A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

被引:18
|
作者
Kim, Jeong-Hoon [1 ]
Hong, Seung Eun [1 ]
机构
[1] Ewha Womans Univ, Dept Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Mokdong Hosp, Coll Med, 1071 Anyangcheon Ro, Seoul 07985, South Korea
来源
MEDICINA-LITHUANIA | 2020年 / 56卷 / 10期
关键词
acellular dermal matrix; breast reconstruction; subpectoral; prepectoral; ACELLULAR DERMAL MATRIX; ANIMATION DEFORMITY; COMPLICATION RATES; OUTCOMES; MASTECTOMY; IMPACT;
D O I
10.3390/medicina56100537
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background and objectives: Until now subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) has been the predominant form; however, it can present with pectoralis muscle contraction and animation deformity. To avoid these complications, surgeons have begun placing breast implants in the same anatomic space as the breast tissue that was removed. We report a comparative analysis of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) versus subpectoral breast reconstruction to analyze their differences. Materials and Methods: Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) performed from February 2015 to February 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We then compared the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of the two groups (prepectoral vs. subpectoral) based on the overall incidence of complications, pain scale, and the duration of drainage. Results: A total of 167 patients underwent unilateral DTI, with SBR 114 (68.3%) and PBR 53 (31.7%). Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of seroma, infection (requiring intravenous antibiotics), hematoma, and skin necrosis. Implant loss rates in the SBR 6.1% (n = 7) and PBR 9.4% (n = 5) were also not statistically significant (p = 0.99). The hemovac duration period was significantly longer in the SBR (14.93 +/- 5.57 days) group than in the PBR group (11.09 +/- 4.82 days) (p < 0.01). However, post-operative pain scores are similar between two groups, although it is not clear whether this was due to the effect of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia. Conclusions: A SBR is a commonly used procedure with various advantages, but there are many problems due to damage to the normal pectoralis major muscle. According to the results of our study, the PBR group had a shorter hemovac duration period compared to the SBR group, although there was no significant difference in complication rate. A PBR is a simple and safe technique allowing early discharge without increasing the incidence of long-term complications.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 10
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Single-Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction A Comparison Between Subpectoral Versus Prepectoral Implant Placement
    Manrique, Oscar J.
    Kapoor, Trishul
    Banuelos, Joseph
    Jacobson, Steven R.
    Martinez-Jorge, Jorys
    Nguyen, Minh-Doan T.
    Tran, Nho V.
    Harless, Christin A.
    Degnim, Amy C.
    Jakub, James W.
    [J]. ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2020, 84 (04) : 361 - 365
  • [2] Comparison Between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: a Case Series Analysis
    Ofek, Sar-el
    Gronovich, Yoav
    [J]. INDIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 84 (SUPPL 3) : 633 - 640
  • [3] Comparison Between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: a Case Series Analysis
    Sar-el Ofek
    Yoav Gronovich
    [J]. Indian Journal of Surgery, 2022, 84 : 633 - 640
  • [4] A Comparison of BREAST-Q Scores between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction
    Le, Nicole K.
    Persing, Sarah
    Dinis, Jacob
    Gabrick, Kyle S.
    Wu, Robin T.
    Sinnott, Catherine J.
    Avraham, Tomer
    Young, Anke Ott
    Alperovich, Michael
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2021, 148 (05) : 708E - 714E
  • [5] Evaluation of capsular contracture following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction
    Nikhil Sobti
    Rachel E. Weitzman
    Kassandra P. Nealon
    Rachel B. Jimenez
    Lisa Gfrerer
    David Mattos
    Richard J. Ehrlichman
    Michele Gadd
    Michelle Specht
    William G. Austen
    Eric C. Liao
    [J]. Scientific Reports, 10
  • [6] Evaluation of capsular contracture following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction
    Sobti, Nikhil
    Weitzman, Rachel E.
    Nealon, Kassandra P.
    Jimenez, Rachel B.
    Gfrerer, Lisa
    Mattos, David
    Ehrlichman, Richard J.
    Gadd, Michele
    Specht, Michelle
    Austen, William G.
    Liao, Eric C.
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2020, 10 (01)
  • [7] Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct to Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction
    Mirhaidari, Shayda J.
    Azouz, Vitali
    Wagner, Douglas S.
    [J]. ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2020, 84 (03) : 263 - 270
  • [8] Comparative Analysis of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction
    Plachinski, Sarah J.
    Boehm, Lucas M.
    Adamson, Karri A.
    LoGiudice, John A.
    Doren, Erin L.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN, 2021, 9 (07) : E3709
  • [9] Direct-to-Implant Extracellular Matrix Hammock-based Breast Reconstruction; Prepectoral or Subpectoral?
    Diana L. Dyrberg
    Gudjon L. Gunnarsson
    Camilla Bille
    Jens A. Sørensen
    Jørn B. Thomsen
    [J]. Trials, 21
  • [10] 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.
    [J]. TRIALS, 2020, 21 (01)