-
The British Journal of Surgery Jan 2024Breast cancer is the most common cancer worldwide, with remarkable advances in early diagnosis, systemic treatments, and surgical techniques. Robotic nipple-sparing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Breast cancer is the most common cancer worldwide, with remarkable advances in early diagnosis, systemic treatments, and surgical techniques. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy has been trialled; however, the complication rates, surgical outcomes, and oncological safety of this approach remain obscure.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was conducted from conception until September 2022. Studies examining complications and operative variables where robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy was compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy were included. Primary study outcomes were complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III complications, skin or nipple necrosis, seroma, haematoma, infection, implant loss, and wound dehiscence) and oncological safety (recurrence and positive margins). The secondary outcomes included operative variables, length of stay, cost-effectiveness, learning curve, and aesthetic outcome.
RESULTS
A total of seven studies of overall fair quality, involving 1674 patients, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Grade 3 complications were reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy without statistical significance (OR 0.60 (95 per cent c.i. 0.35 to 1.05)). Nipple necrosis was significantly reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (OR 0.54 (95 per cent c.i. 0.30 to 0.96); P = 0.03; I2 = 15 per cent). Operating time (mean difference +58.81 min (95 per cent c.i. +28.19 to +89.44 min); P = 0.0002) and length of stay (mean difference +1.23 days (95 per cent c.i. +0.64 to +1.81 days); P < 0.0001) were significantly increased in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy, whereas the opposite was true for blood loss (mean difference -53.18 ml (95 per cent c.i. -71.78 to -34.58 ml); P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
Whilst still in its infancy, robotic breast surgery may become a viable option in breast surgery. Nonetheless, the oncological safety of this approach requires robust assessment.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Mastectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Nipples; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome; Necrosis; Mammaplasty; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37890072
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znad336 -
Annals of Plastic Surgery Nov 2023Tissue oximetry monitoring has shown superior outcomes to conventional monitoring methods for autologous breast reconstruction in retrospective studies with consecutive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Tissue oximetry monitoring has shown superior outcomes to conventional monitoring methods for autologous breast reconstruction in retrospective studies with consecutive cohorts. A recent study used consecutive cohorts with tissue oximetry as the earlier cohort and found that tissue oximetry was nonsuperior. We hypothesize that improvement in microsurgical outcomes with institutional experience confounds the superiority of tissue oximetry demonstrated in prior studies. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of tissue oximetry monitoring compared with conventional monitoring.
METHODS
Relevant studies were found using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science searches for keywords such as near-infrared spectroscopy or tissue oximetry and microsurgery. Studies included compared tissue oximetry and conventional monitoring in autologous breast reconstruction patients. Studies were excluded if they did not contain a comparison group. Random-effective models were used to analyze early returns to the operating room, the total number of partial or complete flap loss, and late fat necrosis.
RESULTS
Six hundred sixty-nine studies were identified; 3 retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1644 flaps were in the tissue oximetry cohort, and 1387 flaps were in the control cohort. One study contained tissue oximetry as the former cohort; 2 had tissue oximetry as the latter. Neither technique was superior for any measured outcomes. The estimated mean differences between tissue oximetry and conventional monitoring method were early returns, -0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.52 to 0.410; P = 0.82); partial flap loss, -0.04 (95% CI, -0.86 to 0.79; P = 0.93); complete flap loss, -1.29 (95% CI, -3.45 to 0.87; P = 0.24); and late fat necrosis -0.02 (95% CI, -0.42 to, 0.39; P = 0.94).
CONCLUSIONS
In a systematic review and meta-analysis of mixed timeline retrospective cohort studies, tissue oximetry does not provide superior patient outcomes and shifts our current understanding of postoperative breast reconstruction monitoring. Prospective studies and randomized trials comparing monitoring methods need to be included in the existing literature.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Fat Necrosis; Mammaplasty; Postoperative Complications; Oximetry
PubMed: 37823627
DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003705 -
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aug 2023There is a paucity of evidence comparing the safety of prepectoral and partial subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADM). We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is a paucity of evidence comparing the safety of prepectoral and partial subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADM). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the postoperative complications of the two approaches.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The rates of the complications were, respectively, pooled, and relative risk (RR) was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the incidence between the two cohorts.
RESULTS
Ten articles reporting on 2667 breast reconstructions were eligible. The hematoma rate was lower in the prepectoral group (RR = 0.590, 95% CI 0.351-0.992). No significant difference was observed in terms of seroma (RR = 1.079, 95% CI 0.489-2.381), skin flap necrosis (RR = 0.936, 95% CI 0.587-1.493), infection (RR = 0.985, 95% CI 0.706-1.375), tissue expander/implant explantation (RR = 0.741, 95% CI 0.506-1.085), wound dehiscence (RR = 1.272, 95% CI 0.605-2.673), capsular contracture (RR = 0.939, 95% CI 0.678-1.300) and rippling (RR = 2.485, 95% CI 0.986-6.261). The RR of animation deformity for the prepectoral group compared with the subpectoral group was 0.040 (95% CI, 0.002-0.853).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review suggested that with appropriate patient selection, prepectoral breast reconstruction could avoid animation deformity without incurring higher risk of early wound complications, capsular contracture or rippling than partial subpectoral breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should complete a comprehensive assessment of the patients before choosing appropriate surgical approaches in clinical practice.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III
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; Acellular Dermis; Mammaplasty; Postoperative Complications; Contracture; Breast Implantation; Breast Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36947180
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-023-03296-0 -
Microsurgery Sep 2023Indocyanine green angiography (ICG-A) has been widely applied for intraoperative flap assessment in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. However, the beneficial effect of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Indocyanine green angiography (ICG-A) has been widely applied for intraoperative flap assessment in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. However, the beneficial effect of ICG-A in DIEP flap breast reconstruction is still uncertain and no standardized protocol is available. This study aims to analyze the clinical outcome and comprehensively review protocols of this field.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases until September 15, 2022. Studies on the utility of intraoperative ICG-A in DIEP breast reconstruction were included. Data reporting reconstruction outcomes were extracted for pooled analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 22 studies were enrolled in the review, among five studies with 1021 patients included in the meta-analysis. The protocols of ICG-A assessment of DIEP flap varied among studies. According to the pooled results, the incidence of postoperative fat necrosis was 10.89% (50 of 459 patients) with ICG-A and 21.53% (121 of 562 patients) with clinical judgment. The risk for postoperative fat necrosis was significantly lower in patients with intraoperative ICG-A than without (RR 0.47 95% CI 0.29-0.78, p = .004, I = 51%). Reoperation occurred in 5 of 48 patients (10.42%) in the ICG-A group and in 21 of 64 patients (32.82%) in the control group summarized from reports in two studies. The risk for reoperation was lower in the ICG-A group than in the control group (RR 0.41 95% CI 0.18-0.93, p = .03, I = 0%). Other complications, including flap loss, seroma, hematoma, dehiscence, mastectomy skin necrosis, and infection, were comparable between the two groups. Heterogeneities among studies were acceptable. No significant influence of specific studies was identified in sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
ICG-A is an accurate and reliable way to identify problematic perfusion of DIEP flaps during breast reconstruction. Protocols of ICG-A differed in current studies. Intraoperative ICG-A significantly decreases the rate of fat necrosis and reoperation in patients undergoing DIEP breast reconstruction. The synthesized results should be interpreted sensibly due to the sample size limitation. RCTs on the outcomes and high-quality studies for an optimized ICG-A protocol are still needed in the future.
Topics: Humans; Female; Mastectomy; Indocyanine Green; Perforator Flap; Fat Necrosis; Breast Neoplasms; Mammaplasty; Angiography; Perfusion; Postoperative Complications; Epigastric Arteries; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37165852
DOI: 10.1002/micr.31056 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Jun 2024Breast augmentation ranks among the most popular plastic surgery procedures. Yet, reports on post-operative patient-reported quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Breast augmentation ranks among the most popular plastic surgery procedures. Yet, reports on post-operative patient-reported quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction remain conflicting.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Three databases were searched for eligible studies that reported pre-and/or post-operative Breast-Q™ augmentation scores for patient QoL (psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being) and/or satisfaction.
RESULTS
A total of 39 studies (53 patient cohorts and 18,322 patients) were included in the quantitative synthesis. The pairwise meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in patient-reported psychosocial (MD: +38.10) and sexual well-being (MD: +40.20) as well as satisfaction with breast (MD: +47.88) (all p < 0.00001). Physical well-being improved slightly after breast augmentation (MD: +6.97; p = 0.42). The single-arm meta-analysis yielded comparable results, with Breast-Q™ scores in psychosocial and sexual well-being as well as satisfaction with breast increasing from 37.2, 31.1, and 26.3 to 75.0, 70.6, and 72.7, respectively (all p < 0.00001). Physical well-being improved by 8.1 (75.8 pre-operatively to 83.9 post-operatively; p = 0.17). Subgroup analyses highlighted higher QoL and satisfaction following breast augmentation for purely esthetic purposes and alloplastic mammaplasty. Although patient-reported physical and sexual well-being increased in the long term, psychosocial well-being was the highest in the short term.
CONCLUSION
Patient satisfaction with breast, psychosocial, and sexual well-being increased significantly after breast augmentation. In contrast, patient-reported physical well-being yielded ambivalent results, varying by mammaplasty technique and post-operative follow-up time. Plastic surgeons should be sensitized about our findings to refine eligibility criteria and gain a deeper understanding of the patients' perceived surgical experience.
PROSPERO TRIAL REGISTRATION NO
CRD42023409605.
PubMed: 38945110
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.06.016 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Feb 2024Breast-conserving surgery is the standard of care for early-stage breast cancer but can often result in unsatisfactory cosmetic outcomes. Oncoplastic surgery aims to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Breast-conserving surgery is the standard of care for early-stage breast cancer but can often result in unsatisfactory cosmetic outcomes. Oncoplastic surgery aims to address these issues by combining local excision with plastic surgery techniques to improve oncologic and esthetic outcomes. By incorporating breast reduction techniques into cancer surgery, wider margins of excision can be achieved, leading to enhanced oncological safety and reduced recurrence rates without causing significant asymmetry. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide an updated understanding of the surgical outcomes associated with oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Articles reporting post-operative outcomes following the oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty were included. A proportional meta-analysis of post-operative complications was performed to obtain their proportions and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, representing a total of 2711 oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty procedures in 2680 patients. The overall complication rate was 20% (95% CI: 15-25%). The positive margin rate following oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty was 11% (95% CI: 6-17%). The re-excision rate was 6% (95% CI: 3-12%). The completion mastectomy rate was 3% (95% CI: 2-6%).
CONCLUSIONS
Oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy and traditional breast-conserving surgery in the treatment of early-stage breast cancers.
Topics: Humans; Female; Mastectomy; Breast Neoplasms; Mammaplasty; Breast; Mastectomy, Segmental; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38159475
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.11.052 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Jul 2023Breast reconstruction is generally discouraged in women with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) due to concerns with recurrence and poor long-term survival. We aim to... (Review)
Review
Breast reconstruction is generally discouraged in women with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) due to concerns with recurrence and poor long-term survival. We aim to determine contemporary trends and predictors of breast reconstruction and its impact on oncologic outcomes among women with IBC. A systematic literature review for all studies published up to 15 September 2022 was conducted via MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing women diagnosed with IBC undergoing a mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction were evaluated. The initial search yielded 225 studies, of which nine retrospective cohort studies, reporting 2781 cases of breast reconstruction in 29,058 women with IBC, were included. In the past two decades, immediate reconstruction rates have doubled. Younger age, higher income (>USD 25,000), private insurance, metropolitan residence, and bilateral mastectomy were associated with immediate reconstruction. No significant difference was found in overall survival, breast cancer-specific survival or recurrence rates between women undergoing versus not undergoing (immediate or delayed) reconstruction. There is a paucity of data on delayed breast reconstruction following IBC. Immediate breast reconstruction may be a consideration for select patients with IBC, although prospective data is needed to clarify its safety.
Topics: Humans; Female; Mastectomy; Inflammatory Breast Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Mammaplasty
PubMed: 37504349
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30070489 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Feb 2024Breast augmentation is often performed as a day-case general anaesthetic operation, with postoperative, opioid-based analgesia regimens. However, it may also be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Breast augmentation is often performed as a day-case general anaesthetic operation, with postoperative, opioid-based analgesia regimens. However, it may also be performed using regional anaesthesia; a variety of nerve block techniques are available to reduce postoperative pain and analgesic requirements. This systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines comparing breast augmentation using regional anaesthesia with general anaesthesia, versus general anaesthesia alone or with local field infiltration. All randomised or quasi-randomised studies that recruited adult female patients undergoing breast augmentation using regional anaesthesia were considered. The primary outcome measures were postoperative pain and analgesic requirements. A randomised effects model was used, with standardised mean difference or mean difference outcomes used as appropriate. Thirteen studies were included for systematic review, out of which eight met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Nerve blocks had statistically significant standardised mean difference reductions in postoperative pain scores across all time points: 0 h (-1.2 [-2.1 to -0.3], p = 0.01, I = 85%), 1 h (-1.3 [-2.1 to -0.5], p = 0.002, I = 89%), 2 h (-1.8 [-2.8 to -0.9], p = 0.0002, I = 88%), 4-6 h (-1.2 [-2.1 to -0.4], p = 0.006, I = 89%), 24 h (-1.4 [-2.5 to -0.2], p = 0.02, I = 94%). There was also a statistically significant reduction in postoperative opioid requirements: -150 mcg fentanyl (-259.2 to -40.9), p = 0.007. Although an element of study heterogeneity is noted, this systematic review and meta-analysis support the concept that regional anaesthesia using nerve blocks in breast augmentation surgery, reduces both postoperative pain and opioid requirements, compared with general anaesthesia.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Analgesics, Opioid; Nerve Block; Anesthesia, Conduction; Pain, Postoperative; Mammaplasty
PubMed: 38160590
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.08.014 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Feb 2024The volume retention of breast autologous fat grafting is unpredictable, and the volume retention rate and related influencing factors have not been systematically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The volume retention of breast autologous fat grafting is unpredictable, and the volume retention rate and related influencing factors have not been systematically reviewed. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the volume retention rate and related influencing factors of breast autologous fat grafting, which is for reconstructive or esthetic purposes. Literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception of study to December 2022. Sensitivity analysis was performed for all outcomes. Begg's test was performed to test publication bias. Subgroup analysis was performed based on population, method of fat preparation, method of volume measurement, number of fat grafting, and injected fat grafting volume. A total of 25 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The follow-up time ranged from 3 to 36 months. Results showed that the pooled volume retention rate at the latest follow-up point was 54% [95% confidence interval (CI): 48.5%-59.5%]. Based on the fat preparation methods, the pooled rate was 51.5% (95%CI: 41.5%-61.5%) for centrifugation, which was higher than that for sedimentation [38.7% (95%CI: 30.9%-46.5%)]. In addition, the enrichment of stromal vascular fraction obtained after centrifugation was found to be associated with higher volume retention rate (weighted mean difference: 17.36, 95%CI: 8.84-25.87). Our findings may provide guidance for evaluating the volume retention rate of breast autologous fat grafting in clinical settings. Further studies are needed to verify our findings.
Topics: Humans; Adipose Tissue; Transplantation, Autologous; Breast; Autografts; Mammaplasty
PubMed: 38160589
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.12.003 -
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2023Silicone implants or tissue expanders placed under the pectoralis major (PM) muscle are often used for breast reconstruction. However, the disruption of PM insertions,... (Review)
Review
Silicone implants or tissue expanders placed under the pectoralis major (PM) muscle are often used for breast reconstruction. However, the disruption of PM insertions, which is often an inevitable part of the surgical procedure, is known to cause PM morbidity and, subsequently, problems with the use of the ipsilateral arm. In this systematic review, we present current knowledge regarding the effect of submuscular silicone-based breast reconstruction on the function of PM and the ipsilateral arm. A search of the relevant English literature was performed through PubMed and ten eligible studies were identified. Articles reporting breast augmentation were accepted as the techniques of implant insertion are similar to reconstruction. Questionnaires reporting the status of the arm, analysis of the range of motion of the shoulder with 3-D video, isometric or isokinetic dynamometry, ultrasound shear-wave elastography, volumetric MRI, electromyography and light and electron microscopy of the PM fibers were used for the assessment of PM and arm status. The insertion of implants under the PM, especially when combined with dissection of some of its insertions, seems to be associated with measurable abnormal microscopic, imaging, and dynamometric findings. However, the intact part of the muscle and possibly other nearby muscular structures are able to compensate for the lost part of PM. Thus, the insertion of implants fully or partially under the PM seems to have no or little effect on the function of the ipsilateral upper limb in daily life.
Topics: Pectoralis Muscles; Silicones; Mammaplasty; Prostheses and Implants; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Breast Implants
PubMed: 37652471
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13289