Background: To date, both one- and two-stage techniques are used in immediate 'implant-based breast reconstruction' (IBBR) after mastectomy. Because it is still unknown what technique offers the best clinical outcomes, a multicenter retrospective study was conducted to compare both breast reconstruction techniques.
Methods: All patients, who underwent a mastectomy followed by immediate one- or two-stage IBBR during 2010 - 2016 were included. Our primary outcome measure was explantation of the 'tissue expander' (TE) and/ or implants within 60 days after breast reconstruction. Secondary outcomes were overall complication rate and secondary corrections.
Findings: Among a total of 383 women, TE/ implant explantation rate was higher in one-stage (19.9%) than in two-stage (11.3%) treated patients (p = 0.082). Overall complication rate (35.7% and 19.9% respectively, p = 0.008) and secondary corrections (29.8% and 20.3% respectively, p = 0.156) were also higher in one-stage compared to two-stage IBBR respectively. However, explantation (OR = 1.55; 95%CI = 0.67-3.58, p = 0.301) and complication (OR = 1.85; 95%CI = 0.92-3.37, p = 0.084) rates were comparable in one- and two-stage IBBR in our stratified multivariate logistic regression analyses, when controlling for history of smoking, nipple-sparing mastectomy, neoadjuvant radiation therapy, and removed breast tissue weight. A remarkable outcome in this study is that women treated with prophylactic surgery were more likely to have an explantation of the TE/ implant after a one-stage IBBR (OR = 4.49; 95%CI = 1.10-18.3, p = 0.037) than two-stage IBBR. In contrast, no association between type of IBBR and risk of TE/implants removal was found among women with a therapeutic mastectomy (OR = 0.82; 95%CI = 0.24-2.79, p = = 0.74).
Conclusion: One- and two-stage IBBR showed a comparable explantation and complication rate in our retrospective study. In one-stage IBBR more secondary corrections were detected. In addition, women who have to decide on a prophylactic mastectomy should be aware of a significantly higher risk of explantation of their implant after one-stage IBBR.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2021.11.112 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Risk prediction of implant loss following implant-based breast reconstruction: a population-based study.
Plast Reconstr Surg
December 2024
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Introduction: Implant loss following implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is a serious complication, resulting in re-operations, patient suffering, and a significant decrease in quality of life. This study aimed to create a validated risk prediction model for implant loss after IBBR using perioperative risk factors.
Methods: Patients who had undergone either a two-stage or a direct-to-implant postmastectomy IBBR were identified from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR).
Management of the Infected Tissue Expander.
Plast Reconstr Surg
October 2024
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Background: Tissue expander (TE) infection is a critical postoperative complication in two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). We assessed risk factors associated with TE infection and reconstructive loss and examined reconstructive salvage rates.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent IBBR with TE placement from 2017 to 2022.
Objective: This study investigates Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) protocols' impact on long-term opioid and sedative use following mastectomy with or without implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR).
Summary Background Data: ERAS® protocols for patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBBR are associated with decreased length of stay, increased rate of same-day discharge, decreased postoperative pain, and decreased postoperative opioid requirements. However, less is known about their effect on opioid and sedative use beyond 90 days after surgery.
Single versus Double Drainage for Immediate Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Aesthetic Plast Surg
September 2024
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Background: Reports evaluating plastic surgeons' practices indicate there are conflicting trends regarding the use of one or two drains for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Our study aimed to perform a matched cohort analysis to examine the postoperative outcomes and complications of immediate IBBR with tissue expander (TE) using two drains versus a single drain.
Methods: A propensity score-matched analysis (nearest neighbor, 1:1 matching) of immediate reconstructions using two versus one drain was conducted.
Prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: U.S. medical center experience and narrative review.
Ann Transl Med
December 2023
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Background And Objective: With the incorporation of autologous fat grafting, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) products, and nipple-sparing mastectomy, prepectoral device placement has become more popular in selected patients when compared to partial submuscular (dual plane) or complete submuscular device placement. In this article, we aimed to present a review of the current state-of-the-art for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) using expanders. Additionally, we present a case series of our experience with IBBR evaluating perioperative outcomes, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!