Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Pre-Pectoral or Sub-Pectoral Implant: Assessing Clinical Practice, Post-Surgical Outcomes, Patient’s Satisfaction and Cost

Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) rates increase during last years and implant-based reconstruction was the most commonly performed procedure. We examined data collected over 25 months to assess complication rate, duration of surgery, patient’s satisfaction and cost, according to pre-pectoral or...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Houvenaeghel, Gilles, Cohen, Monique, Sabiani, Laura, Van Troy, Aurore, Quilichini, Olivia, Charavil, Axelle, Buttarelli, Max, Rua, Sandrine, Tallet, Agnès, de Nonneville, Alexandre, Bannier, Marie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2022
Materias:
Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9793874/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36578374
http://dx.doi.org/10.26502/jsr.10020250
Descripción
Sumario:Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) rates increase during last years and implant-based reconstruction was the most commonly performed procedure. We examined data collected over 25 months to assess complication rate, duration of surgery, patient’s satisfaction and cost, according to pre-pectoral or sub-pectoral implant-IBR. All patients who received an implant-IBR, from January 2020 to January 2022, were included. Results were compared between pre-pectoral and sub-pectoral implant-IBR in univariate and multivariate analysis. We performed 316 implant-IBR, 218 sub-pectoral and 98 (31%) pre-pectoral. Pre-pectoral implant-IBR was significantly associated with the year (2021: OR=12.08 and 2022: OR=76.6), the surgeons and type of mastectomy (SSM vs NSM: OR=0.377). Complications and complications Grade 2–3 rates were 12.9% and 10.1% for sub-pectoral implant-IBR respectively, without significant difference with pre-pectoral implant-IBR: 17.3% and 13.2%. Complications Grade 2–3 were significantly associated with age <50-years (OR=2.27), ASA-2 status (OR=3.63) and cup-size >C (OR=3.08), without difference between pre and sub-pectoral implant-IBR. Durations of surgery were significantly associated with cup-size C and >C (OR=1.72 and 2.80), with sentinel lymph-node biopsy and axillary dissection (OR=3.66 and 9.59) and with sub-pectoral implant-IBR (OR=2.088). Median hospitalization stay was 1 day, without difference between pre and sub-pectoral implant-IBR. Cost of surgery was significantly associated with cup-size > C (OR=2.216) and pre-pectoral implant-IBR (OR=8.02). Bad-medium satisfaction and IBR-failure were significantly associated with local recurrence (OR=8.820), post-mastectomy radiotherapy (OR=1.904) and sub-pectoral implant-IBR (OR=2.098). CONCLUSION: Complications were not different between pre and sub-pectoral implant-IBR. Pre-pectoral implant-IBR seems a reliable and faster technique with better patient satisfaction but with higher cost.

Ejemplares similares