Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Cutting Edge and Controversies

  • Plastic Surgery (M Hanasono & E Chang, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Surgery Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

In recent years, the field of breast reconstruction has undergone dramatic changes that have given reconstructive plastic surgeons tools to rebuild more natural breasts

Recent findings

Improved outcomes are in part attributable to improved mastectomy techniques with nipple preservation and efforts to preserve well-perfused mastectomy skin flaps. There have also been tremendous advancements in technology and supplemental fat grafting which have greatly enhanced cosmetic results.

Summary

The present review provides data from the authors’ experience and outlines important components of successful implant-based breast reconstruction and highlight the evolution of this process. Many novel, innovative techniques and advancements in implant design aim to refine patient outcomes and experience. Reconstructive plastic surgeons must be aware of the unique benefits and risks inherent in each technique, device, companion tools, and cancer treatment strategies to help guide their patients toward a successful, aesthetic reconstruction that meets their expectations and wishes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. 2018. https://www.PlasticSurgery.org. Accessed 22 Mar 2020

  2. Sisco M, Kyrillos AM, Lapin BR, Wang CE, Yao KA. Trends and variation in the use of nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer in the United States. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(1):111–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Farhangkhoee H, Matros E, Disa J. Trends and concepts in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. J Surg Oncol. 2016;113(8):891–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. ISAPS. Isaps International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures. ISAPS. 2018;49.

  5. Mayer HF, de Belaustegui EA, Loustau HD. Current status and trends of breast reconstruction in Argentina. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2018;71(4):607–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, Disa JJ, Pusic AL, McCarthy CM, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: Increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(1):15–23.

  7. Malata CM, McIntosh SA, Purushotham AD. Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy for cancer. Br J Surg. 2000;87(11):1455–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Salgarello M, Farallo E. Immediate breast reconstruction with definitive anatomical implants after skin-sparing mastectomy. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58(2):216–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Singletary SE. Skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction: The M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 1996;3(4):411–6.

  10. Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Koch RM, Chabner-Thompson E. An 8-year experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm). Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(2):514–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cassileth L, Kohanzadeh S, Amersi F. One-stage immediate breast reconstruction with implants: A new option for immediate reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69(2):134–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. ••Wink JD, Fischer JP, Nelson JA, Serletti JM, Wu LC. Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: An analysis of 1612 cases from the ACS-NSQIP surgical outcomes database. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2014;48(6):375–81. This article compared direct-to-implant with a two-stage expander/implant breast reconstruction approach reviewing 1612 cases from the ACS-NSQIP surgical outcomes database for five years. It emphasized that DTI can be an excellent option for a specific group of patients.

  13. Fischer JP, Wes AM, Tuggle CT, Serletti JM, Wu LC. Risk analysis of early implant loss after immediate breast reconstruction: A review of 14,585 patients. J Am Coll Surg [Internet]. 2013;217(6):983–90. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.389

  14. Colwell AS, Taylor EM. Recent Advances in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(2):421e–32e.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Krishnan NM, Fischer JP, Basta MN, Nahabedian MY. Is Single-Stage Prosthetic Reconstruction Cost Effective? A Cost-Utility Analysis for the Use of Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction Relative to Expander-Implant Reconstruction in Postmastectomy Patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3):537–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cordeiro PG, McCarthy CM. A single surgeon’s 12-year experience with tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: Part I. A prospective analysis of early complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(4):825–31.

  17. Cordeiro PG, Jazayeri L. Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: An evolution of the conceptual and technical approach over a two-decade period. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(1):1–11.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Saint-Cyr M, Dauwe P, Wong C, Thakar H, Nagarkar P, Rohrich RJ. Use of the serratus anterior fascia flap for expander coverage in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(4):1057–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nahabedian MY, Cocilovo C. Two-Stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Prepectoral and Partial Subpectoral Techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6S):22S–30S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: A safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Vol. 140, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2017. 432–443 p.

  21. Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, Storm-Dickerson TL, Pope N, Rice J, et al. Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Rationale, Indications, and Preliminary Results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(2):287–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Banuelos J, Abu-Ghname A, Vyas K, Sharaf B, Nguyen M-DT, Harless C, et al. Should obesity be considered a contraindication for prepectoral breast reconstruction? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;1.

  23. Nahabedian MY. Current approaches to prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(4):871–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nealon KP, Weitzman RE, Sobti N, Gadd M, Specht M, Jimenez RB, et al. Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2020. 1 p.

  25. Rancati A, Angrigiani C, Hammond D, Nava M, Gonzalez E, Rostagno R, et al. Preoperative digital mammography imaging in conservative mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2016;5(1):9–14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Chang EI, Hammond DC. Clinical results on innovation in breast implant design. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(4S):31S–8S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wan D, Rohrich RJ. Revisiting the Management of Capsular Contracture in Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(3):826–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Khavanin N, Clemens MW, Pusic AL, Fine NA, Hamill JB, Kim HM, et al. Shaped versus round implants in breast reconstruction: A multi-institutional comparison of surgical and patient-reported outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(5):1063–70.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Safran T, Al-Halabi B, Viezel-Mathieu A, Boileau J-F, Dionisopoulos T. DTI, Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;1.

  30. Spear SL, Sher SR, Al-Attar A. Focus on technique: supporting the soft-tissue envelope in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(5 Suppl 2):89–94.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pannucci CJ, Antony AK, Wilkins EG. The impact of acellular dermal matrix on tissue expander/implant loss in breast reconstruction: An analysis of the tracking outcomes and operations in plastic surgery database. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(1):1–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim JYS, Davila AA, Persing S, Connor CM, Jovanovic B, Khan SA, et al. A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Surg Complet Clin Masters PRS- Breast Reconstr. 2015;42–55.

  33. Lee KT, Mun GH. Updated Evidence of Acellular Dermal Matrix Use for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(2):600–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. •Manrique OJ, Huang TCT, Martinez-Jorge J, Ciudad P, Forte AJ, Bustos SS, et al. Prepectoral Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix: Do We See a Difference? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(2):263e-272e. This article described a retrospective analysis of breast reconstructions based on prepectoral implants with and without acellular dermal matrix, and compared their outcomes. Patient demographics, operational data, complications, esthetic outcome and cost analysis were analyzed, concluding that with adequate selection of patients, acellular dermal matrix is not always needed for good aesthetic outcomes during two-stage prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction.

  35. Lopez J, Prifogle E, Nyame TT, Milton J, May JW. The impact of conflicts of interest in plastic surgery: An analysis of acellular dermal matrix, implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(6):1328–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Buseman J, Wong L, Kemper P, Hill JL, Nimtz J, Rinker B, et al. Comparison of sterile versus nonsterile acellular dermal matrices for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70(5):497–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ibrahim AMS, Shuster M, Koolen PGL, Kim K, Taghinia AH, Sinno HH, et al. Analysis of the national surgical quality improvement program database in 19,100 patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction: complication rates with acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(5):1057–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rodriguez-Unda N, Leiva S, Cheng HT, Seal SM, Cooney CM, Rosson GD. Low incidence of complications using polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) mesh in breast reconstruction: A systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg [Internet]. 2015;68(11):1543–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.06.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. •Frey JD, Salibian AA, Karp NS, Choi M. Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Hot Topics, Controversies, and New Directions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(2):404e-416e. Implant-based procedures are the most common breast reconstruction approaches and their use continues to grow, new advances in oncological and reconstructive procedures and device design work to enhance the outcomes and experience of patients. This CME is an excellent study for all plastic surgeons who want to be aware of the specific benefits and risks inherent in any procedure, device, adjunctive method and oncological strategy to help direct their patients towards a productive and satisfying reconstruction.

  40. Imahiyerobo TA, Small KH, Sackeyfio R, Hoffman H, Talmor M. Transition from Round to Shaped Implants in Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Our Preferred Approach and Clinical Outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017;41(2):284–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Macadam SA, Ho AL, Lennox PA, Pusic AL. Patient-reported satisfaction and health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction: A comparison of shaped cohesive gel and round cohesive gel implant recipients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(3):431–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Nava MB, Adams WP, Botti G, Campanale A, Catanuto G, Clemens MW, et al. MBN 2016 Aesthetic Breast Meeting BIA-ALCL Consensus Conference Report. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(1):40–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gabriel A, Maxwell GP. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction in Challenging Patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6S):14S–21S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nelson JA, Disa JJ. Breast reconstruction and radiation therapy: An update. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(5S):60S–8S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhong T, Hu J, Bagher S, Vo A, O’Neill AC, Butler K, et al. A Comparison of Psychological Response, Body Image, Sexuality, and Quality of Life between Immediate and Delayed Autologous Tissue Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Long-Term Outcome Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(4):772–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Clemens MW, Kronowitz SJ. Current perspectives on radiation therapy in autologous and prosthetic breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2015;4(3):222–22231.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. ••Ricci JA, Epstein S, Momoh AO, Lin SJ, Singhal D, Lee BT. A meta-analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction and timing of adjuvant radiation therapy. J Surg Res [Internet]. 2017;218:108–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.072Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common type of reconstruction after postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), but the impact of the timing of PMRT to a tissue expander or permanent implant is not well understood. This 2017 systematic review demonstrated that regardless of timing, PMRT applied to implant-based breast reconstruction was associated with high risk of reconstructive failure and capsular contracture and alternative strategies should be consider.

  48. Nava MB, Benson JR, Audretsch W, Blondeel P, Catanuto G, Clemens MW, et al. International multidisciplinary expert panel consensus on breast reconstruction and radiotherapy. Br J Surg. 2019;106(10):1327–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lam TC, Hsieh F, Salinas J, Boyages J. Two-Stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy with or without Prior Postmastectomy Radiotherapy. Plast Reconstr Surg - Glob Open. 2017;5(9):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cordeiro PG, Albornoz CR, McCormick B, Hudis CA, Hu Q, Heerdt A, et al. What Is the Optimum Timing of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy in Two-Stage Prosthetic Reconstruction: Radiation to the Tissue Expander or Permanent Implant? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(6):1509–17.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Colwell AS. Discussion: Should Immediate Autologous Breast Reconstruction Be Considered in Women Who Require Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy? A Prospective Analysis of Outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(6):1289–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Qi J. Patient-Reported Outcomes after Irradiation of Tissue Expander versus Permanent Implant in Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Prospective Study. 2020;917–26.

  53. Katzel EB, Bucky LP. Fat grafting to the breast: Clinical applications and outcomes for reconstructive surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(5S):69S–76S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kanchwala SK, Glatt BS, Conant EF, Bucky LP. Autologous fat grafting to the reconstructed breast: The management of acquired contour deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):409–18.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Salgarello M, Visconti G, Farallo E. Autologous fat graft in radiated tissue prior to alloplastic reconstruction of the breast: Report of two cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2010;34(1):5–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rigotti G, Marchi A, Galiè M, Baroni G, Benati D, Krampera M, et al. Clinical treatment of radiotherapy tissue damage by lipoaspirate transplant: A healing process mediated by adipose-derived adult stem cells. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(5):1409–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Salgarello M, Visconti G, Barone-Adesi L. Fat grafting and breast reconstruction with implant: Another option for irradiated breast cancer patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(2):317–29.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Komorowska-Timek E, Turfe Z, Davis AT. Outcomes of Prosthetic Reconstruction of Irradiated and Nonirradiated Breasts with Fat Grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(1):1e–9e.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Khouri RK, Rigotti G, Cardoso E, Biggs TM. Megavolume autologous fat transfer: Part II. Practice and techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(6):1369–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Del Vecchio D, Rohrich RJ. A classification of clinical fat grafting: Different problems, different solutions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(3):511–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Gutowski KA, Baker SB, Coleman SR, Khoobehi K, Lorenz HP, Massey MF, et al. Current applications and safety of autologous fat grafts: A report of the ASPS Fat Graft Task Force. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(1):272–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Losken A, Pinell XA, Sikoro K, Yezhelyev MV, Anderson E, Carlson GW. Autologous fat grafting in secondary breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66(5):518–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. •Nava MB, Blondeel P, Botti G, Casabona F, Catanuto G, Clemens MW, et al. International Expert Panel Consensus on Fat Grafting of the Breast. Plast Reconstr Surg - Glob Open. 2019;7(10):e2426. A panel of experts at the 2017 International Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Meeting in Milan evaluated current literature, and key statements on topical issues were discussed, wich reported that Low-quality studies are conflicting with wide-ranging treatment options, precluding expert consensus on the best form and timing of breast reconstruction in the radiotherapy setting. Prospective registries and randomized trials in this area need high-quality data.

  64. Grant MC, Yang D, Wu CL, Makary MA, Wick EC. Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery and fast track surgery pathways on healthcare-associated infections: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2017;265(1):68–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Tan YZ, Lu X, Luo J, Huang ZD, Deng QF, Shen XF, et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for Breast Reconstruction: Pooled Meta-Analysis of 10 Observational Studies Involving 1,838 Patients. Front Oncol. 2019;9(July):1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  66. ••Offodile AC, Gu C, Boukovalas S, Coroneos CJ, Chatterjee A, Largo RD, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways in breast reconstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat [Internet]. 2019;173(1):65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4991-8. This meta-analysis appraises the evidence for enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways. A total of 260 articles were identified; 9 (3.46%) met inclusion criteria with a total of 1191 patients. This study concluded that the use of opioids and the length of hospital stay were significantly reduced afterwards.

  67. Temple-Oberle C, Shea-Budgell MA, Tan M, Semple JL, Schrag C, Barreto M, et al. Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in breast reconstruction: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society recommendations. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(5):1056e–71e.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Testa A, Iannace C, Di Libero L. Strengths of early physical rehabilitation programs in surgical breast cancer patients: Results of a randomized controlled study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2014;50(3):275–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Davidge KM, Brown M, Morgan P, Semple JL. Processes of care in autogenous breast reconstruction with pedicled TRAM flaps: Expediting postoperative discharge in an ambulatory setting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(3):339–44.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Tebbetts JB. Achieving a Predictable 24-Hour Return to. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;115–27.

  71. Tebbetts JB. Achieving a predictable 24-hour return to normal activities after breast augmentation: Part I. Refining practices by using motion and time study principles. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109(1):273–90.

Download references

Funding

Dr. Flaherty is a trainer and speaker for Mentor Corporation. No funding was received for the work presented in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Breast Unit, Otamendi Medical Center, Azcuenaga 870, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Federico Flaherty

  2. Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Edward I. Chang

  3. Posadas Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Macarena Vizcay

Authors
  1. Federico Flaherty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Macarena Vizcay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edward I. Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federico Flaherty.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None of the others authors of this manuscript have any relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest to report. None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.

Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical collection on Plastic Surgery.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Flaherty, F., Vizcay, M. & Chang, E.I. Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Cutting Edge and Controversies. Curr Surg Rep 8, 28 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-020-00274-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-020-00274-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation