Real-world data of perioperative complications in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: a prospective cohort study

被引:0
作者
Hamann, Moritz [1 ]
Bensmann, Elena [1 ]
Andrulat, Anne [1 ]
Festl, Jasmin [1 ]
Saadat, Gitti [1 ]
Klein, Evelyn [2 ]
Chronas, Dimitrios [3 ]
Braun, Michael [1 ]
机构
[1] Red Cross Hosp, Breast Ctr, Dept Gynecol, Taxisstr 3, D-80637 Munich, Germany
[2] Tech Univ Munich, Dept Gynecol & Obstet, Klinikum Rechts Isar, Munich, Germany
[3] Spital Zollikerberg, Dept Gynecol, Zollikerberg, Switzerland
关键词
TiLOOP (R) Bra Pocket; Breast reconstruction; Breast cancer; Implant loss; Complications; Breast surgery; NIPPLE-SPARING MASTECTOMY; ACELLULAR DERMAL MATRIX; TILOOP(R) BRA POCKET; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; FOLLOW-UP; OUTCOMES; MESH; DETERMINANTS; CONSERVATION;
D O I
10.1007/s00404-024-07807-5
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
PurposeTo analyze complications and potential risk factors associated with immediate prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction (DTIBR). Methods295 patients (326 operated breasts) with DTIBR between March 2021 and December 2023 were included in this prospective study. Postoperative complications (postoperative bleeding, seroma, infection, necrosis, wound dehiscence, implant exchange/loss) were analyzed for potential risk factors by descriptive and logistic regression analyses. ResultsThe implant was covered by TiLOOP (R) Bra Pocket in 227 breasts (69.6%), by "dual-plane" technique in 20 breasts (6.1%), by acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in 1 breast (0.3%). No additional support was used for 78 breasts (23.9%). The use of mesh did not increase the risk for complications. Major complications requiring surgical revision occurred due to postoperative bleeding in 22 (6.7%), seroma in 2 (0.6%), infection in 13 (4.0%), necrosis in 10 (3.1%), and wound dehiscence in 10 (3.1%) breasts. Thirteen (4.0%) implants were exchanged, and 5 (1.5%) were explanted without substitution. One patient had to switch to autologous reconstruction due to skin necrosis. The main reasons for the removal/exchange of implants were infections (11 breasts, 3.4%) and necrosis (4 breasts, 1.2%). The risk for necrosis, infection, and wound dehiscence was mainly associated with the type of incision, especially skin-reducing incisions, and body mass index (BMI) >= 30 kg/m2. ConclusionSevere complications occurred primarily in patients with a BMI >= 30 kg/m2 and when skin-reducing surgical techniques were performed. Trial RegistryThis study was retrospectively registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) on 20.06.2024. DRKS-ID: DRKS00034493. https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00034493.
引用
收藏
页码:3077 / 3089
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Postoperative Complications Following Prepectoral Versus Partial Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Zhu, Liwen
    Liu, Chunjun
    AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2023, 47 (04) : 1260 - 1273
  • [22] An 11-year retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes after prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction performed by a single surgeon
    Sinnott, Catherine J.
    Pronovost, Mary T.
    Hodyl, Christine
    Lynch, Melanie
    Young, Freya
    Edwards, Sanford
    Young, Anke Ott
    ANNALS OF BREAST SURGERY, 2022, 6
  • [23] Impact of Obesity on Outcomes of Prepectoral vs Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction
    Asaad, Malke
    Hassan, Abbas M.
    Morris, Natalie
    Kumar, Saloni
    Liu, Jun
    Butler, Charles E.
    Selber, Jesse C.
    AESTHETIC SURGERY JOURNAL, 2023, 43 (10) : NP774 - NP786
  • [24] Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study
    Harvey, Kate L.
    Sinai, Parisa
    Mills, Nicola
    White, Paul
    Holcombe, Christopher
    Potter, Shelley
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 109 (06) : 530 - 538
  • [25] Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction
    Scheflan, Michael
    Allweis, Tanir M.
    Ben Yehuda, Dafna
    Lotan, Adi Maisel
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN, 2020, 8 (11) : E3265
  • [26] Considerations for patient selection: Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction
    Yang, Jun Young
    Kim, Chan Woo
    Lee, Jang Won
    Kim, Seung Ki
    Lee, Seung Ah
    Hwang, Euna
    ARCHIVES OF PLASTIC SURGERY-APS, 2019, 46 (06): : 550 - 557
  • [27] A Comparative Study of Breast Sensibility and Patient Satisfaction After Breast Reconstruction Autologous, 2-Stage Implant-Based, and Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Reconstruction
    Hwang, Yong-Jae
    Lee, Hyung-Chul
    Park, Seung-Ha
    Yoon, Eul-Sik
    ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2022, 88 (03) : 262 - 270
  • [28] The Impact of Premastectomy Versus Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on Outcomes in Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction
    Sinnott, Catherine J.
    Pronovost, Mary T.
    Persing, Sarah M.
    Wu, Robin
    Young, Anke Ott
    ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2021, 87 (1S) : S21 - S27
  • [29] Risk factor analysis and clinical experience of treating capsular contracture after prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction
    Kim, Da-Som
    Moon, Yi-Jun
    Lee, Hyung-Chul
    Chung, Jae-Ho
    Jung, Seung-Pil
    Yoon, Eul-Sik
    GLAND SURGERY, 2024, 13 (06) : 987 - 998
  • [30] Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: A systemic review and meta-analysis
    Ostapenko, Edvin
    Nixdorf, Larissa
    Devyatko, Yelena
    Wimmer, Kerstin
    Exner, Ruth
    Fitzal, Florian
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2023, 83 (05)