Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

  • Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (DM Euhus, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently experienced resurgence and continues to grow in popularity. This review seeks to discuss the history, indications, technical considerations, and outcomes associated with this technique.

Recent Findings

Recent literature on prepectoral breast reconstruction has demonstrated that no significant differences in complication rates exist between prepectoral and subpectoral methods. Furthermore, our experience at our institution demonstrated that patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction have consistently high levels of satisfaction with overall outcome, satisfaction with breasts, emotional well-being, and physical functioning.

Summary

Prepectoral breast reconstruction is an acceptable and safe alternative to subpectoral approaches and can offer equal if not superior esthetic results. As with any procedure, proper patient selection is critical and should be an important consideration when determining which method of breast reconstruction is likely to yield the most favorable outcomes.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nahabedian MY, Glasberg SB, Maxwell GP. Introduction to “prepectoral breast reconstruction”. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:4S–5S. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004066.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cattelani L, Polotto S, Arcuri MF, Pedrazzi G, Linguadoca C, Bonati E. One-step prepectoral breast reconstruction with dermal matrix covered implant compared to submuscular implantation: functional and cost evaluation. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2017.11.015.

  3. Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, Storm-Dickerson TL, Pope N, Rice J, et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(2):287–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000002950.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nahabedian MY. AlloDerm performance in the setting of prosthetic breast surgery, infection, and irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(6):1743–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181bf8087.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Basu CB, Leong M, Hicks MJ. Acellular cadaveric dermis decreases the inflammatory response in capsule formation in reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(6):1842–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181f44674.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sbitany H. Important considerations for performing prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:7S–13S. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004045.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Salibian AH, Harness JK, Mowlds DS. Staged suprapectoral expander/implant reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(1):30–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000002845.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(6):1540–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000001277.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhu L, Mohan AT, Abdelsattar JM, Wang Z, Vijayasekaran A, Hwang SM, et al. Comparison of subcutaneous versus submuscular expander placement in the first stage of immediate breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(4):e77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2016.01.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nahabedian MY, Cocilovo C. Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:22S–30S. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004047.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(3):432–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000003627.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Deepa Bhat, Halley Darrach & Justin M. Sacks

Authors
  1. Deepa Bhat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Halley Darrach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Justin M. Sacks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin M. Sacks.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Deepa Bhat and Halley Darrach declare that they have no competing interests. Justin M. Sacks is a consultant/speaker of Allergan and a co-founder of LifeSprout.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

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

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhat, D., Darrach, H. & Sacks, J.M. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 10, 48–54 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-018-0276-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-018-0276-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation