Next Article in Journal
EBRA Migration Analysis of a Modular, Distally Fixed Stem in Hip Revision Arthroplasty: A Clinical and Radiological Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Breast Reconstruction after Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Treatment: A Case Report and Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
Tumor Treating Fields Combine with Temozolomide for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: A Retrospective Analysis of Chinese Patients in a Single Center
Previous Article in Special Issue
Current Advances in Breast Reconstruction
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 19
10.3390/jcm11195856
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sub-Muscular Direct-to-Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Previously Irradiated Patients Avoiding the Use of ADM: A Preliminary Study

by
Lucrezia Pacchioni
1,†,
Gianluca Sapino
1,2,†,
Irene Laura Lusetti
1,
Giovanna Zaccaria
1,
Pietro G. Di Summa
2,* and
Giorgio De Santis
1
1
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of Modena, 41125 Modena, Italy
2
Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, University Hospital of Lausanne, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(19), 5856; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195856
Submission received: 11 September 2022 / Revised: 27 September 2022 / Accepted: 28 September 2022 / Published: 3 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Advances in Breast Reconstruction)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: The aim of this paper is to present a preliminary experience of sub-muscular primary direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix (ADM), after salvage mastectomy for local recurrence following prior irradiation. Methods: A retrospective investigation was performed on a prospectively maintained database of breast reconstruction cases at our institution between January 2015 and December 2020. We considered only immediate DTI breast reconstructions without ADM following radiotherapy and salvage mastectomy for local recurrence, with at least a 12-month follow-up. Results: The study considered 18 female patients with an average of 68 years. According to the BREAST-Q questionnaire, all patients reported high levels of “satisfaction with outcome” with good “psychosocial wellness” and “physical impact” related to the reconstruction. The aesthetic evaluation showed a significant difference between the VAS score gave by the patient (mean 6.9) and the surgeon (mean 5.4). No implant exposure occurred in this series. In terms of complications, four patients (22%) suffered from wound dehiscence and were managed conservatively. Three patients (17%) required primary closure in day surgery following superficial mastectomy flap necrosis. Late capsular contracture was seen in seven patients (four Baker stage II and three Baker stage III, totally 39%); however, no patient was willing to undergo implant exchange. Conclusions: DTI breast reconstruction following prior irradiation can be considered as an option in patients who are not good candidates for autologous breast reconstruction. Our general outcomes compared favorably with literature data regarding the use of staged procedures, with acceptable complication rates and levels of patient satisfaction.

1. Introduction

Breast cancer represents the most common cancer occurring among women, and it is estimated that at least one in eight women will develop it during their lifetime [1]. As survival rates and life expectations following breast cancer have continued to improve over recent years [2], breast reconstruction has proven to be a critical step in treatment processes, providing significant gains in terms of quality of life, both psycho-physically and sexually, when compared to non-reconstructed patients [3].
Thanks to surgical and medical advancements, treatment strategies for breast cancer patients are in continuous and progressive evolution, and therefore the indications for oncoplastic procedures and adjuvant therapies (e.g., radiotherapy) are increasing compared with radical procedures [4].
Although oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (BCS) is considered safe [5], rates of local recurrence (up to 10–15%) must be acknowledged and their management can be complex [6,7]. In such cases, a salvage mastectomy is often required, and the reconstruction may be challenging due to prior radiation and a subsequent increased rate of complications [8,9]. Autologous breast reconstruction is the procedure of choice for previously irradiated patients [10]. However, it can be surgically challenging and is not always applicable, depending on patients’ comorbidities or wishes. Indeed, despite a reported higher rate of complications and slightly inferior aesthetic results, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR), increasingly associated with the use of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) [11], can be an attractive alternative for patients who are not good candidates for flap reconstruction. However, it should be considered that in a post-radiotherapy setting, the use of ADM is debated and there is no consensus about the safety of its use.
Even though the literature has described the use of the tissue expander and prosthesis technique following salvage mastectomy and previous radiotherapy [12], we could not find any report concerning the use of the direct-to-implant (DTI) technique applied in these rare cases.
The aim of this paper is to present, for the first time, a preliminary experience with sub-muscular primary direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, without the use of any ADM, after salvage mastectomy for local recurrence following prior BCS and radiation.
In this study, we analyzed early and late complications as well as aesthetic outcomes and the satisfaction of patients in the long term, in order to provide quantitative data to critically evaluate this technique.

2. Patients and Methods

A retrospective investigation was performed on a prospectively maintained database of breast reconstruction cases at our institution between January 2015 and December 2020. A total of 546 breast reconstructions were screened. For this study, we considered only direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstructions following radiotherapy and salvage mastectomy for local recurrence, with at least 12-month follow-up. Patients’ data, comorbidities, and surgical-related details were collected from clinical, operative and anesthesiologic charts. Early (i.e. first-month) and late complications were recorded. The BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire (out of 100 points, with higher scores reflecting better outcomes) was administrated to all patients at their last follow-up appointment, by a resident plastic surgeon not involved in the study [13]. The aesthetic outcome was evaluated both by the patient and the examining clinician, using the visual analogue score (VAS, 0–10).
Informed consent was obtained from all patients, including approval for photographic and video documentation.

2.1. Surgical Technique

Prophylactic antibiotic (cefazolin or clindamycin) was administered at appropriate dosage 30 min before the skin incision. Mastectomy (either skin or nipple sparing) was performed by a general surgeon, with the patient in a supine position with the arm abducted at 90°. All reconstructive procedures were performed or supervised by the senior author (L.P.). When the lateral border of the pectoralis major muscle had been identified, a sub-muscular pocket was created. Mid-sternal attachments (3th to 5th ribs level) of the pectoralis muscle were weakened using a bipolar technique, avoiding complete interruption of the fibers. Lower sternal fibers (at the 6th rib level) were instead sectioned. Leaving the anterior side of the pectoralis major muscle attached to the subcutaneous tissue at the level of the infra-mammary fold (IMF), which was carefully preserved by the general surgeon during the demolitive procedure, the muscle was detached at its abdominal origin from the rectus and obliquus externus sheet, and the pocket under the IMF was deepened by 2–3 cm. A dual plane pocket was therefore created, with the implant covered by the abdominal subcutaneous tissue in the lower portion. A portion of the serratus muscle was harvested from its anterior costal insertion and used to close the pocket laterally, in order to limit implant dislocation and ensure complete coverage of the implant. The implant size was carefully chosen using trial sizers and confirmed by surgical judgment as well as by the weight of the mastectomy specimen, avoiding exerting excessive tension on the muscle and skin flap to prevent reduction of the blood supply. From 2019 onwards, indocyanine green (ICG) was routinely used to check mastectomy flap viability during surgery (Fluoptics, Cambridge, MA, USA). Clindamycin irrigation solution was used on the prosthesis before the final positioning. No sutures to recreate the IMF were used, except in two SSM patients when a lower abdominal flap was employed enhance the lower pole projection and recreate a more natural ptosis of the breast; the new inframammary fold was fixed with PDS 2-0 interrupted sutures to the thoracic fascia. The contralateral side was approached accordingly if necessary. Suction drains were placed in the subcutaneous tissue and the sub-muscular pocket, and were kept in place until the output was less than 50 cc in 24 h.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed in terms of descriptive statistics using GraphPad Prism (version 8.0, GraphPad software, La Jolla, CA). The aesthetic scores given by the patient and the surgeon were compared using an independent parametric two-sided t-test, as values were normally distributed. Statistical significance was set at a p-value < 0.05.

3. Results

We enrolled 18 female patients in the study. The ages of patients ranged from 50 to 74 years old, with an average of 68 ± 1.8 years (AVE ± SEM). All patients presented a preoperative B (n = 7, 39%) or C (n = 11, 61%) bra cup size. In terms of comorbidities, four patients were heavy smokers, two suffered from diabetes type II, and five from hypertension. Patients underwent whole-breast external beam radiation treatment with a total radiation amount of 50 Gy (2 Gy/fraction). The interval from completion of RT to implant placement was on average 15 ± 2 years (range 2–24). Skin-sparing mastectomy was performed in five cases (28%), and nipple-sparing mastectomies in 13 (72%). Axillary dissection had already been performed at the time of BCS in seven cases (39%), while in two cases (11%) it was performed during the salvage mastectomy. The remaining nine patients (50%) underwent lymph node biopsy at the time of the last surgery. In all cases, an anatomical shape textured silicone implant was used, ranging in size from 270 cc to 350 cc (AVE ± SEM, 308 cc ± 7 cc). Breast reconstruction was combined with contralateral procedure (mastopexy, breast reduction or breast augmentation) in 10 patients (55%).
The mean hospital stay was 2 ± 0.2 days (range 2–4 days), while the time to healing (the time required to the removal of the last stich) was around 20 ± 2 days (range 14–38 days).
Adjuvant treatment after surgery included hormonotherapy in 10 patients (77%) (anastrozole, letrozole or tamoxifen) and Trastuzumab in one patient (8%).
Mean follow up was 30 months ± 2. At follow-up, all patients were free of disease. Patient data and characteristics are presented in Table 1. According to the BREAST-Q questionnaire, all patients reported high levels of “satisfaction with outcome” (which is the most important index for measuring patients’ overall sense of satisfaction) [14], with good “psychosocial wellness” and “physical impact” related to the reconstruction (see Table 2). The aesthetic evaluation showed a significant difference between the VAS scores given by the patient (mean 6.9, range 5–9) and the surgeon (mean 5.4, range 3–8) (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3).

Complications

Evaluation of early and late complications was performed in all patients. Four patients (22%) suffered from wound dehiscence and were managed conservatively. In three patients (17%), superficial mastectomy flap necrosis required debridement and primary closure in day surgery. No implant exposure occurred in this series. Among late complications, capsular contracture was seen in seven patients (four Baker stage II and three Baker stage III, total 39%); however, no patient was willing to undergo implant exchange. In three patients (23%) a secondary lipofilling procedure was performed to enhance the aesthetic outcome and the skin tissue quality.
Complications are listed in Table 3.

4. Discussion

Recurrence after breast conservation therapy can be as high as 10%, and therefore previously performed surgery and radiation must be carefully considered before planning optimal future management [8]. Particularly, breast reconstruction in previously irradiated patients pose unique challenges to the reconstructive surgeon because of the detrimental effect the radiotherapy has on local tissue [9].
Autologous breast reconstruction, including pedicled and free flaps, is considered by many authors the gold standard in such cases. However, despite the favorable results expected, such procedures are generally more time-consuming and donor-site morbidity must be acknowledged. Furthermore, elderly and comorbid patients and heavy smokers are usually considered unsuitable candidates for such a complex procedure [15,16]. Concerning radiation, a higher complication rate has been described in irradiated patients (particularly, higher incidence of wound dehiscence, fat necrosis, and flap loss): intimal hyperplasia and advential fibrosis of the recipient vessels can indeed lead to vascular obstruction and anastomosis failure [17].
Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) today remains the most common method of post-mastectomy reconstruction [18]. However, concerns about surgical complications when performing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction have limited its application as a reconstructive option [19], and traditionally the tissue expander and implant reconstruction method is considered a more reliable technique to provide good aesthetic results and few risks [20]. However, since skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy are considered safe options from an oncological point of view, the DTI breast reconstruction approach is gaining popularity, with DTI reconstructions accounting for 10% of implant-based breast reconstructions in 2016, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. In a prospective multicenter study, Srinivasa et al. compared DTI immediate breast reconstruction and tissue-expander–implant staged breast reconstruction in more than 1400 patients with 2 years’ follow-up, and observed no differences in complication rates or patient-reported outcomes [21]. Avoiding the tissue expander, the procedure allows complete reconstruction in a shorter time, reducing patient discomfort as well as costs [22]. Moreover, there is no need for a secondary procedure, decreasing potential surgical morbidity. Patient and implant selection is of paramount importance; patients with small to moderate breast size and mild ptosis (I or II degree) are the most suitable candidates for this technique, that relies on good thickness and viability of the mastectomy flap to avoid further complications [23]. Naoum et al. analyzed in depth the effects of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) on three different breast reconstruction approaches (DTI, tissue expander and implant, and autologous), including more than 1800 breast reconstructions over a 20-year follow-up. They found that the rate of complications following DTI breast reconstruction was 50% lower than when using tissue expander and implant, and was comparable to autologous reconstruction [24]. This is probably due to the fact that DTI avoids a surgical step and the accompanying risk of inserting an implant after an expander on a previously irradiated field.
The role of IBR following radiotherapy remains extremely controversial, with earlier reports showing up to 60% complication rates with the use of tissue expander and implant reconstruction following salvage mastectomy or in previously irradiated patients [25,26,27,28,29,30]. It should be acknowledged, however, that those studies are based on low numbers and a heterogenous group of patients, including in many cases patients treated in the 1980s and 1990s with radiation protocols and devices very different from those used nowadays.
While working in a pre-irradiated field is generally a common scenario in flap surgery [31], implant-based reconstruction is more frequently adopted after RT. Persichetti et al. compared IBR (tissue expander and implant) in 20 patients with previous BCS, RT, and salvage mastectomy, versus 42 patients who underwent primary mastectomy without RT. According to their findings, no significant differences were detected in overall major or minor complication rates [27]. Recently, Cordeiro et al. reported 121 breast reconstructions using a two-stage implant-based technique in previously irradiated patients, showing a high rate of successful reconstruction with good aesthetic results over a 46-month follow-up, only slightly inferior when compared with IBR in nonirradiated breasts [12].
The use of acellular dermal matrix is debated as an adjunct in IBR. Although some evidence points to the role of ADMs in providing additional coverage for the implant, reducing the risks of implant extrusion and enhancing the aesthetic results [32], many authors have challenged this hypothesis. Chung et al. compared non-ADM and ADM reconstructive techniques in over 400 patients and found that its use was associated with a higher incidence of infection (8.9% vs. 2.1%) and seroma (14.1% vs. 2.7%), leading ultimately to a higher rate of prosthesis explantation. Thus, ADM employment in breast reconstruction should be critically assessed and possibly avoided in patients with small to medium breasts and mild ptosis [33]. It should also be considered that the use of ADM in previously irradiated fields has not been studied on a large scale and no literature on the subject can be found. However, it is intuitive to consider the previously irradiated mastectomy flap to be less than ideal for promoting the integration of the acellular membrane, potentially leading ultimately to devastating complications and reconstruction failure. In fact, prior irradiation is often considered an exclusion criterion for the use of a dermal matrix [34].
In our data series, considering the moderate average breast volume and prior irradiation in all patients, no ADMs were used.
Our data compare similarly or even favorably to previous larger scale reports on IBR after irradiated fields, in terms of mastectomy flap necrosis (13% in this series vs. 18% in the series of Cordeiro et al.) [12]. Moreover, no implant exposure occurred, albeit the small cohort examined was small. Late complications such capsular contraction reached 40% in our study, again comparable to the two-step approaches [12,27].
Regarding patient satisfaction, our results are consistent with previous research [3,14,35]. Elthair et al. administered the BREAST-Q questionnaire to 45 patients with IBR, the mean “satisfaction with breast” value was 65 points while the “satisfaction with outcome” value was 75 points [36]. Higher satisfaction rates with IBR were described when one or more fat-grafting sessions were performed before the definitive reconstruction; however, several surgical procedures were required, prolonging the reconstruction time. [35].
In this study, the high levels of satisfaction experienced by our patients may be related to two important factors: firstly, all patients had previously had breast surgery and radiotherapy, and presented a suboptimal grade of pre-mastectomy symmetry and breast shape; secondly, as stated, patients were carefully selected pre-operatively and were more concerned with surgery-related issues (such as recovery time, number of scars, and impact of surgery), hoping to return to full daily activities as soon as possible and focused less on the final aesthetic appearance.
This was reflected in the aesthetic outcome values provided, with patients generally scoring aesthetic outcomes higher than did the surgeon, consistent with previous literature where patients tended to judge the final results of reconstruction as being better if they had been through a non-reconstructed phase (e.g., delayed reconstructions) [37]. This approach should indeed be considered for proposal to older patients with reasonable aesthetic demands who seek rapid recovery and low-morbidity reconstruction. In our cohort, for instance, the secondary role played by aesthetic appearance was reflected by the fact that the great majority of patients refused even minor correction procedures (such as contour fat grafting or nipple–areola complex reconstruction).
Despite the low number of cases and the lack of a comparative cohort of patients, our data seem to confirm that the DTI strategy may be safe for use in previously irradiated fields, and should not be contraindicated a priori. However, the patient needs to be aware of the high complication rate when performing implant breast reconstruction following irradiation. Careful selection and proper education of the patient is of paramount importance; although this does not impact directly on surgical complications, it does on expectations and, by extension, on perceived outcomes. IBR following radiotherapy does not interfere with adjuvant therapies, and in cases of failure does not preclude secondary recourse to autologous reconstruction [27].

5. Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this paper represents the first report focusing on direct-to-implant breast reconstruction in previously irradiated patients.
DTI can be considered as an option for those patients who are not considered good candidates for autologous breast reconstruction. Although we acknowledge the lack of a control group receiving not DTI but standard expander–implant reconstruction, our general outcomes compare favorably with data in the literature regarding the use of staged procedures, with acceptable complication rate and patient satisfaction.
The reconstructive DTI solution best serves older patients with moderate to low aesthetic demands, seeking an all-in-one reconstructive solution and refusing an autologous procedure.
A larger cohort of patients will be necessary for statistical evaluation of outcomes and drawbacks related to the use of this technique.

Author Contributions

L.P. and G.S. designed the study. G.S., I.L.L. and P.G.D.S. wrote the first draft of the manuscript, G.Z. and G.D.S. supervised. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient(s) for their anonymized information to be published in this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. DeSantis, C.; Ma, J.; Bryan, L.; Jemal, A. Breast cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2014, 64, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. De Lorenzi, F.; Rietjens, M.; Soresina, M.; Rossetto, F.; Bosco, R.; Vento, A.R.; Monti, S.; Petit, J.Y. Immediate breast reconstruction in the elderly: Can it be considered an integral step of breast cancer treatment? The experience of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2010, 63, 511–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Eltahir, Y.; Werners, L.L.; Dreise, M.M.; van Emmichoven, I.A.; Jansen, L.; Werker, P.M.; de Bock, G.H. Quality-of-life outcomes between mastectomy alone and breast reconstruction: Comparison of patient-reported BREAST-Q and other health-related quality-of-life measures. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2013, 132, 201e–209e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Franceschini, G.; Martin Sanchez, A.; Di Leone, A.; Magno, S.; Moschella, F.; Accetta, C.; Masetti, R. New trends in breast cancer surgery: A therapeutic approach increasingly efficacy and respectful of the patient. G. Chir. 2015, 36, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Weber, W.P.; Soysal, S.D.; Zeindler, J.; Kappos, E.A.; Babst, D.; Schwab, F.; Kurzeder, C.; Haug, M. Current standards in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Breast 2017, 34 (Suppl. S1), S78–S81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Eaton, B.R.; Losken, A.; Okwan-Duodu, D.; Schuster, D.M.; Switchenko, J.M.; Mister, D.; Godette, K.; Torres, M.A. Local recurrence patterns in breast cancer patients treated with oncoplastic reduction mammaplasty and radiotherapy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 21, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Burger, A.E.; Pain, S.J.; Peley, G. Treatment of recurrent breast cancer following breast conserving surgery. Breast J. 2013, 19, 310–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wong, S.M.; Golshan, M. Management of In-Breast Tumor Recurrence. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 25, 2846–2851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yee, C.; Wang, K.; Asthana, R.; Drost, L.; Lam, H.; Lee, J.; Vesprini, D.; Leung, E.; DeAngelis, C.; Chow, E. Radiation-induced Skin Toxicity in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials. Clin. Breast Cancer 2018, 18, e825–e840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gerber, B.; Marx, M.; Untch, M.; Faridi, A. Breast Reconstruction Following Cancer Treatment. Dtsch. Ärzteblatt Int. 2015, 112, 593–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gunnarsson, G.L.; Heidemann, L.N.; Bille, C.; Sorensen, J.A.; Thomsen, J.B. Nipple sparing mastectomy and the evolving direct to implant breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2018, 7, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cordeiro, P.G.; Snell, L.; Heerdt, A.; McCarthy, C. Immediate tissue expander/implast breast reconstruction after salvage mastectomy for cancer recurrence following lumpectomy/irradiation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2012, 129, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pusic, A.L.; Reavey, P.L.; Klassen, A.F.; Scott, A.; McCarthy, C.; Cano, S.J. Measuring patient outcomes in breast augmentation: Introducing the BREAST-Q Augmentation module. Clin. Plast. Surg. 2009, 36, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, C.; Zhuang, Y.; Momeni, A.; Luan, J.; Chung, M.T.; Wright, E.; Lee, G.K. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after microsurgical abdominal flap versus staged expander/implant breast reconstruction: A critical study of unilateral immediate breast reconstruction using patient-reported outcomes instrument BREAST-Q. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2014, 146, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Panayi, A.C.; Agha, R.A.; Sieber, B.A.; Orgill, D.P. Impact of Obesity on Outcomes in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2018, 34, 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Song, D.; Slater, K.; Papsdorf, M.; Van Laeken, N.; Zhong, T.; Hazen, A.; Vidal, D.; Macadam, S.A. Autologous Breast Reconstruction in Women Older Than 65 Years Versus Women Younger Than 65 Years: A Multi-Center Analysis. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2016, 76, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shechter, S.; Arad, E.; Inbal, A.; Friedman, O.; Gur, E.; Barnea, Y. DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction Complication Rate in Previously Irradiated Internal Mammary Nodes. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2018, 34, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kamali, P.; Koolen, P.G.; Ibrahim, A.M.; Paul, M.A.; Dikmans, R.E.; Schermerhorn, M.L.; Lee, B.T.; Lin, S.J. Analyzing Regional Differences over a 15-Year Trend of One-Stage versus Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction in 941,191 Postmastectomy Patients. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2016, 138, 1e–14e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wink, J.D.; Fischer, J.P.; Nelson, J.A.; Serletti, J.M.; Wu, L.C. Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: An analysis of 1612 cases from the ACS-NSQIP surgical outcomes database. J. Plast. Surg. Hand Surg. 2014, 48, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cordeiro, P.G.; McCarthy, C.M. A single surgeon’s 12-year experience with tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: Part II. An analysis of long-term complications, aesthetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2006, 118, 832–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Srinivasa, D.R.; Garvey, P.B.; Qi, J.; Hamill, J.B.; Kim, H.M.; Pusic, A.L.; Kronowitz, S.J.; Wilkins, E.G.; Butler, C.E.; Clemens, M.W. Direct-to-Implant versus Two-Stage Tissue Expander/Implant Reconstruction: 2-Year Risks and Patient-Reported Outcomes from a Prospective, Multicenter Study. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017, 140, 869–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Wei, C.H.; Scott, A.M.; Price, A.N.; Miller, H.C.; Klassen, A.F.; Jhanwar, S.M.; Mehrara, B.J.; Disa, J.J.; McCarthy, C.; Matros, E.; et al. Psychosocial and Sexual Well-Being Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Reconstruction. Breast J. 2016, 22, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Perdanasari, A.T.; Abu-Ghname, A.; Raj, S.; Winocour, S.J.; Largo, R.D. Update in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction. Semin. Plast. Surg. 2019, 33, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Naoum, G.E.; Salama, L.; Niemierko, A.; Vieira, B.L.; Belkacemi, Y.; Colwell, A.S.; Winograd, J.; Smith, B.; Ho, A.; Taghian, A.G. Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction Has Lower Complication Rates Than Tissue Expander and Implant and Comparable Rates to Autologous Reconstruction in Patients Receiving Postmastectomy Radiation. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 106, 514–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Forman, D.L.; Chiu, J.; Restifo, R.J.; Ward, B.A.; Haffty, B.; Ariyan, S. Breast reconstruction in previously irradiated patients using tissue expanders and implants: A potentially unfavorable result. Ann. Plast. Surg. 1998, 40, 360–363, discussion 363–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Evans, G.R.; Schusterman, M.A.; Kroll, S.S.; Miller, M.J.; Reece, G.P.; Robb, G.L.; Ainslie, N. Reconstruction and the radiated breast: Is there a role for implants? Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1995, 96, 1111–1115, discussion 1116–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Persichetti, P.; Cagli, B.; Simone, P.; Cogliandro, A.; Fortunato, L.; Altomare, V.; Trodella, L. Implant breast reconstruction after salvage mastectomy in previously irradiated patients. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2009, 62, 350–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Contant, C.M.; van Geel, A.N.; van der Holt, B.; Griep, C.; Wai, R.T.J.; Wiggers, T. Morbidity of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy by a subpectorally placed silicone prosthesis: The adverse effect of radiotherapy. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2000, 26, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kraemer, O.; Andersen, M.; Siim, E. Breast reconstruction and tissue expansion in irradiated versus not irradiated women after mastectomy. Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Hand Surg. 1996, 30, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Krueger, E.A.; Wilkins, E.G.; Strawderman, M.; Cederna, P.; Goldfarb, S.; Vicini, F.A.; Pierce, L.J. Complications and patient satisfaction following expander/implant breast reconstruction with and without radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2001, 49, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. di Summa, P.G.; Tay, S.K.; Stevens, R.; Doughty, J.C.; Bramhall, R.J. Neo-adjuvant radiotherapy (NART) in breast reconstruction—The future for autologous reconstruction in locally advanced disease? J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2018, 71, 935–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Spear, S.L.; Parikh, P.M.; Reisin, E.; Menon, N.G. Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2008, 32, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chun, Y.S.; Verma, K.; Rosen, H.; Lipsitz, S.; Morris, D.; Kenney, P.; Eriksson, E. Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2010, 125, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lohmander, F.; Lagergren, J.; Johansson, H.; Roy, P.G.; Brandberg, Y.; Frisell, J. Effect of Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix among Women with Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw. Open 2021, 4, e2127806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Salgarello, M.; Visconti, G.; Barone-Adesi, L. Fat grafting and breast reconstruction with implant: Another option for irradiated breast cancer patients. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2012, 129, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Eltahir, Y.; Werners, L.L.; Dreise, M.M.; van Emmichoven, I.A.Z.; Werker, P.M.; de Bock, G.H. Which breast is the best? Successful autologous or alloplastic breast reconstruction: Patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2015, 135, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Davis, G.B.; Lang, J.E.; Peric, M.; Yang, H.; Artenstein, D.; Chan, L.S.; Schooler, W.G.; Carey, J.N. Breast reconstruction satisfaction rates at a large county hospital. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2014, 72 (Suppl. S1), S61–S65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 11 05856 g001
Figure 1. Pre-operative and post-operative pictures of a 67-year-old patient. Breast reconstruction was performed using a 335 cc anatomical implant combined with an abdominal advancement flap. The patient was satisfied with her final result, giving 8 points out of 10 according to the VAS score. Despite the occurrence of a capsular contracture, grade 2 according to Baker, the patient refused additional surgery.
Figure 1. Pre-operative and post-operative pictures of a 67-year-old patient. Breast reconstruction was performed using a 335 cc anatomical implant combined with an abdominal advancement flap. The patient was satisfied with her final result, giving 8 points out of 10 according to the VAS score. Despite the occurrence of a capsular contracture, grade 2 according to Baker, the patient refused additional surgery.
Jcm 11 05856 g001
Jcm 11 05856 g002
Figure 2. Post-operative result of a 68-year-old patient at 18-month follow-up. The right breast was reconstructed using a 320 cc anatomical implant. A contralateral reduction mammaplasty was performed in the same operative time. The aesthetic outcome reached scores of 7/10 and 6/10, according to patient and surgeon, respectively. The patient refused a fat grafting procedure to correct the medial rippling.
Figure 2. Post-operative result of a 68-year-old patient at 18-month follow-up. The right breast was reconstructed using a 320 cc anatomical implant. A contralateral reduction mammaplasty was performed in the same operative time. The aesthetic outcome reached scores of 7/10 and 6/10, according to patient and surgeon, respectively. The patient refused a fat grafting procedure to correct the medial rippling.
Jcm 11 05856 g002
Jcm 11 05856 g003
Figure 3. Post-operative pictures of a 62-year-old patient at 15-month follow-up. A 285 cc anatomical breast implant was used to reconstruct the right breast. In the early post-operative period, the patient presented a superficial necrosis of the upper and lower mastectomy flap, which was treated conservatively. The patient was highly satisfied with the aesthetic result (VAS 9 out of 10).
Figure 3. Post-operative pictures of a 62-year-old patient at 15-month follow-up. A 285 cc anatomical breast implant was used to reconstruct the right breast. In the early post-operative period, the patient presented a superficial necrosis of the upper and lower mastectomy flap, which was treated conservatively. The patient was highly satisfied with the aesthetic result (VAS 9 out of 10).
Jcm 11 05856 g003
Table 1. Patient demographics. BCS: breast conserving surgery, GERD: gastroesophageal reflux disease, NSM: nipple-sparing mastectomy, QUART: quadrantectomy + radiotherapy, SSM: skin-sparing mastectomy.
Table 1. Patient demographics. BCS: breast conserving surgery, GERD: gastroesophageal reflux disease, NSM: nipple-sparing mastectomy, QUART: quadrantectomy + radiotherapy, SSM: skin-sparing mastectomy.
Variable
Total Patients (n = 18)		No. of Patients (%)
Mean age, years (range)68 ± 1.8 (50–74)
Comorbidities
Hypertension5 (28%)
Smoking4 (22%)
Diabetes2 (11%)
Hypothyroidism1 (5%)
Depression3 (17%)
GERD3 (17%)
Autoimmune disease3 (17%)
Others 4 (22%)
Interval from previous radiotherapy, years (range)15 ± 2 (2–24)
Type of mastectomy
SSM5 (28%)
NSM13 (72%)
Axillary dissection
With BCS7 (39%)
With salvage mastectomy 2 (11%)
Type of implant
Anatomical shape textured silicone size (range)308 cc ± 7 cc (270–350)
Contralateral procedure
Mastopexy3 (17%)
Breast reduction6 (33%)
QUART1 (5%)
Mean hospital stay, days (range)2 ± 0.2 (2–4)
Time to heal, days (range)20 ± 2 (14–38)
Adjuvant treatment
Hormonotherapy9 (69%)
Trastuzumab1 (8%)
Follow up, months30 ± 2
Table 2. Post-operative outcomes.
Table 2. Post-operative outcomes.
Variable
Total Patients (n = 18)
BREAST-Q
Satisfaction (breast)62.4 (50–74)
Psychosocial wellness65.8 (47–83)
Sexual well-being43 (14–62)
Physical impact (chest)69.3 (55–85)
Overall satisfaction with outcome87.1 (76–100)
VAS
Patients, result (range)6.9 (5–9)
Surgeon, result (range)5.4 (3–8)
Table 3. Complications after direct-to-implant reconstruction.
Table 3. Complications after direct-to-implant reconstruction.
Variable
Total Patients (n = 18)		No. of Patients
Early complications:
Wound dehiscence4 (22%)
Superficial mastectomy flap necrosis3 (17%)
Late complications:
Capsular contracture
Baker 24 (22%)
Baker 33 (17%)
Rippling 2 (11%)
Secondary procedure
Autologous fat grafting3 (17%)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pacchioni, L.; Sapino, G.; Lusetti, I.L.; Zaccaria, G.; Di Summa, P.G.; De Santis, G. Sub-Muscular Direct-to-Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Previously Irradiated Patients Avoiding the Use of ADM: A Preliminary Study. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5856. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195856

AMA Style

Pacchioni L, Sapino G, Lusetti IL, Zaccaria G, Di Summa PG, De Santis G. Sub-Muscular Direct-to-Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Previously Irradiated Patients Avoiding the Use of ADM: A Preliminary Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(19):5856. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195856

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pacchioni, Lucrezia, Gianluca Sapino, Irene Laura Lusetti, Giovanna Zaccaria, Pietro G. Di Summa, and Giorgio De Santis. 2022. "Sub-Muscular Direct-to-Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Previously Irradiated Patients Avoiding the Use of ADM: A Preliminary Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 19: 5856. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195856

APA Style

Pacchioni, L., Sapino, G., Lusetti, I. L., Zaccaria, G., Di Summa, P. G., & De Santis, G. (2022). Sub-Muscular Direct-to-Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Previously Irradiated Patients Avoiding the Use of ADM: A Preliminary Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(19), 5856. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195856

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop