Cargando…

Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction and Clavien IIIb Score Outcomes

Prepectoral breast reconstruction is increasingly popular. This study compares complications between 2 subpectoral and 1 prepectoral breast reconstruction technique. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2015, 294 two-staged expander breast reconstructions in 213 patients were performed with 1 of 3 surgical tec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bettinger, Lynne N., Waters, Linda M., Reese, Stephen W., Kutner, Susan E., Jacobs, Daniel I.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5548588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28831365
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001433
_version_ 1783255847041761280
author Bettinger, Lynne N.
Waters, Linda M.
Reese, Stephen W.
Kutner, Susan E.
Jacobs, Daniel I.
author_facet Bettinger, Lynne N.
Waters, Linda M.
Reese, Stephen W.
Kutner, Susan E.
Jacobs, Daniel I.
author_sort Bettinger, Lynne N.
collection PubMed
description Prepectoral breast reconstruction is increasingly popular. This study compares complications between 2 subpectoral and 1 prepectoral breast reconstruction technique. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2015, 294 two-staged expander breast reconstructions in 213 patients were performed with 1 of 3 surgical techniques: (1) Prepectoral, (2) subpectoral with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) sling (“Classic”), or (3) subpectoral/subserratus expander placement without ADM (“No ADM”). Demographics, comorbidities, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy were assessed for correlation with Clavien IIIb score outcomes. Follow-up was a minimum of 6 months. RESULTS: Surgical cohorts (n = 165 Prepectoral; n = 77 Classic; n = 52 No ADM) had comparable demographics except Classic had more cardiac disease (P = 0.03), No ADM had higher body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.01), and the Prepectoral group had more nipple-sparing mastectomies (P < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed higher expander complications with BMI ≥ 40 (P = 0.05), stage 4 breast cancer (P = 0.01), and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (P = 0.1), whereas implant complications were associated with prior history of radiation (P < 0.01). There was more skin necrosis (P = 0.05) and overall expander complications (P = 0.01) in the Classic cohort, whereas the No ADM group trended toward the lowest expander complications among the 3. Multivariate analysis showed no difference in overall expander complication rates between the 3 groups matching demographics, mastectomy surgery, risks, and surgical technique. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral and subpectoral Classic and No ADM breast reconstructions demonstrated comparable grade IIIb Clavien score complications. BMI > 40, stage 4 cancer, and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were associated with adverse expander outcomes and a prior history of radiation therapy adversely impacted implant outcomes. Ninety-day follow-up for expander and implant complications may be a better National Surgical Quality Improvement Program measure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5548588
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55485882017-08-22 Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction and Clavien IIIb Score Outcomes Bettinger, Lynne N. Waters, Linda M. Reese, Stephen W. Kutner, Susan E. Jacobs, Daniel I. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Original Article Prepectoral breast reconstruction is increasingly popular. This study compares complications between 2 subpectoral and 1 prepectoral breast reconstruction technique. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2015, 294 two-staged expander breast reconstructions in 213 patients were performed with 1 of 3 surgical techniques: (1) Prepectoral, (2) subpectoral with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) sling (“Classic”), or (3) subpectoral/subserratus expander placement without ADM (“No ADM”). Demographics, comorbidities, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy were assessed for correlation with Clavien IIIb score outcomes. Follow-up was a minimum of 6 months. RESULTS: Surgical cohorts (n = 165 Prepectoral; n = 77 Classic; n = 52 No ADM) had comparable demographics except Classic had more cardiac disease (P = 0.03), No ADM had higher body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.01), and the Prepectoral group had more nipple-sparing mastectomies (P < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed higher expander complications with BMI ≥ 40 (P = 0.05), stage 4 breast cancer (P = 0.01), and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (P = 0.1), whereas implant complications were associated with prior history of radiation (P < 0.01). There was more skin necrosis (P = 0.05) and overall expander complications (P = 0.01) in the Classic cohort, whereas the No ADM group trended toward the lowest expander complications among the 3. Multivariate analysis showed no difference in overall expander complication rates between the 3 groups matching demographics, mastectomy surgery, risks, and surgical technique. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral and subpectoral Classic and No ADM breast reconstructions demonstrated comparable grade IIIb Clavien score complications. BMI > 40, stage 4 cancer, and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were associated with adverse expander outcomes and a prior history of radiation therapy adversely impacted implant outcomes. Ninety-day follow-up for expander and implant complications may be a better National Surgical Quality Improvement Program measure. Wolters Kluwer Health 2017-07-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5548588/ /pubmed/28831365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001433 Text en Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Original Article
Bettinger, Lynne N.
Waters, Linda M.
Reese, Stephen W.
Kutner, Susan E.
Jacobs, Daniel I.
Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction and Clavien IIIb Score Outcomes
title Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction and Clavien IIIb Score Outcomes
title_full Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction and Clavien IIIb Score Outcomes
title_fullStr Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction and Clavien IIIb Score Outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction and Clavien IIIb Score Outcomes
title_short Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction and Clavien IIIb Score Outcomes
title_sort comparative study of prepectoral and subpectoral expander-based breast reconstruction and clavien iiib score outcomes
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5548588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28831365
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001433
work_keys_str_mv AT bettingerlynnen comparativestudyofprepectoralandsubpectoralexpanderbasedbreastreconstructionandclavieniiibscoreoutcomes
AT waterslindam comparativestudyofprepectoralandsubpectoralexpanderbasedbreastreconstructionandclavieniiibscoreoutcomes
AT reesestephenw comparativestudyofprepectoralandsubpectoralexpanderbasedbreastreconstructionandclavieniiibscoreoutcomes
AT kutnersusane comparativestudyofprepectoralandsubpectoralexpanderbasedbreastreconstructionandclavieniiibscoreoutcomes
AT jacobsdanieli comparativestudyofprepectoralandsubpectoralexpanderbasedbreastreconstructionandclavieniiibscoreoutcomes