Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: predictive factors of adverse surgical outcomes in Asian patients

  • Su, Chun-Lin (Division of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital) ;
  • Yang, Jia-Ruei (Division of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital) ;
  • Kuo, Wen-Ling (Department of General Surgery, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital) ;
  • Chen, Shin-Cheh (Department of General Surgery, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital) ;
  • Cheong, David Chon-Fok (Division of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital) ;
  • Huang, Jung-Ju (Division of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital)
  • Received : 2021.02.20
  • Accepted : 2021.07.29
  • Published : 2021.09.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background Direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) provides reliable outcomes; however, the use of ADM is associated with a higher risk of complications. We analyzed our experiences of post-NSM DTI without ADM and identified the predictive factors of adverse surgical outcomes. Methods Patients who underwent NSM and immediate DTI or two-stage tissue expander (TE) breast reconstruction from 2009 to 2020 were enrolled. Predictors of adverse endpoints were analyzed. Results There were 100 DTI and 29 TE reconstructions. The TE group had a higher rate of postmastectomy radiotherapy (31% vs. 11%; P=0.009), larger specimens (317.37±176.42 g vs. 272.08±126.33 g; P=0.047), larger implants (360.84±85.19 g vs. 298.83±81.13 g; P=0.004) and a higher implant/TE exposure ratio (10.3% vs. 1%; P=0.035). In DTI reconstruction, age over 50 years (odds ratio [OR], 5.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-19.74; P=0.010) and a larger mastectomy weight (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.08-2.51; P=0.021) were associated with a higher risk of acute complications. Intraoperative radiotherapy for the nipple-areolar complex increased the risk of acute complications (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 1.07-15.27; P=0.039) and the likelihood of revision surgery (OR, 5.57; 95% CI, 1.25-24.93; P=0.025). Conclusions Immediate DTI breast reconstruction following NSM is feasible in Asian patients with smaller breasts.

Keywords

References

  1. Sacchini V, Pinotti JA, Barros AC, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk reduction: oncologic or technical problem? J Am Coll Surg 2006;203:704-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.07.015
  2. Gerber B, Krause A, Dieterich M, et al. The oncological safety of skin sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction: an extended follow-up study. Ann Surg 2009;249:461-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31819a044f
  3. Munhoz AM, Aldrighi CM, Montag E, et al. Clinical outcomes following nipple-areola-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: a 12-year experience with an analysis of patient and breast-related factors for complications. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;140: 545-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2634-7
  4. Pek WS, Tan BK, Ru Ng YY, et al. Immediate breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy in an Asian population: aesthetic outcomes and mitigating nipple-areolar complex necrosis. Arch Plast Surg 2018;45:229-38. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2017.01067
  5. Colwell AS, Christensen JM. Nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140:44S-50S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003949
  6. de Vita R, Buccheri EM. Nipple sparing mastectomy and direct to implant breast reconstruction, validation of the safe procedure through the use of laser assisted indocyanine green fluorescent angiography. Gland Surg 2018;7:258-66. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2018.04.03
  7. Boneti C, Yuen J, Santiago C, et al. Oncologic safety of nipple skin-sparing or total skin-sparing mastectomies with immediate reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg 2011;212:686-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.12.039
  8. Azouz V, Lopez S, Wagner DS. Surgeon-controlled comparison of direct-to-implant and 2-stage tissue expander-implant immediate breast reconstruction outcomes. Ann Plast Surg 2018;80:212-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001220
  9. Grover R, Rueda S, Gurunluoglu R. Is single-stage prosthetic reconstruction cost effective? A cost-utility analysis for the use of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction relative to expander-implant reconstruction in postmastectomy patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;139:1204e-1205e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003300
  10. Wang HY, Ali RS, Chen SC, et al. One-stage immediate breast reconstruction with implant following skin-sparing mastectomy in Asian patients. Ann Plast Surg 2008;60:362-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e318063ef70
  11. Colwell AS, Damjanovic B, Zahedi B, et al. Retrospective review of 331 consecutive immediate single-stage implant reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix: indications, complications, trends, and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128:1170-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318230c2f6
  12. Vardanian AJ, Clayton JL, Roostaeian J, et al. Comparison of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128:403e-410e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31822b6637
  13. Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2012;68:346-56. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31823f3cd9
  14. Gamboa-Bobadilla GM. Implant breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg 2006;56:22-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000185460.31188.c1
  15. Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Koch RM, et al. An 8-year experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm). Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127:514-24. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318200a961
  16. Basta MN, Gerety PA, Serletti JM, et al. A systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis of outcomes following direct-to-implant versus conventional two-stage implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;136:1135-44. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001749
  17. Lardi AM, Ho-Asjoe M, Mohanna PN, et al. Immediate breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: factors affecting outcome. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014;67: 1098-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2014.05.020
  18. Gdalevitch P, Ho A, Genoway K, et al. Direct-to-implant single-stage immediate breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: predictors of failure. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;133:738e-747e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000171
  19. Roostaeian J, Sanchez I, Vardanian A, et al. Comparison of immediate implant placement versus the staged tissue expander technique in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129:909e-918e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824ec411
  20. Susarla SM, Ganske I, Helliwell L, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in immediate single-stage versus two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;135:1e-8e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000803
  21. Negenborn VL, Dikmans REG, Bouman MB, et al. Predictors of complications after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix from a multicentre randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg 2018;105:1305-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10865
  22. Hunsicker LM, Ashikari AY, Berry C, et al. Short-term complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2017;78:35-40. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000742
  23. Petit JY, Veronesi U, Orecchia R, et al. Nipple sparing mastectomy with nipple areola intraoperative radiotherapy: one thousand and one cases of a five years experience at the European institute of oncology of Milan (EIO). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;117:333-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0304-y
  24. Algaithy ZK, Petit JY, Lohsiriwat V, et al. Nipple sparing mastectomy: can we predict the factors predisposing to necrosis? Eur J Surg Oncol 2012;38:125-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2011.10.007
  25. Roh TS, Kim JY, Jung BK, et al. Comparison of outcomes between direct-to-implant breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy through inframammary fold incision versus noninframammary fold incision. J Breast Cancer 2018;21:213-21. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2018.21.2.213
  26. Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Berry C, et al. Acellular dermal matrix-assisted direct-to-implant breast reconstruction and capsular contracture: a 13-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;138:329-37. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002331
  27. Lohmander F, Lagergren J, Roy PG, et al. Implant based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: safety data from an open-label, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in the setting of breast cancer treatment. Ann Surg 2019;269:836-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003054
  28. Colwell AS. Current strategies with 1-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2015;4:111-5. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2227-684X.2015.02.05
  29. Spear SL, Sher SR, Al-Attar A. Focus on technique: supporting the soft-tissue envelope in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;130(5 Suppl 2):89S-94S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182625852