» Articles » PMID: 37701292

Literature Review and Guide for Optimal Position in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Overview
Journal Gland Surg
Specialty Endocrinology
Date 2023 Sep 13
PMID 37701292
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Objective: Identification of ideal candidates for prepectoral versus retropectoral implant-based breast reconstruction relies on careful preoperative risk assessment and intraoperative flap evaluation. Few guidelines exist to guide the surgeon's decision-making process when evaluating the preferred plane for implant placement.

Methods: A literature review was performed to develop clinical decision-making algorithms for direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for patients undergoing prophylactic or therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) based on patient characteristics, surgical techniques, and outcomes.

Key Content And Findings: Prepectoral reconstruction is most suitable for patients with small breasts or macromastia with desire for breast reduction, low-grade ptosis, smaller implant sizes, those undergoing PMRT, and for those who aim to mitigate animation deformity and capsular contracture. Retropectoral reconstruction may be recommended for patients with larger breasts with no desire for size change requiring additional prosthesis support, and in patients who aim to reduce likelihood of rippling and need for subsequent fat grafting procedures to address contour abnormalities.

Conclusions: Careful preoperative and intraoperative assessment of reconstruction options for patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction is necessary to mitigate complications and produce superior aesthetic outcomes. Decision algorithms may be used to determine ideal surgical techniques based on patient factors, like radiation history and planning, breast size and ptosis, and patient preferences.

Citing Articles

Current status of pre- and retropectoral breast reconstructions worldwide: a narrative review.

Gunnarsson G, Salzberg C Gland Surg. 2024; 13(7):1305-1314.

PMID: 39175699 PMC: 11336793. DOI: 10.21037/gs-24-13.

References
1.
Rodriguez-Feliz J, Codner M . Embrace the Change: Incorporating Single-Stage Implant Breast Reconstruction into Your Practice. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 136(2):221-231. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001448. View

2.
Li Y, Xu G, Yu N, Huang J, Long X . Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2020; 85(4):437-447. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002190. View

3.
Spear S, Schwartz J, Dayan J, Clemens M . Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008; 33(1):44-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00266-008-9275-y. View

4.
Hanwright P, Davila A, Hirsch E, Khan S, Fine N, Bilimoria K . The differential effect of BMI on prosthetic versus autogenous breast reconstruction: a multivariate analysis of 12,986 patients. Breast. 2013; 22(5):938-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.05.009. View

5.
Palve J, Luukkaala T, Kaariainen M . Predictive risk factors of complications in different breast reconstruction methods. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020; 182(2):345-354. PMC: 7297836. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-05705-3. View