A systematic review of complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction

被引:70
|
作者
Wagner, Ryan D. [1 ]
Braun, Tara L. [2 ]
Zhu, Huirong [3 ]
Winocour, Sebastian [1 ]
机构
[1] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Surg, Div Plast Surg, 1977 Butler Blvd,Suite E6-100, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Dermatol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Texas Childrens Hosp, Outcome & Impact Serv, Houston, TX 77030 USA
关键词
Capsular contracture; Prepectoral; Acellular dermal matrix; Breast reconstruction; ACELLULAR DERMAL MATRIX; CAPSULAR CONTRACTURE; EXPANDER/IMPLANT RECONSTRUCTION; SUBCUTANEOUS MASTECTOMY; TISSUE MATRIX; SILICONE-GEL; IMPLANT; METAANALYSIS; PLACEMENT; SURGERY;
D O I
10.1016/j.bjps.2019.04.005
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
The use of implants for breast reconstruction began over four decades ago, with implants initially placed in the prepectoral space. Concerns arose regarding the high incidence of capsular contracture and complication rates. With the introduction of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), plastic surgeons are again considering the advantages of prepectoral implant placement. A systematic review was conducted to examine complication profiles in prepectoral breast reconstruction alone versus prepectoral with ADM or mesh. A systematic review of the PubMed database was performed from inception to March 2017 to identify literature on postmastectomy patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without ADM or mesh. Study characteristics, complication rates, and outcomes were extracted for analysis. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and complication profiles were analyzed using the random-effects model. Twenty-seven studies met criteria for inclusion out of 550 identified for review. For 1881 total breasts, the complication rate with ADM was 23.4%, while the rate without an additional implant material was 27.5%. The difference in the capsular contracture rate with and without ADM was 2.3% and 12.4%, respectively. The use of ADM in prepectoral breast reconstruction correlated with lower capsular contracture and overall complications rates; however, rates of implant loss, infection, and mastectomy flap necrosis were higher with the use of ADM. Results were variable across studies, and in general, the quality of evidence reported was low. Because the methodology for outcome assessment was inconsistent, there is a need for further investigation with comparative studies and stan-dardized outcome reporting. (C) 2019 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1051 / 1059
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct to Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction
    Mirhaidari, Shayda J.
    Azouz, Vitali
    Wagner, Douglas S.
    ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2020, 84 (03) : 263 - 270
  • [42] Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Christodoulou, Neophytos
    Secanho, Murilo
    Kokosis, George
    Malgor, Rafael D.
    Winocour, Julian
    Yu, Jason W.
    Mathes, David W.
    Kaoutzanis, Christodoulos
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2024, 98 : 131 - 143
  • [43] Surgical complications in immediate and delayed breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Matar, Dany Y.
    Wu, Mengfan
    Haug, Valentin
    Orgill, Dennis P.
    Panayi, Adriana C.
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2022, 75 (11) : 4085 - 4095
  • [44] Comparison of Outcomes Following Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implants for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Megevand, Vladimir
    Scampa, Matteo
    McEvoy, Helen
    Kalbermatten, Daniel F.
    Oranges, Carlo M.
    CANCERS, 2022, 14 (17)
  • [45] 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
  • [46] Ptotic versus Nonptotic Breasts in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction
    Ostapenko, Edvin
    Nixdorf, Larissa
    Devyatko, Yelena
    Exner, Ruth
    Math, Pia
    Wimmer, Kerstin
    Haeusler, Theresa
    Fitzal, Florian
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN, 2023, 11 (05) : e5032
  • [47] Direct-to-Implant Extracellular Matrix Hammock-based Breast Reconstruction; Prepectoral or Subpectoral?
    Dyrberg, Diana L.
    Gunnarsson, Gudjon L.
    Bille, Camilla
    Sorensen, Jens A.
    Thomsen, Jorn B.
    TRIALS, 2020, 21 (01)
  • [48] A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction
    Hansson, Emma
    Larsson, Camilla
    Uusimaki, Alexandra
    Svensson, Karolina
    Jensen, Emmelie Widmark
    Paganini, Anna
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY AND HAND SURGERY, 2024, 59 : 53 - 64
  • [49] The Effect of Flap Thickness on Major Complications of Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Without Using ADM in Radiotherapy Patients
    Altuntas, Zeynep
    Zuhour, Moath
    Uyanik, Orkun
    PLASTIC SURGERY, 2024,
  • [50] Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction
    Bhat D.
    Darrach H.
    Sacks J.M.
    Current Breast Cancer Reports, 2018, 10 (2) : 48 - 54