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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |