Prepectoral Vs. Submuscular Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Our Early Experience

Overview

Journal J Pers Med

Date 2022 Sep 23

PMID 36143318

Authors

Lorenzo Scardina

Alba Di Leone

Ersilia Biondi

Beatrice Carnassale

Alejandro Martin Sanchez

Sabatino DArchi

Antonio Franco

Francesca Moschella

Stefano Magno

Daniela Terribile

Damiano Gentile

Alessandra Fabi

Anna DAngelo

Liliana Barone Adesi

Giuseppe Visconti

Marzia Salgarello

Riccardo Masetti

Gianluca Franceschini

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Conservative mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) is an oncologically accepted technique that offers improved esthetic results and patient quality of life. Traditionally, implants have been placed in a submuscular (SM) plane beneath the pectoralis major muscle (PMM). Recently, prepectoral (PP) placement of the prosthesis has been increasingly used in order to avoid morbidities related to manipulation of the PMM. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of SM vs. PP IPBR after conservative mastectomy in patients with histologically proven breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed two cohorts of patients that underwent mastectomy with IPBR after NAC in our institution from January 2018 to December 2021. Conservative mastectomy was performed in 146 of the 400 patients that underwent NAC during the study period. Patients were divided into two groups based on the positioning of implants: 56 SM versus 90 PP.

Results: The two cohorts were similar for age (mean age 42 and 44 years in the SM and PP group respectively) and follow-up (33 and 20 months, respectively). Mean operative time was 56 min shorter in the PP group (300 and 244 min in the SM and PP group). No significant differences were observed in overall major complication rates. Implant loss was observed in 1.78% of patients (1/56) in the SM group and 1.11% of patients (1/90) in PP group. No differences were observed between the two groups in local or regional recurrence.

Conclusions: Our preliminary experience, which represents one of the largest series of patients undergoing PP-IPBR after NAC at a single institution documented in the literature, seems to confirm that PP-IPBR after NAC is a safe, reliable and effective alternative to traditional SM-IPBR with excellent esthetic and oncological outcomes; it is easy to perform, reduces operative time and minimizes complications related to manipulation of PPM. However, this promising results need to be confirmed in prospective trials with longer follow-up.

Citing Articles

A Comparative Study of One-Stage Pre-pectoral Implant Breast Reconstruction With and Without Mesh.

Hajiesmaeili H, Shirazi S, Agrawal K, Vidya R Cureus. 2025; 16(12):e75896.

PMID: 39807470 PMC: 11728804. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.75896.

Complication Rates After Mastectomy and Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Compared to Conventional Fractionation: A Single Institutional Analysis.

Falick Michaeli T, Hatoom F, Skripai A, Wajnryt E, Allweis T, Paluch-Shimon S Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(1.

PMID: 39796733 PMC: 11720671. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17010106.

The Evolution of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Innovations, Trends, and Future Directions.

Amro C, Sorenson T, Boyd C, Hemal K, Vernice N, Park J J Clin Med. 2024; 13(23).

PMID: 39685866 PMC: 11642416. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13237407.

Comparison of clinical characteristics and pathologic complete response rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women under 35 years and older women with breast cancer.

Dou H, Gao T, Li Z, Jia S, Luo D, Ba Y Gland Surg. 2024; 13(11):1907-1920.

PMID: 39678411 PMC: 11635561. DOI: 10.21037/gs-24-293.

Breast Implants: Low Rate of Annual Check-Ups Results in Delayed Presentation of Ruptured Implants.

Flores T, Kerschbaumer C, Glisic C, Weber M, Schrogendorfer K, Bergmeister K J Clin Med. 2024; 13(21).

PMID: 39518683 PMC: 11547161. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13216545.

References

Ishiba T, Aruga T, Miyamoto H, Ishihara S, Nara M, Adachi M . Short- and long-term outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Surg Today. 2021; 52(1):129-136. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-021-02316-3. View

Bernini M, Calabrese C, Cecconi L, Santi C, Gjondedaj U, Roselli J . Subcutaneous Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Surgical, Functional, and Aesthetic Results after Long-Term Follow-Up. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016; 3(12):e574. PMC: 4727683. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000533. View

Yang J, Kim C, Lee J, Kim S, Ah Lee S, Hwang E . Considerations for patient selection: Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg. 2019; 46(6):550-557. PMC: 6882693. DOI: 10.5999/aps.2019.00353. View

Bernini M, Meattini I, Saieva C, Becherini C, Salvestrini V, Visani L . Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: early and long-term safety evaluation of 146 unselected cases of the early pre-pectoral era of a single-institution, including cases with previous breast irradiation and post-mastectomy radiation therapy. Breast Cancer. 2021; 29(2):302-313. DOI: 10.1007/s12282-021-01314-0. View

von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer J, Costa S, Eidtmann H, Fasching P . Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(15):1796-804. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8595. View

Abt N, Flores J, Baltodano P, Sarhane K, Abreu F, Cooney C . Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and short-term morbidity in patients undergoing mastectomy with and without breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2014; 149(10):1068-76. PMC: 4352300. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.1076. View

Urquia L, Hart A, Liu D, Losken A . Surgical Outcomes in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020; 8(4):e2744. PMC: 7209837. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002744. View

Franceschini G, Scardina L, Di Leone A, Terribile D, Sanchez A, Magno S . Immediate Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Traditional Subpectoral Technique versus Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix. J Pers Med. 2021; 11(2). PMC: 7926428. DOI: 10.3390/jpm11020153. View

Mirhaidari S, Azouz V, Wagner D . Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct to Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2019; 84(3):263-270. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002059. View

10.

Di Leone A, Terribile D, Magno S, Sanchez A, Scardina L, Mason E . Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: An Advanced Personalized Multidisciplinary Prehabilitation Model (APMP-M) to Optimize Outcomes. J Pers Med. 2021; 11(5). PMC: 8143137. DOI: 10.3390/jpm11050324. View

11.

Wu Z, Kim H, Lee J, Chung I, Kim J, Lee S . Factors Predicting Locoregional Recurrence After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Nipple-Sparing/Skin-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Breast Reconstruction. Front Oncol. 2021; 11:675955. PMC: 8281333. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.675955. View

12.

Franceschini G . Internal surgical use of biodegradable carbohydrate polymers. Warning for a conscious and proper use of oxidized regenerated cellulose. Carbohydr Polym. 2019; 216:213-216. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.04.036. View

13.

Casella D, Kaciulyte J, Lo Torto F, Mori F, Barellini L, Fausto A . "To Pre or Not to Pre": Introduction of a Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment Score to Help Surgeons Solving the Decision-Making Dilemma. Retrospective Results of a Multicenter Experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021; 147(6):1278-1286. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008120. View

14.

. Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet Oncol. 2017; 19(1):27-39. PMC: 5757427. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30777-5. View

15.

Patel R, Somogyi R . Comparing post-surgical outcomes of pre-pectoral versus dual-plane direct-to-implant breast reconstruction without increasing the use of acellular dermal matrix. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021; 75(3):1123-1129. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.11.017. View

16.

Allue Cabanuz M, Arribas Del Amo M, Gil Romea I, Val-Carreres Rivera M, Sousa Dominguez R, Guemes Sanchez A . Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A safe option?. Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2019; 97(10):575-581. DOI: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2019.07.003. View

17.

Franceschini G, Terribile D, Fabbri C, Magno S, DAlba P, Chiesa F . Management of locally advanced breast cancer. Mini-review. Minerva Chir. 2007; 62(4):249-55. View

18.

Li L, Su Y, Xiu B, Huang X, Chi W, Hou J . Comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomies: A systematic review and meta analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019; 45(9):1542-1550. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.05.015. View

19.

Varghese J, Gohari S, Rizki H, Faheem M, Langridge B, Kummel S . A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on complications following immediate breast reconstruction. Breast. 2020; 55:55-62. PMC: 7750646. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.11.023. View

20.

Grigor E, Stein M, Arnaout A, Ghaedi B, Ramsay T, Zhang J . The Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Safety Outcomes Following Immediate Breast Reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022; 75(8):2520-2525. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.02.048. View