» Articles » PMID: 29697602

A Prospective Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes of Subpectoral and Prepectoral Strattice-Based Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Overview
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2018 Apr 27
PMID 29697602
Citations 50
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Prepectoral acellular dermal matrix-assisted immediate implant-based breast reconstruction is gaining popularity, involving complete implant coverage with acellular dermal matrix. The authors aimed to compare pain, patient-reported outcome measures (including implant rippling), and safety of prepectoral and subpectoral Strattice-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction.

Methods: Consecutive patients were recruited prospectively, having either therapeutic or risk-reducing mastectomy. Patients scored their pain three times per day for the first 7 postoperative days on a Likert scale, and completed the BREAST-Q reconstruction module 3 months postoperatively. Clinical records and the authors' prospective complications database were used to compare the early morbidity of the two procedures.

Results: Forty patients were recruited into the study. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the prepectoral group (mean, 1.5) and the subpectoral cohort (mean, 1.5; p = 0.45) during the first 7 days. Thirty-one BREAST-Q questionnaires were returned; mean Q scores were similar for both prepectoral and subpectoral (72 and 71, respectively; p = 0.81) groups. Patients reported significantly more visible implant rippling in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (seven of 13 versus two of 17; p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in length of stay or early morbidity, with implant loss being 4.7 percent in the prepectoral group compared with 0 percent in the subpectoral group.

Conclusions: Early postoperative pain and quality of life at 3 months are equivalent between groups. Early experience of prepectoral implant placement with complete acellular dermal matrix coverage suggests this is safe and provides good quality of life for patients. Further studies are required to compare short- and long-term outcomes with the current standard forms of reconstruction.

Clinical Question/level Of Evidence: Therapeutic, II.

Citing Articles

A comparison of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) efficacy and complication profile in women undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Glynou S, Sousi S, Cook H, Zargaran A, Zargaran D, Mosahebi A BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):1598.

PMID: 39741248 PMC: 11686910. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-13359-3.


Management of Breast Cancer by Skin-Reducing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction by Prepectoral Implant Approach with Polypropylene Mesh for Patients with Large Breasts.

Abd El Maksoud W, Ahmed Y, Hamza A, Alghamdi M, Alhashash M, Rizk P Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024; .

PMID: 39586862 DOI: 10.1007/s00266-024-04529-6.


Comparison of Patient-Reported Quality of Life Following Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral and Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Using BREAST-Q: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Dyrberg D, Dalaei F, Sollie M, Bille C, Koudahl V, Sorensen J Arch Plast Surg. 2024; 51(6):542-548.

PMID: 39544510 PMC: 11560329. DOI: 10.1055/a-2407-9183.


Impact of the Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment Score on Expander-Based Reconstruction Success.

Lo Torto F, Turriziani G, Carella S, Pagnotta A, Ribuffo D J Clin Med. 2024; 13(21).

PMID: 39518605 PMC: 11546869. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13216466.


Comparative complications of prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis.

Wu Y, Yu L, Huang M, Huang Y, Li C, Liang Y Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1439293.

PMID: 39257552 PMC: 11385603. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1439293.