Abstract
Background
Single-stage direct-to-implant reconstruction is the most common method of reconstruction in the UK after a mastectomy. Prepectoral implant placement with full implant coverage using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a relatively new technique. We report on long-term outcomes of prepectoral immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) using Braxon® ADM from a single institution.
Methods
All patients operated for a mastectomy with IBR using Braxon® from January 2016 to March 2018 were included in the study. The demographic details, treatment details and short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Factors affecting complication rates were analysed. Patient-reported outcome measures were studied using BREAST-Q questionnaires.
Results
One hundred and sixteen reconstructions performed in 98 patients were included in the study. The median age was 50 years with a mean body mass index of 27.33 kg/m2. The median follow-up period was 440 days. The implant-related major complication rate was 17%, with an unplanned readmission rate of 22.4% and a return to theatre rate of 21.4%. Early complications were significantly higher in patients with node-positive disease. Delayed complications were seen in nine patients. The implant loss rate was 4.3%. The mean BREAST-Q scores were 78 for satisfaction with treatment and 64 for satisfaction with breast domains. The outcomes were comparable to reported national data.
Conclusions
Prepectoral implant-based reconstruction with Braxon has comparable complication rates with good long-term aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes. Further studies with larger cohort and longer follow-up are needed.
Level of Evidence—Level III, therapeutic study.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Mennie JC, Mohanna P-N, O’Donoghue JM, Rainsbury R, Cromwell DA (2017) National trends in immediate and delayed post-mastectomy reconstruction procedures in England: a seven-year population-based cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(1):52–61
Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW (2009) Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33(1):44–48
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
Nigro LC, Blanchet NP (2017) Animation deformity in postmastectomy implant-based reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5(7):e1407
Baker BG, Irri R, MacCallum V, Chattopadhyay R, Murphy J, Harvey JRA (2018) Prospective comparison of short-term outcomes of subpectoral and prepectoral Strattice-based immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 141(5):1077–1084
Berna G, Cawthorn SJ, Papaccio G, Balestrieri N (2017) Evaluation of a novel breast reconstruction technique using the Braxon® acellular dermal matrix: a new muscle-sparing breast reconstruction. ANZ J Surg 87(6):493–498
Kobraei EM, Cauley R, Gadd M, Austen WG, Liao EC (2016) Avoiding breast animation deformity with pectoralis-sparing subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4(5):e708
Highton L, Johnson R, Kirwan C, Murphy J. Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017;5(9):e1488–e1488. https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/Fulltext/2017/09000/Prepectoral_Implant_Based_Breast_Reconstruction.4.aspx
Raghavan V, Jaume M, Simon C, Giorgio B, Fernando B, Alexander G et al (2017) Evaluation of the effectiveness of the prepectoral breast reconstruction with Braxon dermal matrix: first multicenter European report on 100 cases. Breast J 23(6):670–676
Jafferbhoy S, Chandarana M, Houlihan M, Parmeshwar R, Narayanan S, Soumian S, Harries S, Jones L, Clarke D (2017) Early multicentre experience of pre-pectoral implant based immediate breast reconstruction using Braxon®. Gland Surg 6(6):682–688
Casella D, Bernini M, Bencini L, Roselli J, Lacaria MT, Martellucci J, Banfi R, Calabrese C, Orzalesi L (2014) TiLoop® bra mesh used for immediate breast reconstruction: comparison of retropectoral and subcutaneous implant placement in a prospective single-institution series. Eur J Plast Surg 37(11):599–604
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(S1):S64–S69. http://gs.amegroups.com/article/view/19053
Martin L, O’Donoghue JM, Horgan K, Thrush S, Johnson R, Gandhi A (2013) Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgeons. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) assisted breast reconstruction procedures: joint guidelines from the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgeons. Eur J Surg Oncol 39:425–429
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213
Spear SL, Baker JL Jr., Caffee HH (1995) Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 96(5):1119–1124. https://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Fulltext/1995/10000/Classification_of_Capsular_Contracture_after.18.aspx
Berna G, Cawthorn SJ (2017) Long term follow-up on prepectoral ADM-assisted breast reconstruction: evidences after 4 years. Eur J Plast Surg 40(3):255–258
Browne J, Pereira J, Caddy C, Sheppard C, Nurse BC. British association of plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons
First results from the iBRA study; a national multicentre prospective cohort study of 2230 patients having immediate implant breast reconstruction [Internet]. Available from: https://associationofbreastsurgery.org.uk/events/previous-meetings/2017/abs-conference-2017/. Accessed 30 Sept 2018
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 68:346–356
Boswell EN, Dizon DS (2015) Breast cancer and sexual function. Transl Androl Urol 4(2):160–168
Negenborn VL, Dikmans REG, Bouman M-B, Wilschut JA, Mullender MG, Salzberg CA (2018) Patient-reported outcomes after ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction: a cross-sectional study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6(2):e1654
Sedgwick P (2014) Retrospective cohort studies: advantages and disadvantages. BMJ 348(jan24 1):g1072–g1072
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest statement
Mihir Chandarana, Soni Soumian, Sadaf Jafferbhoy, Sekhar Marla and Sankaran Narayanan declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Patient consent
Patients provided written consent for the use of their images.
Funding source
The study has no source of funding.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chandarana, M., Soumian, S., Jafferbhoy, S. et al. Outcomes of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with Braxon® acellular dermal matrix—a single-centre experience. Eur J Plast Surg 42, 431–438 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-019-01512-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-019-01512-2