-
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 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Dec 2023The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) on the complication rate after implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction remains unclear. The aim of this study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) on the complication rate after implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction remains unclear. The aim of this study was to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of previously published studies on immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in breast cancer patients treated with NACT compared with controls.
METHODS
PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify studies assessing the impact of NACT on major and minor complications after IBR. The primary effect measures were relative risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (95% CI), and p-value.
RESULTS
Eight studies comprising 51,731 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Of these, 5161 patients received NACT and 46,570 patients did not receive NACT. In regard to major complications, NACT did not statistically significant increase the rate of reconstructive failure (RR = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.96-1.91, p = 0.09), the rate of mastectomy skin-flap necrosis (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 0.61-3.17, p = 0.44), or the rate of reoperation (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.87-1.37, p = 0.45). Regarding minor complications, NACT did not significantly increase the rate of wound complications (RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.87-1.28, p = 0.62). In a subgroup analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction following NACT, single-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) had a significantly lower implant failure rate compared with two-staged tissue expander/implant (TE/I) (RR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.26-0.71, p = 0.0011).
CONCLUSION
NACT did not increase the major or minor complication rate after IBR with either autologous tissue or implants. Thus, NACT and IBR should be considered safe procedures. The review of studies describing patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction following NACT could indicate that single-stage DTI was a safer procedure than two-staged TE/I. However, the association requires further evaluation.
Topics: Humans; Female; Mastectomy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Breast Neoplasms; Mammaplasty; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome; Breast Implants; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37804643
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.09.048 -
Aesthetic Surgery Journal Dec 2023Although textured implants represent fewer than 10% of implants used in the United States, the country reports the highest incidence of breast implant-associated...
BACKGROUND
Although textured implants represent fewer than 10% of implants used in the United States, the country reports the highest incidence of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review on US-based epidemiology to update knowledge on BIA-ALCL in the United States.
METHODS
Publications on US BIA-ALCL epidemiology were searched between September 2022 and March 2023 on MEDLINE (National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, MD), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Web of Science (Clarivate, London, UK), and SCOPUS (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands). The US numerator was obtained by averaging the FDA MAUDE database and the PSF PROFILE registry, while the denominator was estimated from chest X-rays, and included female transgender individuals. Prevalence and risk were assessed accordingly, but the incidence rate (IR) could not be updated due to the lack of available follow-up data.
RESULTS
Out of 987 identified manuscripts, 10 were included. The US prevalence of BIA-ALCL in the literature ranged from 1:300 to 1:500,000 and the IR from 4.5 per 10,000 to 31.1 per 100 million persons per year. A mean value of 453.5 BIA-ALCL cases was calculated. From a denominator of 4,264,618 individuals, which includes all breast implant surfaces, we calculated 414,521 individuals with textured implants, indicating a textured prevalence of 109.4 cases per 100,000 individuals and a risk of 1:913.
CONCLUSIONS
BIA-ALCL IR, prevalence, and risk has increased when calculated exclusively for patients with textured devices. Although US macrotextured implants were recalled by the FDA, these findings may influence the surveillance of existing patients and the use of macrotextured implants in other parts of the world where they remain widespread.
Topics: Humans; Female; United States; Breast Implants; Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic; Breast Implantation; Incidence; Netherlands; Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 37616552
DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjad279 -
Acta Chirurgiae Plasticae 2024Breast reduction mammaplasty is the only effective therapeutic intervention for patients with symptomatic breast hypertrophy. In this procedure, closed suction drains...
Breast reduction mammaplasty is the only effective therapeutic intervention for patients with symptomatic breast hypertrophy. In this procedure, closed suction drains have become a standard of care, while the literature supporting use of drains is lacking. In fact, with emerging data we found out that drains might not be so necessary. This review aimed to systematically compare the number of complications in drained and undrained breasts and to evaluate the safety of omitting drains in reduction mammaplasty in clinical practice. A systematic review of literature was conducted identifying all studies on drainage in reduction mammaplasty. The analysed databases revealed 13 eligible studies to be included in this review. There were 308 drained breasts and 859 undrained breasts in total in patients from 16 to 73 years of age. The resected tissue weight per side fluctuated from 108 to 1,296 grams. In total, there was only 2.4% incidence of haematoma complications in undrained breasts and 3.9% in drained breasts. Closed suction drains are still being routinely used in reduction mammaplasty, although aborting drain use is proven to be not only safe, but advantageous. The clear benefit is increased patient comfort, shortened hospital stay, decreased cost of the procedure and nurse care, and decreased rate of complications.
Topics: Humans; Mammaplasty; Female; Drainage; Postoperative Complications; Suction; Breast; Middle Aged; Adult; Hypertrophy
PubMed: 38704230
DOI: 10.48095/ccachp20246 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Nov 2023Most breast reconstructions are implant-based and can be performed either in a one-stage, direct-to-implant or in a two-stage, expander-implant-based reconstruction. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Most breast reconstructions are implant-based and can be performed either in a one-stage, direct-to-implant or in a two-stage, expander-implant-based reconstruction. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the safety and patient satisfaction of the two reconstruction approaches.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted on 27 September 2022 using various databases. Studies comparing one-stage and two-stage implant reconstructions and reporting the following outcomes were included: patient satisfaction, aesthetics, complications, and/or costs. Reviews, case reports, or series with less than 20 patients and letters or comments were excluded. Comparisons were made between the one-stage reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction groups. The data extracted from all articles were analysed using random-effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Of the 1381 records identified, a total of 33 articles were included, representing 21529 patients. There were no significant differences between the one-stage and two-stage groups, except for the costs. The one-stage operation without ADM had lower costs than the two-stage operation without ADM, although the use of an ADM substantially increased the price of the operation to more than a two-stage reconstruction.
DISCUSSION
Equal patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes, and complication rates with lower costs justify one-stage breast reconstruction in carefully selected patients. This review shows that there is no evidence-based superior surgical approach. Future research should focus on the costs of the ADM versus an additional stage and patient-reported outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Implants; Breast Implantation; Treatment Outcome; Mastectomy; Mammaplasty; Acellular Dermis; Breast Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37716248
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.08.021 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research May 2024Web-based decision aids have been shown to have a positive effect when used to improve the quality of decision-making for women facing postmastectomy breast... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Web-based decision aids have been shown to have a positive effect when used to improve the quality of decision-making for women facing postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR). However, the existing findings regarding these interventions are still incongruent, and the overall effect is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to assess the content of web-based decision aids and its impact on decision-related outcomes (ie, decision conflict, decision regret, informed choice, and knowledge), psychological-related outcomes (ie, satisfaction and anxiety), and surgical decision-making in women facing PMBR.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 6 databases, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection, were searched starting at the time of establishment of the databases to May 2023, and an updated search was conducted on April 1, 2024. MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and text words were used. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials was used to assess the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
In total, 7 studies included 579 women and were published between 2008 and 2023, and the sample size in each study ranged from 26 to 222. The results showed that web-based decision aids used audio and video to present the pros and cons of PMBR versus no PMBR, implants versus flaps, and immediate versus delayed PMBR and the appearance and feel of the PMBR results and the expected recovery time with photographs of actual patients. Web-based decision aids help improve PMBR knowledge, decisional conflict (mean difference [MD]=-5.43, 95% CI -8.87 to -1.99; P=.002), and satisfaction (standardized MD=0.48, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.95; P=.05) but have no effect on informed choice (MD=-2.80, 95% CI -8.54 to 2.94; P=.34), decision regret (MD=-1.55, 95% CI -6.00 to 2.90 P=.49), or anxiety (standardized MD=0.04, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.58; P=.88). The overall Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation quality of the evidence was low.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest that the web-based decision aids provide a modern, low-cost, and high dissemination rate effective method to promote the improved quality of decision-making in women undergoing PMBR.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42023450496; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=450496.
Topics: Female; Humans; Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Internet; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38801766
DOI: 10.2196/53872 -
Clinical Breast Cancer Apr 2024Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is a standard modality of treatment for breast cancer. The exposure of patients to drugs that effect the cells and processes involved in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is a standard modality of treatment for breast cancer. The exposure of patients to drugs that effect the cells and processes involved in healing prior to reconstructive surgical procedures is a source of concern for reconstructive surgeons. The reported effects of NAC on autologous and tissue expander to implant-based breast reconstruction vary from study to study and have not been comprehensively reviewed on a large scale. There is also significant variation from study to study regarding which outcomes are evaluated. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on common and significant outcomes including total complication, reconstruction loss, and SSI (Surgical Site Infection) rates in breast reconstruction. The second aim of this study is to evaluate whether NAC has differing effects on implant-based reconstruction compared with autologous flap reconstruction. A systematic review of the literature published from 1991 to 2019 in the PubMed and Scopus library database was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of breast reconstruction in patients receiving NAC. A meta-analysis was then performed. Primary outcomes reviewed included overall complication rates, SSI rates, and total loss of reconstruction (flap necrosis or premature tissue expander or implant removal). Outcomes were analyzed using a random effects model and chi-square statistical test. Our literature search yielded 22 manuscripts with a total of 3680 patients that fit our inclusion criteria, of which 12 reported on reconstruction loss, 14 reported on SSI rates, and 10 reported on overall complication rates. There was no significant difference in overall breast reconstruction loss rate (OR 1.30, P = .35), complication rate (OR 1.21, P = .06), and rate of SSI (OR 1.28, P = .85) between NAC vs. non-NAC groups. In patients undergoing autologous flap reconstruction there were no significant differences in complication (23.4% vs. 17.7%, P = 0.076), loss of reconstruction (3.1% vs. 4.4%, P = .393), or SSI (5.3% vs. 3.4%, P = .108) rates in patients who were treated with NAC compared to those who were not. Likewise, in patients undergoing TE/implant-based reconstruction there were no significant differences in complication (19.6 vs. 24.2 P = .069), loss of reconstruction (17.4% vs. 13.3%, P = .072), or SSI (7.9% vs. 5.1%, P = .073) rates in patients who were treated with NAC compared to those who were not. NAC was not associated with any significant differences in overall complication, reconstruction loss, or SSI rates in patients receiving implant-based or autologous flap breast reconstruction. Additionally, the lack of effect of NAC on overall complication, reconstruction loss or SSI rates did not differ with or depend on the type of reconstruction.
Topics: Humans; Female; Mastectomy; Breast Implants; Breast Neoplasms; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Mammaplasty; Retrospective Studies; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 38228449
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2023.12.004 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery May 2024Breast reconstruction is an integral part of breast cancer management. Conventional techniques of flap harvesting for autologous breast reconstruction are associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
Breast reconstruction is an integral part of breast cancer management. Conventional techniques of flap harvesting for autologous breast reconstruction are associated with considerable complications. Robotic surgery has enabled a new spectrum of minimally invasive breast surgeries. The current systematic review and meta-analysis study was designed to retrieve the surgical and clinical outcomes of robotic versus conventional techniques for autologous breast reconstruction. An extensive systematic literature review was performed from inception to 25 April 2023. All clinical studies comparing the outcomes of robotic and conventional autologous breast reconstruction were included for meta-analysis. The present meta-analysis included seven articles consisting of 783 patients. Of them, 263 patients received robotic breast reconstruction, while 520 patients received conventional technique. Of note, 477 patients received latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) and 306 were subjected to deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap. There was a significantly prolonged duration of surgery (MD 58.36;95% CI 32.05,84.67;P < 0.001) and duration of anaesthesia (MD 47;95% CI 16.23,77.77;P = 0.003) among patients who underwent robotic surgery. There was a similar risk of complications between robotic and conventional surgeries. The mean level of pain intensity was significantly lower among patients who received robotic breast surgery (MD- 0.28;95% CI - 0.73,0.17; P = 0.22). There was prolonged length of hospitalization among patients with conventional DIEP flap surgery (MD- 0.59;95% CI - 1.13,- 0.05;P = 0.03). The present meta-analysis highlighted the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of robotic autologous breast reconstruction. This included the successful harvesting of LDF and DIEP flap with acceptable surgical and functional outcomes.
Topics: Robotic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Mammaplasty; Female; Treatment Outcome; Breast Neoplasms; Operative Time; Transplantation, Autologous; Postoperative Complications; Superficial Back Muscles; Perforator Flap; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 38693427
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01913-x -
Aesthetic Surgery Journal Jun 2024Squamous cell carcinoma may arise primarily from the breast parenchyma (PSCCB) or from the periprosthetic capsule in patients with breast implants (breast...
Squamous cell carcinoma may arise primarily from the breast parenchyma (PSCCB) or from the periprosthetic capsule in patients with breast implants (breast implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma [BIA-SCC]). A systematic literature review was performed to identify all PSCCB and BIA-SCC cases, and to estimate prevalence, incidence rate (IR), and risk. Studies up to November 2023 were searched on PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library for predefined keywords. The numerator for PSCCB and BIA-SCC was the number of cases obtained from the literature; the denominator for PSCCB was the female population aged from 18 to 99, and the denominator for BIA-SCC was the population with breast implants. Overall, 219 papers were included, featuring 2250 PSCCB and 30 BIA-SCC cases. PSCCB prevalence was 2.0 per 100,000 (95% CI, 0.2:100,000 to 7.2:100,000) individuals, with a lifetime risk of 1:49,509 (95% CI, 0.2:10,000 to 5.6:10,000); and BIA-SCC prevalence was 0.61 per 100,000 (95% CI, 0.2:100,000 to 1.3:100,000), with a lifetime risk of 1:164,884 (95% CI, 0.2:100,000 to 5.6:100,000). The prevalence of BIA-SCC is 3.33 times lower than that of PSCCB, while the prevalence of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is 3.84 times higher than that of primary breast ALCL. When comparing the BIA-SCC prevalence of 1:164,910 individuals with breast implants regardless of texture to the BIA-ALCL prevalence of 1:914 patients with textured implants, the BIA-SCC risk is 180 times lower than the BIA-ALCL risk. BIA-SCC occurs less frequently than PSCCB and considerably less than BIA-ALCL. The association between textured implants and BIA-SCC cases is relevant for patient education regarding uncommon and rare risks associated with breast implants, and ongoing vigilance, research, and strengthened reporting systems remain imperative.
Topics: Humans; Breast Implants; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Prevalence; Incidence; Breast Implantation; Risk Factors; Middle Aged; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Young Adult; Adolescent
PubMed: 38307034
DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjae023 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Jan 2024Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved over time. However, the effects of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) compared with those of subpectoral breast... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved over time. However, the effects of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) compared with those of subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) have not been clearly defined. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the occurrence of surgical complications between PBR and SBR to determine the procedure that is effective and relatively safe.
METHODS
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published until April of 2021 comparing PBR and SBR following mastectomy. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. General information on the studies and surgical outcomes were extracted. Among 857 studies, 34 and 29 were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed to clearly compare the results of patients who underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy.
RESULTS
Pooled results showed that prevention of capsular contracture (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79) and infection control (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92) were better with PBR than with SBR. Rates of hematoma, implant loss, seroma, skin-flap necrosis, and wound dehiscence were not significantly different between PBR and SBR. PBR considerably improved postoperative pain, BREAST-Q score, and upper arm function compared with SBR. Among postmastectomy radiation therapy patients, the incidence rates of capsular contracture were significantly lower in the PBR group than in the SBR group (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.35).
CONCLUSIONS
The results showed that PBR had fewer postoperative complications than SBR. The authors' meta-analysis suggests that PBR could be used as an alternative technique for breast reconstruction in appropriate patients.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Mastectomy; Breast Implantation; Mammaplasty; Postoperative Complications; Contracture; Breast Implants
PubMed: 37010460
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010493