Abstract
Implant-based reconstruction is currently the most common postmastectomy breast reconstruction modality. The one-stage subpectoral approach is widely performed but entails many complications. Prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction resolves many of these issues. Currently, only a relatively small number of studies have compared the outcomes of these two approaches. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction. Data was obtained from all patients between November 2017 and January 2020 from accrual patient records. They were organized into one of two cohorts, prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction, according to surgeon’s assessment of the postmastectomy flap viability. A total of 113 women (150 breasts) underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction by a single plastic surgeon (Y.G), with 82 patients (72.6%) in the prepectoral cohort. In the prepectoral group, the mean postoperative day of drain removal was 13.59 (SD=5.43) days, while in the subpectoral group, it was a mean of 16.13 (SD=5.75) (p=0.016). The total mean number of days when postoperative narcotics were administered was 2.61 (SD=2.93) in the prepectoral cohort and 5.16 (SD=4.57) in the subpectoral cohort (p=0.003). There were no statistically significant differences regarding major or minor complications between the groups. A wrapping technique analysis in the prepectoral cohort shows no complications in the oblique subgroup. This study demonstrates that prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction is a safe modality with a lower usage of postoperative narcotics and a shorter period until drainage removal.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Mirhaidari SJ, Azouz V, Wagner DS (2020) Prepectoral versus subpectoral direct to implant immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 84(3):263–270. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002059
Safran T, Al-Halabi B, Viezel-Mathieu A, Boileau JF, Dionisopoulos T (2020) Direct-to-implant, prepectoral breast reconstruction: a single-surgeon experience with 201 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. Published online 686E-696E. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006654
Gabriel A, Sigalove S, Sigalove NM, et al (2018) Prepectoral revision breast reconstruction for treatment of implant-associated animation deformity: a review of 102 reconstructions. Aesthetic Surg J. Published online. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx261
Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, et al (2017) Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: rationale, indications, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg. Published online. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002950
Nealon KP, Weitzman RE, Sobti N et al (2020) Prepectoral Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: safety outcome endpoints and delineation of risk factors. Plast Reconstr Surg. 145(5):898e–908e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006721
Breuing KH, Colwell AS (2007) Inferolateral AlloDerm hammock for implant coverage in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. Published online. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31802f8426
Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, Menon NG (2008) Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg. Published online. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-008-9128-8
Nahabedian MY (2012) Acellular dermal matrices in primary breast reconstruction: principles, concepts, and indications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 130(5 Suppl 2):44–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825f2215
Reitsamer R, Peintinger F, Klaassen-Federspiel F, Sir A (2019) Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with complete ADM or synthetic mesh coverage – 36-months follow-up in 200 reconstructed breasts. Breast. 2019(48):32–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.08.002
Gabriel A, Sigalove S, Pfaffenberger M et al (2020) Povidone-iodine does not affect acellular dermal matrix integration in patients undergoing 2-staged, prepectoral, breast reconstructive surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg - Glob Open. 8(4):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002758
Nahabedian MY (2018) Current approaches to prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 142(4):871–880. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004802
Sbitany H, Gomez-Sanchez C, Piper M, Lentz R (2019) Prepectoral breast reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy: an assessment of clinical outcomes and benefits. Plast Reconstr Surg. 143(1):10–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005140
Sbitany H (2017) Important considerations for performing prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 140(6S):7S-13S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004045
Antony AK, Poirier J, Madrigrano A, Kopkash KA, Robinson EC (2019) Evolution of the surgical technique for “breast in a day” direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: transitioning from dual-plane to prepectoral implant placement. Plast Reconstr Surg. 143(6):1547–1556. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005627
Kim JH, Hong SE (2020) A comparative analysis between subpectoral versus prepectoral single stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Med. Published online. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56100537
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. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2019.00353
Giorgia CG, Nicola Z, Ioanna K, et al (2020) Quality of life and early functional evaluation in direct to implant breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a comparative study between prepectoral vs dual-plane. Clin Breast Cancer. Published online. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2020.11.013
Chen WF, Barounis D, Kalimuthu R (2010) A novel cost-saving approach to the use of acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm) in postmastectomy breast and nipple reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg. Published online. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c82da6
Hill EJR, Buck DW (2018) The “butterfly” wrap: a simplified technique for consistent prosthesis coverage in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg - Glob Open. 6(11):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002007
Ter Louw RP, Nahabedian MY (2017) Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. Published online. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003942
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics 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. The Human Investigation Committee (IRB) of Shaare Zedek Medical Center approved this study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Informed Consent
Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data and photographs.
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
Ofek, Se., Gronovich, Y. Comparison Between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: a Case Series Analysis. Indian J Surg 84 (Suppl 3), 633–640 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-021-03181-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-021-03181-7