CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Senologie - Zeitschrift für Mammadiagnostik und -therapie 2018; 15(02): 115-119
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-111747
Wissenschaftliche Arbeit
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017

Prepectoral implant placement in plastic-reconstructive breast surgery – a contribution to the discussion

Artikel in mehreren Sprachen: English | deutsch
Stefan Paepke
1   Breast Centre of the Technical University of Munich, Germany
,
Ralf Ohlinger
2   Breast Centre of the Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald, Germany
,
Evelyn Klein
1   Breast Centre of the Technical University of Munich, Germany
,
Marc Thill
3   Obstetrics and Gynaecology Clinic, Breast Centre, Agaplesion Markus Hospital, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
05. Juni 2018 (online)

Abstract

Implant-based breast reconstruction has gained a high and increasing level of importance both nationally and internationally in recent years and covers a wide spectrum of reconstruction techniques. The standard procedure in nipple-sparing subcutaneous mastectomies is currently performed by placing the implant into a subpectoral pocket beneath the pectoralis muscle. The use of implant-based reconstructive techniques with the need for internal support to reconstruct the inframammary fold, to cover the implant at the lower pole and to provide a stable but flexible implant position has become relevant and led to the introduction of heterologous materials such as acellular dermal matrices and synthetic meshes. Although the safety and aesthetics of this approach have produced good results, prepectoral techniques add a whole new dimension with the development of the next generation of acellular dermal matrices and, especially, titanised implant pockets created specifically for prepectoral implant placement [1] have brought about a renaissance in muscle-sparing reconstructive techniques. These preserve the natural anatomy, thereby avoiding the adverse effects associated with submuscular reconstruction, including preservation of full shoulder function, minimising postoperative pain and the risk of bleeding and haematoma, and animation deformities such as “jumping breast phenomenon”. A new method of implant-based breast reconstruction is therefore available and must be analysed regarding indications and benefits.

 
  • References

  • 1 Cassella D, Calabrese C, Bianchi S. et al. Subcutaneous Tissue Expander Placement with Synthetic Titanium Coated Mesh in Breast Reconstruction: Long-term Results. PRSGlobalOpen 2015; DOI: 10.1097/GOX.000000000000000549.
  • 2 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic surgery statistics report. 2015 http://www.plasticsurgery.org./news/plastic-surgery-statistics ; Accessed: Nov13; 2016
  • 3 Serdetti JM, Fosnot J, Nelson JA. et al. Breastreconstruction after breastcancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 124e-135e
  • 4 Albernoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrars BJ. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: 15-23
  • 5 Drabble EH, Osborne CLE, Wu E. Skin sparing mastectomy – how thorough can breast tissue removalbe?. Breast Canc Res Treatm 2006; (Suppl. 01) 121 abstr 2121
  • 6 Carlson GW, Bostwick JIII, Styblo T. et al. Skin sparing mastectomy: Oncologic and reconstructive considerations. Ann Surg 1997; 225: 570-575
  • 7 Gerber B, Krause A, Makovitzky J. et al. Skin sparing mastectomy (SSM) with conservation of the nipple-areola-complex (NAC) and autologous reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure. Breast Canc Res Treatm 2006; (Suppl. 01) 120 abstr 2116
  • 8 Paepke S, Schmid R, Paepke D. et al. Early results of nipple-areola-sparing subcutaneous mastectomy (NASSM) with complete resection of the retroareolar ductal system. Breast Canc Res Treatm 2005; 94 (01) 112 abstract 2081
  • 9 Paepke S, Schmid R, Fleckner S. et al. Subcutaneous mastectomy including conservation of the nipple areola complex: broadening the indications. Breast Canc Res Treatm 2006; (Suppl. 01) 122 abstr 2122
  • 10 Paepke S, Schmid R, Fleckner S. et al. Subcutaneous mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola-skin: broadening the indications. Ann Surg 2009; 250 (02) 288-292
  • 11 Rezai M, Strauß S, Kimmig R. et al. Risk-reducing, conservative mastectomy – analysis of surgical outcome and quality of life in 272 implant-based reconstructions using Tiloop®Bra versus autologous corial flaps. Gland Surg 2016; 5 (01) 1-8
  • 12 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. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2013; 132 (01) 8e-19e
  • 13 Dieterich M, Stubert J, Gerber B. et al. Biocompatibility, cell growth and clinical relevance of synthetic meshes and biological matrixes for internal support in implant-based breast reconstruction. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 291: 1371-1379
  • 14 Derderian CA, Karp NS, Choi M. Wise pattern breast reconstruction: Modification using AlloDerm and a vascularized dermal-subcutaneous pedicle. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 62: 528-532
  • 15 Gamboa-Bobadilla GM. Implant breast reconstruction using acellulardermismatrix. Ann PlastSurg 2006; 56: 22-25
  • 16 Gschwantler-Kaulich D, Schrenk P, Bjelic-Radisic V. et al. Mesh versus acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction – A prospective randomized trial. EJSO; 2016
  • 17 Salibian AH, Harness JK, Mowlds DS. Staged Suprapectoral Expander/Implant Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; DOI: 10.1097/PRS.00000000000002845.
  • 18 Sigalove S, Maxwell PG, Sigalove Noemi M. et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Rationale, Indications, and Preliminary Results. Plast ReconstrSurg 2017; Vol 139) Number 2: 287-294
  • 19 Paepke S, Klein E, Krol J. et al. Subpectoral implants in oncoplastic-reconstructive breast surgery – habit or necessity? First experience with epipectoral implant positioning covered by acellular dermis and meshs. Jahrestagung der Association of British Breast Surgeons; 2012
  • 20 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 . doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.10.012. Epub 2014 Oct 16. PMID: 25455288
  • 21 Vidya R, Masia J, Cawthorn S. et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the prepectoral breast reconstruction with Braxon dermal matrix: First multicenter European report on 100 cases. The Breast Journal 2017; DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12810.
  • 22 Becker H, Lind 2nd JG, Hopkins EG. Immediate Implant-based Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Using a Vertical Incision. PlastReconstrSurg Glob Open 2015; 3 (06) e412 . doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000384. eCollection 2015 Jun. PMID: 26180713
  • 23 Paepke S. et al. Einsatz porciner azellulärer Dermis (Strattice™) als gewebeersetzendes und unterstützendes Interponat zur Implantatabdeckung bei problematischen Weichteilverhältnissen in der plastisch-rekonstruktiven Mammachirurgie. Senologie – Zeitschrift für Mammadiagnostik und -therapie; 2012
  • 24 Paepke S, Riemann A, Dittmer S. et al. Patient-Reported-Outcome (PRO: Vergleichsuntersuchungen bei Patientinnen mit implantatbasierten materialunterstützten Mammaoperationen. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Senologie; 2016: PO73
  • 25 Paepke S, Kiechle M, Ankel C. et al. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in implant-based mesh-supported breast reconstruction – eraly results of a multicentre prospective trial. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie; 2015
  • 26 Cassella D, Calabrese C, Bianchi S. et al. Subcutaneous tissue expander placement with synthetic titanium-coated mesh in breast reconstruction: longterm results. PRS GlobalOpen. 2015; DOI: 10.1097/GOX/.00000000000000549.
  • 27 Casella D, Bernini M, Bencini L. et al. TiLoop® Bra mesh used for immediate breast reconstruction: comparison of retropectoral and subcutaneous implant placement in a prospective single-institution series. Eur J Plast Surg 2014; 37 (11) 599-604 Epub 2014 Aug 3. PMID: 25339795
  • 28 Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Safe Alternative ToSubmuscularProstheticReconstruction Following Nipple Sparing Mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003627. . PMID:28574
  • 29 Salibian AH, Harness JK, Mowlds DS. Staged Suprapectoral Expander/Implant Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (01) 30-39 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002845. PMID: 28027223
  • 30 Caputo GG, Marchetti A, DallaPozza E. et al. Skin-Reduction Breast Reconstructions with Prepectoral Implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (06) 1702-1705 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002227. PMID: 27219226
  • 31 Casella D, Calabrese C, Bianchi S. et al. Subcutaneous Tissue Expander Placement with Synthetic Titanium-Coated Mesh in Breast Reconstruction: Long-term Results. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 3 (12) e577 . doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000549. eCollection 2015 Dec. PMID: 26894002
  • 32 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 . doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000533. eCollection 2015 Dec. PMID: 26893999