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
  • [31] 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)
  • [32] Prepectoral versus Submuscular Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Comparison of Outcomes
    Talwar, Ankoor A.
    Lanni, Michael A.
    Ryan, Isabel A.
    Kodali, Pranav
    Bernstein, Elizabeth
    Mcauliffe, Phoebe B.
    Broach, Robyn B.
    Serletti, Joseph M.
    Butler, Paris D.
    Fosnot, Joshua
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2024, 153 (02) : 281e - 290e
  • [33] Prospective Clinical Trial for Predicting Mastectomy Skin Flap Necrosis with Indocyanine Green Angiography in Implant-Based Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction
    Kim, Jaewoo
    Han, Man Wong
    Hong, Ki Yong
    AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2024, 48 (23) : 4937 - 4944
  • [34] Laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography in implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: a retrospective study
    Hammer-Hansen, Niels
    Juhl, Alexander Andersen
    Damsgaard, Tine Engberg
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY AND HAND SURGERY, 2018, 52 (03) : 158 - 162
  • [35] Early complications and implant loss in implant-based breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix (Tecnoss Protexa®): A comparative study
    Potter, S.
    Chambers, A.
    Govindajulu, S.
    Sahu, A.
    Warr, R.
    Cawthorn, S.
    EJSO, 2015, 41 (01): : 113 - 119
  • [36] Mesh versus acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction - A prospective randomized trial
    Gschwantler-Kaulich, D.
    Schrenk, P.
    Bjelic-Radisic, V.
    Unterrieder, K.
    Leser, C.
    Fink-Retter, A.
    Salama, M.
    Singer, C.
    EJSO, 2016, 42 (05): : 665 - 671
  • [37] The Pre-BRA (pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction EvAluation) feasibility study: protocol for a mixed-methods IDEAL 2a/2b prospective cohort study to determine the safety and effectiveness of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction
    Harvey, Kate Louise
    Mills, Nicola
    White, Paul
    Holcombe, Christopher
    Potter, Shelley
    BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (01):
  • [38] Outcomes of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with Braxon® acellular dermal matrix-a single-centre experience
    Chandarana, Mihir
    Soumian, Soni
    Jafferbhoy, Sadaf
    Marla, Sekhar
    Narayanan, Sankaran
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2019, 42 (05) : 431 - 438
  • [39] Surgical Outcomes of Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in Young Women
    Manrique, Oscar J.
    Banuelos, Joseph
    Abu-Ghname, Amjed
    Minh-Doan Nguyen
    Tran, Nho, V
    Martinez-Jorge, Jorys
    Harless, Christin
    Sharaf, Basel
    Jakub, James W.
    Degnim, Amy C.
    Boughey, Judy C.
    Jacobson, Steven R.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN, 2019, 7 (03)
  • [40] Impact of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction
    Sinnott, Catherine J.
    Persing, Sarah M.
    Pronovost, Mary
    Hodyl, Christine
    McConnell, Daniel
    Young, Anke Ott
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 25 (10) : 2899 - 2908