Dataset Information

Direct-to-Implant Extracellular Matrix Hammock-based Breast Reconstruction; Prepectoral or Subpectoral?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Skin-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate implant-based breast reconstruction is a commonly used treatment for breast cancer. However, when placing the implant in a subpectoral pocket, a high incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) has been reported. Besides the nuisance that BAD can cause, lifting of the pectoralis major muscle (PMM) can result in a more extended postoperative recovery period. When placing the implant solely prepectorally leaving the PMM undisturbed, the incidence and severity of BAD might be mitigated. However, new challenges may occur because of thinner skin cover. METHODS/DESIGN:A prospective, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial will be carried out with the primary aim of assessing and comparing the incidence and degree of BAD in women having a direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with either a prepectorally or a subpectorally placed implant. The secondary outcomes are shoulder and arm function, quality of life, aesthetic evaluation, length of stay, complications, need for surgical corrections, and development of capsular contracture. A total of 70 included patients will be followed under admittance and at clinical check-ups 3 months and 1 year after surgery. DISCUSSION:To our knowledge, this trial is the first randomised controlled trial evaluating and comparing subpectoral and prepectoral implant placement when performing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction following skin-sparing mastectomy. The results will hopefully provide us with a broader knowledge of the outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction, making better preoperative planning possible in the future by providing our patients with a more objective information. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03143335. Prospectively registered on 8 May 2017.

SUBMITTER: Dyrberg DL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7011213 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Direct-to-Implant Extracellular Matrix Hammock-based Breast Reconstruction; Prepectoral or Subpectoral?

Dyrberg Diana L DL Gunnarsson Gudjon L GL Bille Camilla C Sørensen Jens A JA Thomsen Jørn B JB

Trials 20200210 1

<h4>Background</h4>Skin-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate implant-based breast reconstruction is a commonly used treatment for breast cancer. However, when placing the implant in a subpectoral pocket, a high incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) has been reported. Besides the nuisance that BAD can cause, lifting of the pectoralis major muscle (PMM) can result in a more extended postoperative recovery period. When placing the implant solely prepectorally leaving the PMM undisturbed ...[more]

PMID: 32041661

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImplant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques.Methods and analysisBest-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN10081873.

Project description:(1) Introduction: In response to patient concerns about breast cancer recurrence, increased use of breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing, and advancements in breast reconstruction techniques, mastectomy rates have been observed to rise over the last decade. The aim of the study is to compare the outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral implants and long-term, dual-stage resorbable mesh-based breast reconstructions in mutation carriers (prophylactic surgery) and breast cancer patients. (2) Patients and methods: This retrospective, two-center study included 170 consecutive patients after 232 procedures: Prepectoral surgery was performed in 156 cases and subpectoral was performed in 76. (3) Results: Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with more frequent minor late complications (p < 0.001), but not major ones (p = 0.101), while postoperative chemotherapy was related to more frequent serious (p = 0.005) postoperative complications. Postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of minor complications (31.03%) than no-radiotherapy (12.21%; p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression found complications to be significantly associated with an expander (OR = 4.43), skin-reducing mastectomy (OR = 9.97), therapeutic mastectomy vs. risk-reducing mastectomy (OR = 4.08), and postoperative chemotherapy (OR = 12.89). Patients in whom prepectoral surgeries were performed demonstrated significantly shorter median hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and lower minor complication rates (5.77% vs. 26.32% p < 0.001), but similar major late complication rates (p = 0.915). (4) Conclusions: Implant-based breast reconstruction with the use of long-term, dual-stage resorbable, synthetic mesh is a safe and effective method of breast restoration, associated with low morbidity and good cosmesis. Nevertheless, prospective, multicenter, and long-term outcome data studies are needed to further evaluate the benefits of such treatments.

Project description:IntroductionThe emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life (QoL) has motivated surgeons to develop skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy (SSM/ NSM) for breast cancer treatment or prevention. During the same operation, a so-called immediate breast reconstruction is performed. The breast can be reconstructed by positioning of a breast implant above (prepectoral) or below (subpectoral) the pectoralis major muscle or by using the patients' own tissue (autologous reconstruction). The optimal positioning of the implant prepectoral or subpectoral is currently not clear. Subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is still standard care in many countries, but prepectoral IBBR is increasingly performed. This heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice is calling for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to guide treatment decisions.Methods and analysisInternational, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial. The primary objective of this trial is to test whether prepectoral IBBR provides better QoL with respect to long-term (24 months) physical well-being (chest) compared with subpectoral IBBR for patients undergoing SSM or NSM for prevention or treatment of breast cancer. Secondary objectives will compare prepectoral versus subpectoral IBBR in terms of safety, QoL and patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes and burden on patients. Total number of patients to be included: 372 (186 per arm).Ethics and disseminationThis study will be conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval has been obtained for the lead investigator's site by the Ethics Committee 'Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz' (2020-00256, 26 March 2020). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, independent of the results, following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials standards for RCTs and good publication practice. Metadata describing the type, size and content of the datasets will be shared along with the study protocol and case report forms on public repositories adhering to the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse) principles.Trial registration numberNCT04293146.

Project description:Prepectoral breast reconstruction is increasingly popular. This study compares complications between 2 subpectoral and 1 prepectoral breast reconstruction technique.Between 2008 and 2015, 294 two-staged expander breast reconstructions in 213 patients were performed with 1 of 3 surgical techniques: (1) Prepectoral, (2) subpectoral with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) sling ("Classic"), or (3) subpectoral/subserratus expander placement without ADM ("No ADM"). Demographics, comorbidities, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy were assessed for correlation with Clavien IIIb score outcomes. Follow-up was a minimum of 6 months.Surgical cohorts (n = 165 Prepectoral; n = 77 Classic; n = 52 No ADM) had comparable demographics except Classic had more cardiac disease (P = 0.03), No ADM had higher body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.01), and the Prepectoral group had more nipple-sparing mastectomies (P < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed higher expander complications with BMI ≥ 40 (P = 0.05), stage 4 breast cancer (P = 0.01), and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (P = 0.1), whereas implant complications were associated with prior history of radiation (P < 0.01). There was more skin necrosis (P = 0.05) and overall expander complications (P = 0.01) in the Classic cohort, whereas the No ADM group trended toward the lowest expander complications among the 3. Multivariate analysis showed no difference in overall expander complication rates between the 3 groups matching demographics, mastectomy surgery, risks, and surgical technique.Prepectoral and subpectoral Classic and No ADM breast reconstructions demonstrated comparable grade IIIb Clavien score complications. BMI > 40, stage 4 cancer, and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were associated with adverse expander outcomes and a prior history of radiation therapy adversely impacted implant outcomes. Ninety-day follow-up for expander and implant complications may be a better National Surgical Quality Improvement Program measure.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in one-stage immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (BR) may offer advantages over the two-stage expander-to-implant technique, but literature shows conflicting results. The aim of the present study was to compare these two techniques for immediate implant-based BR regarding postoperative complications, aesthetic correction procedures and aesthetic outcome.MethodsThe study was designed as an observational cohort study with 44 participants admitted for immediate implant-based BR at Department of Plastic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. 21 patients underwent BR with a one-stage direct-to-implant technique using ADM and 23 patients underwent BR with a two-stage expander-to-implant technique. Follow-up time was 2 years.ResultsThe risk of implant loss was equal between groups; one-stage group 16% and two-stage group 17% whereas the risk of implant exchange (but not loss of BR) was 13% in the one-stage group compared to 7% in the two-stage group. The risk of at least one major complication were equal between groups; 28% and 24% but the risk of at least one minor complication was significantly higher in the two-stage group (41%) compared to the one-stage group (3%). Number of aesthetic corrections were equally frequent in the two treatment groups (one-stage group 1.8, two-stage group 1.5). Patient and investigator assessed aesthetic outcome was very high in both groups as well as the degree of symmetry between breasts. No capsular contracture Baker grade 3 or 4 was observed.ConclusionsThe present study design sets limitations for drawing wide conclusions. This study did not reveal any significant differences between the two breast reconstructive techniques besides a higher risk of minor complications in the two-stage group, that did, however, not lead to a higher risk of implant loss. With equally high satisfaction with the aesthetic result and no significant difference in number of aesthetic corrections between the two groups we suggest, that the one-stage approach using ADM may be feasible and allows the patient to achieve an implant-based BR with a minimum of surgeries and outpatient visits. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04209010).

Dataset Information

Direct-to-Implant Extracellular Matrix Hammock-based Breast Reconstruction; Prepectoral or Subpectoral?

Publications

Direct-to-Implant Extracellular Matrix Hammock-based Breast Reconstruction; Prepectoral or Subpectoral?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure