Archives of Plastic Surgery

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

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of Breast Animation Deformity following Pre- and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Dyrberg, Diana L. (Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense/Lillebaelt Hospital) ;
  • Bille, Camilla (Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital) ;
  • Koudahl, Vibeke (Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense/Lillebaelt Hospital) ;
  • Gerke, Oke (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital) ;
  • Sorensen, Jens A. (Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital) ;
  • Thomsen, Jorn B. (Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital)
  • Received : 2021.11.11
  • Accepted : 2022.03.29
  • Published : 2022.09.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background The incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) is reported to be substantial after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with subpectoral implant placement. It has, however, never been examined if BAD can occur following prepectoral implant placement. Our primary aim was to compare the incidence and degree of BAD after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement. Secondary aim of this study was to assess and compare the level of pain between sub- and prepectoral reconstructed women. Methods In this randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to reconstruction by either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines. The degree of BAD was assessed by the "Nipple, Surrounding skin, Entire breast (NSE)" grading scale 12 months after surgery. The level of postoperative pain was assessed on a numerical pain rating scale. Results We found a significant difference in the degree of BAD favoring patients in the prepectoral group (23.8 vs. 100%, p < 0.0001; mean NSE grading scale score: 0.4 vs. 3.6, p < 0.0001). The subpectoral reconstructed group reported higher levels of pain on the three subsequent days after surgery. No significant difference in pain levels could be found at 3 months postoperatively. Conclusion The incidence and degree of BAD was significantly lower in women reconstructed by prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Unexpectedly, we found mild degrees of BAD in the prepectoral group. When assessing BAD, distortion can be challenging to discern from rippling.

Keywords

References

  1. Becker H, Fregosi N. The impact of animation deformity on quality of life in post-mastectomy reconstruction patients. Aesthet Surg J 2017;37(05):531-536 https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw264
  2. Lesavoy MA, Trussler AP, Dickinson BP. Difficulties with subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty and its correction: the role of subglandular site change in revision aesthetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125(01):363-371 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c2a4b0
  3. Vidya R, Iqbal FM, Becker H, Zhadan O. Rippling associated with pre-pectoral implant based breast reconstruction: a new grading system. World J Plast Surg 2019;8(03):311-315
  4. Henriksen TF, Fryzek JP, Holmich LR, et al. Surgical intervention and capsular contracture after breast augmentation: a prospective study of risk factors. Ann Plast Surg 2005;54(04): 343-351 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000151459.07978.fa
  5. Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML. Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118(7, suppl):188S-196S, discussion 197S-198S https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000247298.27098.7a
  6. Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140 (03):432-443 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003627
  7. Wallace MS, Wallace AM, Lee J, Dobke MK. Pain after breast surgery: a survey of 282 women. Pain 1996;66(2,3):195-205 https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(96)03064-3
  8. Vadivelu N, Schreck M, Lopez J, Kodumudi G, Narayan D. Pain after mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Am Surg 2008;74(04): 285-296 https://doi.org/10.1177/000313480807400402
  9. Dyrberg DL, Gunnarsson GL, Bille C, Sorensen JA, Thomsen JB. A simple clinical assessment of breast animation deformity following direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2019; 46(06):535-543 https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2019.00493
  10. Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O'Connor EA. Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135(06):1540-1544 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001277
  11. Holland MC, Lentz R, Sbitany H. Surgical correction of breast animation deformity with implant pocket conversion to a prepectoral plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;145(03):632-642 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006590
  12. Reitsamer R, Peintinger F. Prepectoral implant placement and complete coveragewith porcine acellular dermalmatrix: a new technique for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015;68(02):162-167 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2014.10.012
  13. Kummel S, Kummel A, Hagemann F, et al. Jumping breast phenomenon following subcutaneous mastectomy: first description and grading of a well-known breast deformity. Breast Care (Basel) 2018;13(05):354-358 https://doi.org/10.1159/000489939
  14. Dalaei F, Dyrberg DL, Bille C, Salzberg CA, Sorensen JA, Thomsen JB. An update on breast animation deformity grading systems-a systematic review. Ann Breast Surg 2021. Doi: 10.21037/abs-21-46
  15. Dyrberg DL, Bille C, Gunnarsson GL, et al. Breast animation deformity. Arch Plast Surg 2019;46(01):7-15 https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2018.00479
  16. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher DCONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332
  17. Regnault P. Breast ptosis. Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 1976;3(02):193-203 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-1298(20)30220-0
  18. Dyrberg DL, Bille C, Gunnarsson GL, Sorensen JA, Thomsen JB. Visualized pre- and subpectoral implant placement for immediate breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2019;8(Suppl 4):S251-S254 https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2019.05.09
  19. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42(02):377-381 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
  20. Kim K, DeMets DL. Design and analysis of group sequential tests based on the type I error spending rate function. Biometrika 1987; 74(01):149-154 https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/74.1.149
  21. Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S, et al. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(01):96-106 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002
  22. Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW. Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009;33(01):44-48 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-008-9275-y
  23. Kim JYS, Qiu CS, Chiu W-K, et al. A quantitative analysis of animation deformity in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;144(02):291-301 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005800
  24. Fracol M, Qiu CS, Chiu MW-K, et al. The relationship between animation deformity and patient-reported outcomes: application of the BREAST-Q to a quantitative stratification of animation severity. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;145(01):11-17 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006314
  25. Vidya R, Tafazal H, Salem F, Iqbal FM, Sircar T.Management based on grading of animation deformity following implant-based subpectoral breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2018;45(02):185-190 https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2017.01242
  26. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59(10):1033-1039 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.015
  27. Cattelani L, Polotto S, Arcuri MF, Pedrazzi G, Linguadoca C, Bonati E. One-step prepectoral breast reconstruction with dermal matrixcovered implant compared to submuscular implantation: functional and cost evaluation. Clin Breast Cancer 2018;18(04):e703-e711 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2017.11.015
  28. Baker BG, Irri R, MacCallum V, Chattopadhyay R, Murphy J, Harvey JR. A prospective comparison of short-term outcomes of subpectoral and prepectoral strattice-based immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018;141(05):1077-1084 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004270
  29. Manrique OJ, Kapoor T, Banuelos J, et al. Single-stage direct-toimplant breast reconstruction: a comparison between subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement. Ann Plast Surg 2020; 84(04):361-365 https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002028
  30. Riggio E, Toffoli E, Tartaglione C, Marano G, Biganzoli E. Local safety of immediate reconstruction during primary treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant versus expander-based surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2019;72(02):232-242 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.10.016