Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 66–72 | Cite as

Multicenter Study on Breast Reconstruction Outcome Using Becker Implants

  • Nicolò Scuderi
  • Carmine Alfano
  • Gian Vittorio Campus
  • Corrado Rubino
  • Stefano Chiummariello
  • Antonella Puddu
  • Marco MazzocchiEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The use of tissue expanders and implants is the simplest option for breast reconstruction following mastectomy. In the 1980s, Hilton Becker introduced a round, inflatable breast implant that could be used as a permanent implant. Since then, the original implant has been improved in both design and architecture. The new Becker device consists of an anatomical implant composed of 35% cohesive silicone gel in the outer chamber and 65% normal saline in the inner chamber. This multicenter study describes our experience with the new anatomical Becker implants in a large series of patients, in both immediate and delayed breast reconstruction. We reviewed the clinical records of 204 patients who underwent a breast reconstruction with an anatomical Becker-type implant in the sub-muscular position between November 2004 and December 2006. Data on the patients’ characteristics, indications for reconstruction, operative technique, device size used, complications, and need for further operations were collected and analyzed. A total of 248 breast reconstructions were performed in 204 patients. One hundred forty-three patients (70%) underwent an immediate reconstruction; in the remaining 61 cases (30%), the breast reconstruction was performed later. The patients’ age ranged from 26 to 66 years, with a median age of 47.5 years. The implant was placed unilaterally in 160 women (78.5%) and bilaterally in the remaining 44 (21.5%). Complications occurred in 85 cases (34.2%), in both the immediate and delayed reconstruction groups, and were related to wound healing, bleeding, seroma, and problems with the inflatable expanders. Iatrogenic implant rupture was documented in one case (0.4%). Inflation was impossible in 7 cases (2.8%) as a result of valve obstruction (3 cases, 1.2%) and valve displacement (4 cases, 1.6%). Implant malposition was the most troublesome complication; indeed, 34 patients (13.7%) complained of device malposition. Capsular contracture was assessed in all the patients. Significant capsular contracture (Baker grade III and IV) was detected in 6 cases (2.4%) at the follow-up approximately 1 year after surgery. Breast reconstruction with permanent inflatable expanders is widely acknowledged as a useful technique for breast cancer patients undergoing simple or modified radical mastectomy. The use of this device eliminates the need to replace a temporary tissue expander with a breast implant, thus avoiding a second operation. Although we believe autologous tissues afford the best method of reconstruction in the majority of patients, the results of our study show that expander implant placement may yield a reasonable reconstruction.

Keywords

Breast reconstruction Anatomical Becker’s implant Permanent inflatable expanders 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Becker H (1984) Breast reconstruction using an inflatable breast implant with detachable reservoir. Plats Reconstr Surg 73:678–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker H (2006) One stage immediate breast reconstruction with adjustable implants. In: Spear SL (ed) Surgery of the breast: principles and art, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 438–450Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Radovan C (1982) Breast reconstruction after mastectomy using the temporary expander. Plast Reconstr Surg 69:195–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camilleri IG, Malata CM, Stavrianos S, McLean NR (1996) A review of 120 Becker permanent tissue expanders in reconstruction of the breast. Br J Plast Surg 49:346–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker JL Jr, Bartels RJ, Douglas WM (1976) Closed compression technique for rupturing a contracted capsule around a breast implant. Plast Reconstr Surg. 58:137–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahdi S, Jones T, Nicklin S, McGeorge DD (1998) Expandable anatomical implants in breast reconstructions: a prospective study. Br J Plast Surg 51:425–430PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gui GP, Tan SM, Faliakou EC, Choy C, A’Hern R, Ward A (2003) Immediate breast reconstruction using biodimensional anatomical permanent expander implants: a prospective analysis of outcome and patient satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:125–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gui GP, Kadayaprath G, Tan SM, Faliakou EC, Choy C, A’Hern R, Ward A (2005) Evaluation of outcome after immediate breast reconstruction: prospective comparison of four methods. Plast Reconstr Surg 115:1916–1926CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gui GP, Kadayaprath G, Tan SM, Faliakou EC, Choy C, Ward A, A’Hern R (2008) Long-term quality-of-life assessment following one-stage immediate breast reconstruction using biodimensional expander implants: the patient’s perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:17–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Kim HM, Lowery JC (2002) Complications in postmastectomy reconstruction: two years results of the Michigan breast reconstruction outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:2265–2274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cordeiro PG, McCarthy CM (2006) A single surgeon’s 12-year experience with tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: part I. A prospective analysis of early complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:825–831CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cordeiro PG, McCarthy CM (2006) A single surgeon’s 12-year experience with tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: Part II. An analysis of long-term complications, aesthetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:832–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eriksen C, Stark B (2006) Early experience with the crescent expander in immediate and delayed breast reconstruction. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 40:82–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J, Jensen JA (2006) A long term study of outcomes, complications and patient satisfaction with breast implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:757–767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mandrekas AD, Zambacos GJ, Katsantoni PN (1995) Immediate and delayed breast reconstruction with permanent tissue expanders. Br J Plast Surg 48:572–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mansel RE, Horgan K, Webster DJ, Shrotria S, Hughes LE (1986) Cosmetic results of immediate breast reconstruction post-mastectomy: a follow-up study. Br J Surg 73:813–816CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGeorge DD, Mahdi S, Tsekouras A (1996) Breast reconstruction with anatomical expanders and implants: our early experience. Br J Plast Surg 49:352–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peyser PM, Abel JA, Straker VF, Hall VL, Rainsbury RM (2000) Ultra-conservative skin-sparing “keyhole” mastectomy and immediate breast and areola reconstruction. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82:227–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schuster RH, Rotter S, Boonn W, Efron G (1990) The use of tissue expanders in immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy for cancer. Br J Plast Surg 43:413–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spear SL, Majidian A (1998) Immediate breast reconstruction in two stages using textured, integrated-valve tissue expanders and breast implants: a retrospective review of 171 consecutive breast reconstructions from 1989 to 1996. Plast Reconstr Surg 101:53–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spear SL, Spitter CJ (2001) Breast reconstruction with implants and expanders. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:177–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spear SL, Pelletiere CV (2004) Immediate breast reconstruction in two stages using textured, integrated-valve, tissue expanders and breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:2098–2103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Di Benedetto G, Aquinati A, Santoli M, Bertani A (2004) Which is the best position for the remote injection dome using the adjustable expander/prosthesis in breast reconstruction? A comparative study. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1629–1633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Asplund O (1984) Capsular contracture in silicone gel and saline-filled breast implants after reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 73(2):270–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clough KB, O’Donoghue JM, Fitoussi AD, Nos C, Falcou MC (2001) Prospective evaluation of late cosmetic results following breast reconstruction: I. Implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1702–1709CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gylbert L, Asplund O, Jurell G (1990) Capsular contracture after breast reconstruction with silicone-gel and saline-filled implants: a 6-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 85:373–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spear SL, Baker JL Jr (1995) Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:1119–1123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whitfield GA, Horan G, Irwin MS, Malata CM, Wishart GC, Wilson CB (2009) Incidence of severe capsular contracture following implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with or without postoperative chest wall radiotherapy using 40 Gray in 15 fractions. Radiother Oncol 90:141–147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wickman M, Jurell G (1997) Low capsular contraction rate after primary and secondary breast reconstruction with a textured expander prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 99:692–697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spear SL, Mesbahi AN (2007) Implant-based reconstruction. Clin Plastic Surg 34:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spear SL, Newman MK, Bedford MS, Schwartz KA, Cohen M, Schwartz JS (2008) A retrospective analysis of outcomes using three common methods for immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 122:340–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolò Scuderi
    • 1
  • Carmine Alfano
    • 2
  • Gian Vittorio Campus
    • 3
  • Corrado Rubino
    • 3
  • Stefano Chiummariello
    • 2
  • Antonella Puddu
    • 3
  • Marco Mazzocchi
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Plastic SurgeryUniversity “La Sapienza”RomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Plastic SurgeryUniversity of PerugiaPerugiaItaly
  3. 3.Plastic Surgery UnitUniversity of SassariSassariItaly
  4. 4.RomaItaly

Personalised recommendations