Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Jeong-Hoon, Hong, Seung Eun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7602109/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33066236
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56100537
_version_ 1783603594129309696
author Kim, Jeong-Hoon
Hong, Seung Eun
author_facet Kim, Jeong-Hoon
Hong, Seung Eun
author_sort Kim, Jeong-Hoon
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7602109
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76021092020-11-01 A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction Kim, Jeong-Hoon Hong, Seung Eun Medicina (Kaunas) Article 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. MDPI 2020-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7602109/ /pubmed/33066236 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56100537 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Kim, Jeong-Hoon
Hong, Seung Eun
A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction
title A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction
title_full A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction
title_fullStr A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction
title_short A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction
title_sort comparative analysis between subpectoral versus prepectoral single stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7602109/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33066236
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56100537
work_keys_str_mv AT kimjeonghoon acomparativeanalysisbetweensubpectoralversusprepectoralsinglestagedirecttoimplantbreastreconstruction
AT hongseungeun acomparativeanalysisbetweensubpectoralversusprepectoralsinglestagedirecttoimplantbreastreconstruction
AT kimjeonghoon comparativeanalysisbetweensubpectoralversusprepectoralsinglestagedirecttoimplantbreastreconstruction
AT hongseungeun comparativeanalysisbetweensubpectoralversusprepectoralsinglestagedirecttoimplantbreastreconstruction