Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756337

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)
Publication Information
Archives of Plastic Surgery / v.49, no.5, 2022 , pp. 587-595 More about this Journal
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
breast reconstruction; breast deformity; breast implant; treatment outcome; incidence;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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   DOI
2 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   DOI
3 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   DOI
4 de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59(10):1033-1039   DOI
5 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   DOI
6 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   DOI
7 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   DOI
8 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   DOI
9 Dyrberg DL, Bille C, Gunnarsson GL, et al. Breast animation deformity. Arch Plast Surg 2019;46(01):7-15   DOI
10 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   DOI
11 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
12 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher DCONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332   DOI
13 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   DOI
14 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   DOI
15 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   DOI
16 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   DOI
17 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   DOI
18 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   DOI
19 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   DOI
20 Wallace MS, Wallace AM, Lee J, Dobke MK. Pain after breast surgery: a survey of 282 women. Pain 1996;66(2,3):195-205   DOI
21 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   DOI
22 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   DOI
23 Regnault P. Breast ptosis. Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 1976;3(02):193-203   DOI
24 Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML. Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118(7, suppl):188S-196S, discussion 197S-198S   DOI
25 Vadivelu N, Schreck M, Lopez J, Kodumudi G, Narayan D. Pain after mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Am Surg 2008;74(04): 285-296   DOI
26 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   DOI
27 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   DOI
28 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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI