Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Postoperative Complications Following Prepectoral Versus Partial Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Breast Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There is a paucity of evidence comparing the safety of prepectoral and partial subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADM). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the postoperative complications of the two approaches.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The rates of the complications were, respectively, pooled, and relative risk (RR) was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the incidence between the two cohorts.

Results

Ten articles reporting on 2667 breast reconstructions were eligible. The hematoma rate was lower in the prepectoral group (RR  =  0.590, 95% CI 0.351–0.992). No significant difference was observed in terms of seroma (RR = 1.079, 95% CI 0.489–2.381), skin flap necrosis (RR = 0.936, 95% CI 0.587–1.493), infection (RR = 0.985, 95% CI 0.706–1.375), tissue expander/implant explantation (RR  =  0.741, 95% CI 0.506–1.085), wound dehiscence (RR = 1.272, 95% CI 0.605–2.673), capsular contracture (RR = 0.939, 95% CI 0.678–1.300) and rippling (RR = 2.485, 95% CI 0.986–6.261). The RR of animation deformity for the prepectoral group compared with the subpectoral group was 0.040 (95% CI, 0.002–0.853).

Conclusions

This systematic review suggested that with appropriate patient selection, prepectoral breast reconstruction could avoid animation deformity without incurring higher risk of early wound complications, capsular contracture or rippling than partial subpectoral breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should complete a comprehensive assessment of the patients before choosing appropriate surgical approaches in clinical practice.

Level of Evidence III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3):209–249

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sinnott CJ, Persing SM, Pronovost M, Hodyl C, McConnell D, Ott Young A (2018) Impact of postmastectomy radiation therapy in prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 25(10):2899–2908

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Panchal H, Matros E (2017) Current trends in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(5):7s–13s

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, Storm-Dickerson TL, Pope N, Rice J, Gabriel A (2017) Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: rationale, indications, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(2):287–294

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Haddock NT, Kadakia Y, Liu YL, Teotia SS (2021) Prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction: a historically controlled, propensity score-matched comparison of perioperative outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 148(1):1–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chandarana MN, Jafferbhoy S, Marla S, Soumian S, Narayanan S (2018) Acellular dermal matrix in implant-based immediate breast reconstructions: a comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral approach. Gland Surg 7(Suppl 1):s64–s69

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Yang JY, Kim CW, Lee JW, Kim SK, Lee SA, Hwang E (2019) Considerations for patient selection: prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 46(6):550–557

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gurunluoglu R, Gurunluoglu A, Williams SA, Tebockhorst S (2013) Current trends in breast reconstruction survey of American society of plastic surgeons 2010. Ann Plast Surg 70(1):103–110

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Breuing KH, Warren SM (2005) Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings. Ann Plast Surg 55(3):232–239

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zienowicz RJ, Karacaoglu E (2007) Implant-based breast reconstruction with allograft. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(2):373–381

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, Menon NG (2008) Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthet Plast Surg 32(3):418–425

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Scheflan M, Allweis TM, Ben Yehuda D, Maisel Lotan A (2020) Meshed acellular dermal matrix in immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000003265,November25,2020

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R (2017) Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(3):432–443

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Forsberg CG, Kelly DA, Wood BC, Mastrangelo SL, DeFranzo AJ, Thompson JT, David LR, Marks MW (2014) Aesthetic outcomes of acellular dermal matrix in tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 72(6):S116-120

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW (2009) Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 33(1):44–48

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nigro LC, Blanchet NP (2017) Animation deformity in postmastectomy implant-based reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000001407,July24,2017

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Becker H, Fregosi N (2017) The Impact of animation deformity on quality of life in post-mastectomy reconstruction patients. Aesthet Surg J 37(5):531–536

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Darrach H, Kraenzlin F, Khavanin N, Chopra K, Sacks JM (2019) The role of fat grafting in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 8(1):61–66

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramos Boyero M (2008) Skin-sparing mastectomy: an alternative to conventional mastectomy in breast cancer. Cir Esp 84(4):181–187

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mallon P, Feron JG, Couturaud B, Fitoussi A, Lemasurier P, Guihard T, Cothier-Savay I, Reyal F (2013) The role of nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(5):969–984

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Munabi NC, Olorunnipa OB, Goltsman D, Rohde CH, Ascherman JA (2014) The ability of intra-operative perfusion mapping with laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography to predict mastectomy flap necrosis in breast reconstruction: a prospective trial. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67(4):449–455

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vidya R, Iqbal FM (2017) A guide to prepectoral breast reconstruction: a new dimension to implant-based breast reconstruction. Clin Breast Cancer 17(4):266–271

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bernini M, Calabrese C, Cecconi L, Santi C, Gjondedaj U, Roselli J, Nori J, Fausto A, Orzalesi L, Casella D (2015) Subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: surgical, functional, and aesthetic results after long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000000533,January7,2016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ribuffo D, Berna G, De Vita R, Di Benedetto G, Cigna E, Greco M, Valdatta L, Onesti MG, Lo Torto F, Marcasciano M, Redi U, Quercia V, Kaciulyte J, Cherubino M, Losco L, Mori FLR, Scalise A (2021) Dual-plane retro-pectoral versus pre-pectoral DTI breast reconstruction: an Italian multicenter experience. Aesthet Plast Surg 45(1):51–60

    Google Scholar 

  25. Li L, Su Y, Xiu B, Huang X, Chi W, Hou J, Zhang Y, Tian J, Wang J, Wu J (2019) Comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomies: a systematic review and meta analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 45(9):1542–1550

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wagner RD, Braun TL, Zhu HR, Winocour S (2019) A systematic review of complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 72(7):1051–1059

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tasoulis MK, Iqbal FM, Cawthorn S, MacNeill F, Vidya R (2017) Subcutaneous implant breast reconstruction: time to reconsider? Eur J Surg Oncol 43(9):1636–1646

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O’Connor EA (2015) Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(6):1540–1544

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chun YS, Verma K, Rosen H, Lipsitz S, Morris D, Kenney P, Eriksson E (2010) Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 125(2):429–436

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vardanian AJ, Clayton JL, Roostaeian J, Shirvanian V, Da Lio A, Lipa JE, Crisera C, Festekjian JH (2011) Comparison of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(5):403e–410e

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mathew J (2021) Short- to medium-term outcome of prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000003747,August5,2021

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim IK, Park SO, Chang H, Jin US (2018) Inhibition mechanism of acellular dermal matrix on capsule formation in expander-implant breast reconstruction after postmastectomy radiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 25(8):2279–2287

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cheng A, Lakhiani C, Saint-Cyr M (2013) Treatment of capsular contracture using complete implant coverage by acellular dermal matrix: a novel technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(3):519–529

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Spear SL, Seruya M, Clemens MW, Teitelbaum S, Nahabedian MY (2011) Acellular dermal matrix for the treatment and prevention of implant-associated breast deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(3):1047–1058

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kaplan J, Wagner RD, Braun TL, Chu C, Winocour SJ (2019) Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg 33(4):236–239

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Tomita K, Yano K, Nishibayashi A, Hosokawa K (2015) Effects of subcutaneous versus submuscular tissue expander placement on breast capsule formation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000000418,July8,2015

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Li Y, Xu G, Yu N, Huang J, Long X (2020) Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Ann Plast Surg 85(4):437–447

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wells GA, Shea BJ, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P (2000) The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-analysis. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

  39. Kim JH, Hong SE (2020) A comparative analysis between subpectoral versus prepectoral single stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Medicina (Kaunas). https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56100537,October13,2020

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Manrique OJ, Kapoor T, Banuelos J, Jacobson SR, Martinez-Jorge J, Nguyen MT, Tran NV, Harless CA, Degnim AC, Jakub JW (2020) Single-stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: a comparison between subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement. Ann Plast Surg 84(4):361–365

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Plachinski SJ, Boehm LM, Adamson KA, LoGiudice JA, Doren EL (2021) Comparative analysis of prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003709,July27,2021

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Spear SL, Baker JL (1995) Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 96(5):1119–1123

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal AK (2021) Cancer statistics,2021. CA Cancer J Clin 71(1):7–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, Sordi S, Kothari A, Kovacs T, Lo Torto F, Cigna E, Calabrese C, Ribuffo D (2019) Evaluation of prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with TiLoop bra mesh for breast reconstruction: a prospective study on long-term and patient-reported BREAST-Q outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(1):1e–9e

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Weichman KE, Wilson SC, Saadeh PB, Hazen A, Levine JP, Choi M, Karp NS (2013) Sterile “ready-to-use” AlloDerm decreases postoperative infectious complications in patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(4):725–736

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sorkin M, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Kozlow JH, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG (2017) Acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander/implant breast reconstruction: a multicenter assessment of risks and benefits. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(6):1091–1100

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Baker BG, Irri R, MacCallum V, Chattopadhyay R, Murphy J, Harvey JR (2018) A prospective comparison of short-term outcomes of subpectoral and prepectoral strattice-based immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 141(5):1077–1084

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nahabedian MY, Cocilovo C (2017) Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction: a comparison between prepectoral and partial subpectoral techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(6):22S-30S

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Calobrace MB, Stevens WG, Capizzi PJ, Cohen R, Godinez T, Beckstrand M (2018) Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 10-year Sientra study using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 141(4S):20S-28S

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Biggs TM, Yarish RS (1990) Augmentation mammaplasty: a comparative analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 85(3):368–372

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Schlenker JD, Bueno RA, Ricketson G, Lynch JB (1978) Loss of silicone implants after subcutaneous mastectomy and reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 62(6):853–861

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Puckett CL, Croll GH, Reichel CA, Concannon MJ (1987) A critical look at capsule contracture in subglandular versus subpectoral mammary augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 11(1):23–28

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Zhu L, Mohan AT, Abdelsattar JM, Wang Z, Vijayasekaran A, Hwang SM, Tran NV, Saint-Cyr M (2016) Comparison of subcutaneous versus submuscular expander placement in the first stage of immediate breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69(4):e77-86

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, Hwang BH, Chan LS, Wong AK (2012) A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 68(4):346–356

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ksander GA, Gray L (1985) Reduced capsule formation around soft silicone rubber prostheses coated with solid collagen. Ann Plast Surg 14(4):351–360

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Komorowska-Timek E, Oberg KC, Timek TA, Gridley DS, Miles DAG (2009) The effect of AlloDerm envelopes on periprosthetic capsule formation with and without radiation. Plast Reconstr Surg 123(3):807–816

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Basu CB, Leong M, Hicks MJ (2010) Acellular cadaveric dermis decreases the inflammatory response in capsule formation in reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):1842–1847

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Stump A, Holton LH 3rd, Connor J, Harper JR, Slezak S, Silverman RP (2009) The use of acellular dermal matrix to prevent capsule formation around implants in a primate model. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(1):82–91

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Liu J, Hou J, Li Z, Wang B, Sun J (2020) Efficacy of acellular dermal matrix in capsular contracture of implant-based breast reconstruction: a single-arm meta-analysis. Aesthet Plast Surg 44(3):735–742

    Google Scholar 

  60. Highton L, Johnson R, Kirwan C, Murphy J (2017) Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000001488,September19,2017

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Nealon KP, Weitzman RE, Sobti N, Gadd M, Specht M, Jimenez RB, Ehrlichman R, Faulkner HR, Austen WG, Liao EC (2020) Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: safety outcome endpoints and delineation of risk factors. Plast Reconstr Surg 145(5):E898–E908

    Google Scholar 

  62. Marques M, Brown SA, Oliveira I, Mnds C, Morales-Helguera A, Rodrigues A, Amarante J (2010) Long-term follow-up of breast capsule contracture rates in cosmetic and reconstructive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(3):769–778

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) (No. 2020-I2M-C&T-B-082) to Dr. Chunjun Liu.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 33 Badachu Road, Shijingshan, Beijing, 100144, China

    Liwen Zhu & Chunjun Liu

Authors
  1. Liwen Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chunjun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chunjun Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial interests relating to the work described and declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

Informed Consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhu, L., Liu, C. Postoperative Complications Following Prepectoral Versus Partial Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Aesth Plast Surg 47, 1260–1273 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03296-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03296-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation