Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

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
• 2 Uroskie TW, Colen LB, Colen LB. History of breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg 2004; 18 (02) 65-69
• 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
• 4 Radovan C. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy using the temporary expander. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982; 69 (02) 195-208
• 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
• 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
• 7 Glasberg SB. The economics of prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction, 6S): 49S-52S
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 14 Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, Menon NG. Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008; 32 (03) 418-425
• 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
• 16 Salzberg CA. Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann Plast Surg 2006; 57 (01) 1-5
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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