Cargando…

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes Study

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, tissue expanders (TEs) for breast reconstruction have been placed beneath the pectoralis major muscle with or without acellular dermal matrix. More recently, full acellular dermal matrix coverage has been described for prepectoral TE placement. Our study aims to explore di...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walia, Gurjot S., Aston, Jeffrey, Bello, Ricardo, Mackert, Gina A., Pedreira, Rachel A., Cho, Brian H., Carl, Hannah M., Rada, Erin M., Rosson, Gedge D., Sacks, Justin M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977939/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29876176
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001731
_version_ 1783327436606275584
author Walia, Gurjot S.
Aston, Jeffrey
Bello, Ricardo
Mackert, Gina A.
Pedreira, Rachel A.
Cho, Brian H.
Carl, Hannah M.
Rada, Erin M.
Rosson, Gedge D.
Sacks, Justin M.
author_facet Walia, Gurjot S.
Aston, Jeffrey
Bello, Ricardo
Mackert, Gina A.
Pedreira, Rachel A.
Cho, Brian H.
Carl, Hannah M.
Rada, Erin M.
Rosson, Gedge D.
Sacks, Justin M.
author_sort Walia, Gurjot S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Traditionally, tissue expanders (TEs) for breast reconstruction have been placed beneath the pectoralis major muscle with or without acellular dermal matrix. More recently, full acellular dermal matrix coverage has been described for prepectoral TE placement. Our study aims to explore differences in clinical and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes for prepectoral versus subpectoral TE breast reconstruction. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction with prepectoral or subpectoral TE placement between 2011 and 2015 and completed QOL surveys. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain and QOL scores. Secondary outcomes were clinical outcomes. We used Wilcoxon rank-sum test, chi-square test, and linear regression to compare outcomes. Postoperative follow-up for each patient was at least 60 days, except that of pain scores, which were at least 30 days. Mean age was 49 ± 10 years. RESULTS: Twenty-six prepectoral TE patients and 109 subpectoral TE patients met inclusion criteria. Pain scores were significantly lower at 12 hours, 1 day, 7 days, and 30 days postoperatively for the prepectoral group, compared with the subpectoral group, even after adjusting for confounding variables [PO12H: Sub-Pectoral (SP) median (interquartile range), 7 (5–8), Pre-Pectoral (PP), 5 (2.5–7.5), P value = 0.004; PO1D: SP, 5 (4–6), PP 3 (2–4), P value = < 0.001; PO7D: SP, 2 (0–4), PP, 0 (0–2), P value = 0.004; PO30D: SP, 0 (0–2), PP, 0 (0–0), P value = 0.039)]. Breast-Q scores were not significantly different between study groups. RAND-36 Physical Health scores were lower among prepectoral TE patients. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral TE breast reconstruction presents an opportunity to improve upon current reconstructive methods and does result in significantly lower pain scores. The associated risks have yet to be fully described and are important considerations, as these prepectoral patients had lower physical health outcome scores.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5977939
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59779392018-06-06 Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes Study Walia, Gurjot S. Aston, Jeffrey Bello, Ricardo Mackert, Gina A. Pedreira, Rachel A. Cho, Brian H. Carl, Hannah M. Rada, Erin M. Rosson, Gedge D. Sacks, Justin M. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Original Article BACKGROUND: Traditionally, tissue expanders (TEs) for breast reconstruction have been placed beneath the pectoralis major muscle with or without acellular dermal matrix. More recently, full acellular dermal matrix coverage has been described for prepectoral TE placement. Our study aims to explore differences in clinical and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes for prepectoral versus subpectoral TE breast reconstruction. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction with prepectoral or subpectoral TE placement between 2011 and 2015 and completed QOL surveys. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain and QOL scores. Secondary outcomes were clinical outcomes. We used Wilcoxon rank-sum test, chi-square test, and linear regression to compare outcomes. Postoperative follow-up for each patient was at least 60 days, except that of pain scores, which were at least 30 days. Mean age was 49 ± 10 years. RESULTS: Twenty-six prepectoral TE patients and 109 subpectoral TE patients met inclusion criteria. Pain scores were significantly lower at 12 hours, 1 day, 7 days, and 30 days postoperatively for the prepectoral group, compared with the subpectoral group, even after adjusting for confounding variables [PO12H: Sub-Pectoral (SP) median (interquartile range), 7 (5–8), Pre-Pectoral (PP), 5 (2.5–7.5), P value = 0.004; PO1D: SP, 5 (4–6), PP 3 (2–4), P value = < 0.001; PO7D: SP, 2 (0–4), PP, 0 (0–2), P value = 0.004; PO30D: SP, 0 (0–2), PP, 0 (0–0), P value = 0.039)]. Breast-Q scores were not significantly different between study groups. RAND-36 Physical Health scores were lower among prepectoral TE patients. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral TE breast reconstruction presents an opportunity to improve upon current reconstructive methods and does result in significantly lower pain scores. The associated risks have yet to be fully described and are important considerations, as these prepectoral patients had lower physical health outcome scores. Wolters Kluwer Health 2018-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5977939/ /pubmed/29876176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001731 Text en Copyright © 2018 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
Walia, Gurjot S.
Aston, Jeffrey
Bello, Ricardo
Mackert, Gina A.
Pedreira, Rachel A.
Cho, Brian H.
Carl, Hannah M.
Rada, Erin M.
Rosson, Gedge D.
Sacks, Justin M.
Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes Study
title Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes Study
title_full Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes Study
title_fullStr Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes Study
title_full_unstemmed Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes Study
title_short Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes Study
title_sort prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander placement: a clinical and quality of life outcomes study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977939/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29876176
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001731
work_keys_str_mv AT waliagurjots prepectoralversussubpectoraltissueexpanderplacementaclinicalandqualityoflifeoutcomesstudy
AT astonjeffrey prepectoralversussubpectoraltissueexpanderplacementaclinicalandqualityoflifeoutcomesstudy
AT belloricardo prepectoralversussubpectoraltissueexpanderplacementaclinicalandqualityoflifeoutcomesstudy
AT mackertginaa prepectoralversussubpectoraltissueexpanderplacementaclinicalandqualityoflifeoutcomesstudy
AT pedreirarachela prepectoralversussubpectoraltissueexpanderplacementaclinicalandqualityoflifeoutcomesstudy
AT chobrianh prepectoralversussubpectoraltissueexpanderplacementaclinicalandqualityoflifeoutcomesstudy
AT carlhannahm prepectoralversussubpectoraltissueexpanderplacementaclinicalandqualityoflifeoutcomesstudy
AT radaerinm prepectoralversussubpectoraltissueexpanderplacementaclinicalandqualityoflifeoutcomesstudy
AT rossongedged prepectoralversussubpectoraltissueexpanderplacementaclinicalandqualityoflifeoutcomesstudy
AT sacksjustinm prepectoralversussubpectoraltissueexpanderplacementaclinicalandqualityoflifeoutcomesstudy