AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS
Results regarding the donor site are inconclusive. Pre-specified complications, a standardized manner of reporting, long-term follow-up, and patient-reported outcome measures are lacking in most of the studies. The impact of the donor site on quality of life after autologous fat grafting in breast reconstruction remains a blind spot. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020222870.
Topics: Adipose Tissue; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Personal Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Transplantation, Autologous
PubMed: 35165073
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.01.029 -
British Journal of Hospital Medicine... Mar 2020In the field of breast reconstruction, products and techniques are continuing to evolve to ensure good clinical and quality outcomes. This article reviews the published... (Review)
Review
In the field of breast reconstruction, products and techniques are continuing to evolve to ensure good clinical and quality outcomes. This article reviews the published literature regarding the use of fetal bovine-derived acellular dermal matrix (SurgiMend, SurgiMend PRS and SurgiMend PRS meshed), focusing on safety, clinical outcomes and surgical techniques.
Topics: Acellular Dermis; Animals; Cattle; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32240008
DOI: 10.12968/hmed.2018.0428c -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Jun 2023Surgical techniques for breast cancer have been refined over the past decades to deliver an aesthetic outcome as close as possible to the contralateral intact breast.... (Review)
Review
Surgical techniques for breast cancer have been refined over the past decades to deliver an aesthetic outcome as close as possible to the contralateral intact breast. Current surgery further allows excellent aesthetic outcome even in case of mastectomy, by performing skin sparing or nipple sparing mastectomy in combination with breast reconstruction. In this review we discuss how to optimise post-operative radiation therapy after oncoplastic and breast reconstructive procedures, including dose, fractionation, volumes, surgical margins, and boost application.
Topics: Humans; Female; Mastectomy; Breast Neoplasms; Mammaplasty; Breast; Mastectomy, Subcutaneous; Nipples
PubMed: 37023565
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.03.013 -
Cancer Oct 2022Oncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current clinical and shared decision-making complex. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in oncological outcomes after immediate versus delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) for autologous and implant-based PMBR separately.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were followed for data abstraction. Variability in point estimates attributable to heterogeneity was assessed using I -statistic. (Loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and overall breast cancer recurrence rates were pooled in generalized linear mixed models using random effects.
RESULTS
Fifty-five studies, evaluating 14,217 patients, were included. When comparing immediate versus delayed autologous PMBR, weighted average proportions were: 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.04), respectively, for local recurrences, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) for regional recurrences, and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03-0.06) versus 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00-0.03) for locoregional recurrences. No statistically significant differences in weighted average proportions for local, regional and locoregional recurrence rates were observed between immediate and delayed autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrences after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR.
CONCLUSIONS
Delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR. This study highlights the paucity of strong evidence on breast cancer recurrence after specific types and timings of PMBR.
LAY SUMMERY
Oncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes clinical and shared decision-making complex. This meta-analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional recurrence rates as immediate autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrence after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. Based on current evidence, oncological concerns do not seem a valid reason to withhold patients from certain reconstructive timings or techniques, and patients should equally be offered all reconstructive options they technically qualify for.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Transplantation, Autologous
PubMed: 35894936
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34393