Cargando…

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:
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
_version_ 1784859922917228544
author Houvenaeghel, Gilles
Cohen, Monique
Sabiani, Laura
Van Troy, Aurore
Quilichini, Olivia
Charavil, Axelle
Buttarelli, Max
Rua, Sandrine
Tallet, Agnès
de Nonneville, Alexandre
Bannier, Marie
author_facet Houvenaeghel, Gilles
Cohen, Monique
Sabiani, Laura
Van Troy, Aurore
Quilichini, Olivia
Charavil, Axelle
Buttarelli, Max
Rua, Sandrine
Tallet, Agnès
de Nonneville, Alexandre
Bannier, Marie
author_sort Houvenaeghel, Gilles
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9793874
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97938742022-12-27 Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Pre-Pectoral or Sub-Pectoral Implant: Assessing Clinical Practice, Post-Surgical Outcomes, Patient’s Satisfaction and Cost Houvenaeghel, Gilles Cohen, Monique Sabiani, Laura Van Troy, Aurore Quilichini, Olivia Charavil, Axelle Buttarelli, Max Rua, Sandrine Tallet, Agnès de Nonneville, Alexandre Bannier, Marie J Surg Res (Houst) Article 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. 2022 2022-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9793874/ /pubmed/36578374 http://dx.doi.org/10.26502/jsr.10020250 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
spellingShingle Article
Houvenaeghel, Gilles
Cohen, Monique
Sabiani, Laura
Van Troy, Aurore
Quilichini, Olivia
Charavil, Axelle
Buttarelli, Max
Rua, Sandrine
Tallet, Agnès
de Nonneville, Alexandre
Bannier, Marie
Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Pre-Pectoral or Sub-Pectoral Implant: Assessing Clinical Practice, Post-Surgical Outcomes, Patient’s Satisfaction and Cost
title Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Pre-Pectoral or Sub-Pectoral Implant: Assessing Clinical Practice, Post-Surgical Outcomes, Patient’s Satisfaction and Cost
title_full Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Pre-Pectoral or Sub-Pectoral Implant: Assessing Clinical Practice, Post-Surgical Outcomes, Patient’s Satisfaction and Cost
title_fullStr Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Pre-Pectoral or Sub-Pectoral Implant: Assessing Clinical Practice, Post-Surgical Outcomes, Patient’s Satisfaction and Cost
title_full_unstemmed Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Pre-Pectoral or Sub-Pectoral Implant: Assessing Clinical Practice, Post-Surgical Outcomes, Patient’s Satisfaction and Cost
title_short Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Pre-Pectoral or Sub-Pectoral Implant: Assessing Clinical Practice, Post-Surgical Outcomes, Patient’s Satisfaction and Cost
title_sort mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with pre-pectoral or sub-pectoral implant: assessing clinical practice, post-surgical outcomes, patient’s satisfaction and cost
topic Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT houvenaeghelgilles mastectomyandimmediatebreastreconstructionwithprepectoralorsubpectoralimplantassessingclinicalpracticepostsurgicaloutcomespatientssatisfactionandcost
AT cohenmonique mastectomyandimmediatebreastreconstructionwithprepectoralorsubpectoralimplantassessingclinicalpracticepostsurgicaloutcomespatientssatisfactionandcost
AT sabianilaura mastectomyandimmediatebreastreconstructionwithprepectoralorsubpectoralimplantassessingclinicalpracticepostsurgicaloutcomespatientssatisfactionandcost
AT vantroyaurore mastectomyandimmediatebreastreconstructionwithprepectoralorsubpectoralimplantassessingclinicalpracticepostsurgicaloutcomespatientssatisfactionandcost
AT quilichiniolivia mastectomyandimmediatebreastreconstructionwithprepectoralorsubpectoralimplantassessingclinicalpracticepostsurgicaloutcomespatientssatisfactionandcost
AT charavilaxelle mastectomyandimmediatebreastreconstructionwithprepectoralorsubpectoralimplantassessingclinicalpracticepostsurgicaloutcomespatientssatisfactionandcost
AT buttarellimax mastectomyandimmediatebreastreconstructionwithprepectoralorsubpectoralimplantassessingclinicalpracticepostsurgicaloutcomespatientssatisfactionandcost
AT ruasandrine mastectomyandimmediatebreastreconstructionwithprepectoralorsubpectoralimplantassessingclinicalpracticepostsurgicaloutcomespatientssatisfactionandcost
AT talletagnes mastectomyandimmediatebreastreconstructionwithprepectoralorsubpectoralimplantassessingclinicalpracticepostsurgicaloutcomespatientssatisfactionandcost
AT denonnevillealexandre mastectomyandimmediatebreastreconstructionwithprepectoralorsubpectoralimplantassessingclinicalpracticepostsurgicaloutcomespatientssatisfactionandcost
AT banniermarie mastectomyandimmediatebreastreconstructionwithprepectoralorsubpectoralimplantassessingclinicalpracticepostsurgicaloutcomespatientssatisfactionandcost