Download PDF
Semin Plast Surg 2019; 33(04): 236-239
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1696966
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Jordan Kaplan
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Ryan D. Wagner
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Tara L. Braun
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Carrie Chu
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
,
Sebastian J. Winocour
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
17 October 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Prepectoral breast reconstruction was first done in the early 1960s; however, while initial results were promising, high complication rates led surgeons to move toward submuscular implant placement. We soon came to find that submuscular implant placement was not without its own set of drawbacks. Surgeons have since revisited the efficacy of prepectoral breast reconstruction in light of new surgical and technological advances. Following these advancements, complication profiles for prepectoral breast reconstruction have drastically improved. Despite this change, surgeons recognize that prepectoral implant placement is not for everyone and patient selection is critical to success. As increasing numbers of these procedures continue to be done, we must now look to conduct direct comparisons between submuscular and prepectoral breast implant placement so that surgeons can make evidence-based decisions on patient selection and operative planning.

Keywords

prepectoral - subcutaneous approach - breast reconstruction

Financial Disclosures/Commercial Associations

None.


Sources of Support

None.


Products/Devices/Drugs

None.


 

  • References

  • 1 Snyderman RK, Guthrie RH. Reconstruction of the female breast following radical mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1971; 47 (06) 565-567
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Uroskie TW, Colen LB, Colen LB. History of breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg 2004; 18 (02) 65-69
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM. , et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: rationale, indications, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (02) 287-294
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Radovan C. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy using the temporary expander. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982; 69 (02) 195-208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Gruber RP, Kahn RA, Lash H, Maser MR, Apfelberg DB, Laub DR. Breast reconstruction following mastectomy: a comparison of submuscular and subcutaneous techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 1981; 67 (03) 312-317
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Artz JS, Dinner MI, Foglietti MA, Sampliner J. Breast reconstruction utilizing subcutaneous tissue expansion followed by polyurethane-covered silicone implants: a 6-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991; 88 (04) 635-639 , discussion 640–641
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Glasberg SB. The economics of prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction, 6S): 49S-52S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Reitsamer R, Peintinger F. Prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with porcine acellular dermal matrix: a new technique for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68 (02) 162-167
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Salibian AA, Frey JD, Choi M, Karp NS. Subcutaneous implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix/mesh. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 4 (11) e1139
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Becker H, Lind II JG, Hopkins EG. Immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction using a vertical incision. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 3 (06) e412
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Woo A, Harless C, Jacobson SR. Revisiting an old place: single-surgeon experience on post-mastectomy subcutaneous implant-based breast reconstruction. Breast J 2017; 23 (05) 545-553
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Malya FU, Kadioglu H, Bektasoglu HK. , et al. The role of PET and MRI in evaluating the feasibility of skin-sparing mastectomy following neoadjuvant therapy. J Int Med Res 2018; 46 (02) 626-636
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Harless CA, Jacobson SR. Tailoring through technology: a retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience with implant-based breast reconstruction before and after implementation of laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography. Breast J 2016; 22 (03) 274-281
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, Menon NG. Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008; 32 (03) 418-425
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Topol BM, Dalton EF, Ponn T, Campbell CJ. Immediate single-stage breast reconstruction using implants and human acellular dermal tissue matrix with adjustment of the lower pole of the breast to reduce unwanted lift. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 61 (05) 494-499
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Salzberg CA. Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann Plast Surg 2006; 57 (01) 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Lee KT, Mun GH. Updated evidence of acellular dermal matrix use for implant-based breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23 (02) 600-610
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, Hwang BH, Chan LS, Wong AK. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68 (04) 346-356
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bernini M, Calabrese C, Cecconi L. , et al. Subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: surgical, functional, and aesthetic results after long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 3 (12) e574
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Casella D, Calabrese C, Bianchi S, Meattini I, Bernini M. Subcutaneous tissue expander placement with synthetic titanium-coated mesh in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 3 (12) e577
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Dieterich M, Paepke S, Zwiefel K. , et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP Bra): a multicenter study of 231 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (01) 8e-19e
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Berry C, Hunsicker LM. Acellular dermal matrix-assisted direct-to-implant breast reconstruction and capsular contracture: a 13-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (02) 329-337
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM. , et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy: short-term outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (12) e1631
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar