Previous Article in Journal
Prognostic Value of Flow-Mediated Dilation and Reactive Hyperemia Index in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Feasibility of a Green Breast Surgery Protocol to Reduce Carbon Footprint of Care: BuGS Trial Interim Results
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Systematic Review

Reconstructive Strategies After Mastectomy: Comparative Outcomes, PMRT Effects, and Emerging Innovations

by
Mihai Stana
1,
Nicoleta Aurelia Sanda
2,*,
Marius Razvan Ristea
3,
Ion Bordeianu
4,
Adrian Costache
5,* and
Florin Teodor Georgescu
1
1
General Surgery Department, Bucharest Emergency Clinical Hospital, 014461 Bucharest, Romania
2
General Surgery Department, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania
3
Plastic Surgery Department, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania
4
Plastic Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ovidius University, 900470 Constanta, Romania
5
Pathology Department, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15(1), 147; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15010147
Submission received: 25 October 2025 / Revised: 1 December 2025 / Accepted: 4 December 2025 / Published: 24 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovations and Advances in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment)

Abstract

Background: Advances in breast reconstruction have transformed the recovery pathway for women undergoing mastectomy. What was once viewed mainly as a cosmetic option is now recognized as part of modern oncologic care, restoring not only body image but also confidence and quality of life. Yet, surgeons still face the same central dilemma: choosing between implant-based (IBR) and autologous reconstruction (ABR), particularly when postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is planned. Methods: We reviewed major studies published between 2014 and 2024, combining evidence from observational cohorts and recent meta-analyses that together report on more than 60,000 reconstructed breasts. Outcomes of interest included surgical complications, reconstructive failure, BREAST-Q patient-reported domains, and the impact of PMRT on both techniques. Data were interpreted in light of contemporary reconstructive innovations such as prepectoral implants, acellular dermal matrices, and robotic or sensory-nerve–enhanced autologous procedures. Results: Autologous reconstruction generally provided higher satisfaction and better psychosocial and sexual well-being, particularly in patients who received PMRT. Implant-based reconstruction offered faster recovery and shorter hospitalization but was more vulnerable to capsular contracture and reconstructive loss after irradiation. Across all eligible cohorts, reconstruction—immediate or delayed—did not increase local recurrence or compromise overall survival when adjuvant therapy was delivered without delay. Conclusions: Both IBR and ABR are oncologically safe and contribute meaningfully to recovery after mastectomy. Future progress will depend on combining precise surgical execution with new technologies—prepectoral implant positioning, robotic flap harvest, and sensory nerve coaptation—to achieve durable, natural, and patient-centered reconstruction.
Keywords: acellular dermal matrix; autologous breast reconstruction; breast cancer; BREAST-Q; complications; implant-based reconstruction; innovations; postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT); robotic surgery; sensory nerve coaptation acellular dermal matrix; autologous breast reconstruction; breast cancer; BREAST-Q; complications; implant-based reconstruction; innovations; postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT); robotic surgery; sensory nerve coaptation

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stana, M.; Sanda, N.A.; Ristea, M.R.; Bordeianu, I.; Costache, A.; Georgescu, F.T. Reconstructive Strategies After Mastectomy: Comparative Outcomes, PMRT Effects, and Emerging Innovations. J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15, 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15010147

AMA Style

Stana M, Sanda NA, Ristea MR, Bordeianu I, Costache A, Georgescu FT. Reconstructive Strategies After Mastectomy: Comparative Outcomes, PMRT Effects, and Emerging Innovations. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2026; 15(1):147. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15010147

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stana, Mihai, Nicoleta Aurelia Sanda, Marius Razvan Ristea, Ion Bordeianu, Adrian Costache, and Florin Teodor Georgescu. 2026. "Reconstructive Strategies After Mastectomy: Comparative Outcomes, PMRT Effects, and Emerging Innovations" Journal of Clinical Medicine 15, no. 1: 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15010147

APA Style

Stana, M., Sanda, N. A., Ristea, M. R., Bordeianu, I., Costache, A., & Georgescu, F. T. (2026). Reconstructive Strategies After Mastectomy: Comparative Outcomes, PMRT Effects, and Emerging Innovations. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 15(1), 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15010147

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

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop