Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What Surgeons Should Know About Breast Reconstruction for Oncology Patients

  • Surgical Oncology (A Tufaro, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Surgery Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to highlight the major tenets of breast reconstruction and to summarize the existing state of the literature related to these.

Recent Findings

Trends in breast reconstruction rates have recently reversed. Existing data cannot yet account for this. Current literature may not fully address the actual reality of breast reconstruction today. Outcome measures to define a successful breast reconstruction continue to be refined. Reconstruction choices related to type of reconstruction and timing, as well as oncologic treatment trends and device technology, are in constant evolution.

Summary

A great diversity of reconstruction opportunities exists to suit patients’ needs. Careful understanding of the evidence base in breast reconstruction must be employed by plastic surgeons to maximize the benefit of reconstruction for each individual patient.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

“Bullet” Of importance” “BulletBullet” Of major importance.

  1. Liu, D. New plastic surgery statistics and breast reconstruction trends. American Society of Plastic Surgeons blog. 2017 Mar 14 [cited 2020 Apr 26]. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/blog/new-plastic-surgery-statistics-and-breast-reconstruction-trends.

  2. Kamali P, Zettervall SL, Wu W, Ibrahim AM, Medin C, Rakhorst HA, et al. Differences in the reporting of racial and socioeconomic disparities among three large national databases for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(4):795–807.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Karunanayake M, Bortoluzzi P, Chollet A, Lin JC. Factors influencing the rate of post-mastectomy breast reconstruction in a Canadian teaching hospital. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2017;25(4):242–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2292550317728034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. [cited 2020 Apr 26]. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf. ∙∙Important to know the rates of breast reconstruction across the U.S.

  5. Cordova LZ, Hunter-Smith DJ, Rozen WM. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) following mastectomy with breast reconstruction or without reconstruction: a systematic review. Gland Surg. 2019;8(4):441–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Parker PA, Youssef A, Walker S, Basen-Engquist K, Cohen L, Gritz ER, et al. Short-term and long-term psychosocial adjustment and quality of life in women undergoing different surgical procedures for breast cancer. Breast Oncology. 2007;14(11):3078–89.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124(2):345-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181aee807. ∙∙Classic paper

  8. Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard TN, Klassen A, Cano SJ, Browne J, et al. The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009-2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(2):149–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu LQ, Branford OA, Mehigan S. BREAST-Q measurement of the patient perspective in oncoplastic breast surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(8):e1904. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000001904.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Basta MN, Gerety PA, Serletti JM, Kovach SJ, Fischer JP. A systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis of outcomes following direct-to-implant versus conventional two-stage implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(6):1135–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000001749.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Manahan MA, McNichols CH, Bello RJ, Giuliano K, Xie S, von Guionneau N, et al. A large-volume academic center retrospective audit of the temporal evolution of immediate breast reconstruction protocols and the effect on breast prosthetic infection. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2019:72(2):225-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.10.009.

  12. Berry T, Brooks S, Sydow N, Djohan R, Nutter B, Lyons J, et al. Complication rates of radiation on tissue expander and autologous tissue breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;3:202–10. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1261-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, Hwang BH, Chan LS, Wong AK. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68(4):346–56. https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0b013e31823f3cd9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tondu T, Hubens G, Tjalma WA, Thiessen FE, Vrints I, Van Theilen J, et al. Breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy in the large and/or ptotic breast: A systematic review of indications, techniques, and outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2020:469-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.11.047.

  15. Martin S, Turner E, Nguyen A, Thornton B, Nazerali RS. An Evaluation of the Utility of the Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment Score Risk Model in Prepectoral Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2020:84(5S Suppl 4):S318-S322. https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0000000000002320.

  16. Banuelos J, Abu-Ghaname A, Vyas K, Sharaf B, Nguyen MT, Harless C, et al. Should obesity be considered a contraindication for prepectoral breast reconstruction? Plast Reconstr Surg 2019:Epub Dec 17. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000006540.

  17. Phillips BT, Lanier ST, Conkling N, Wang ED, DAgum AB, Ganz JC. Intraoperative perfusion techniques can accurately predict mastectomy skin flap necrosis in breast reconstruction: results of a prospective trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012:129:778e-88e. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e31824a2ae8.

  18. Alstrup T, Christensen BO, Damsgaard TE. ICG angiography in immediate and delayed autologous breast reconstructions: peroperative evaluation and postoperative outcomes. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2018;52:307–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656x.2018.1486320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hammer-Hansen N, Juhl AA, Damsgaard TE. Laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography in implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: a retrospective study. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2018;52:158–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656x.2017.1372289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Moyer HR, Losken A. Predicting mastectomy skin flap necrosis with indocyanine green angiography: the gray area defined. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:1043–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e31824a2b0212.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weber WP, Haug M, Kurzeder C, Bjelic-Radisic V, Koller R, Reitsamer R, et al. Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018:172(3):523-537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4937-1. ∙∙Important findings of international consensus panel

  22. Pruimboom T, Schols RM, Van Kuijk SM, Van der Hulst RR, Qui SS. Indocyanine green angiography for preventing postoperative mastectomy skin flap necrosis in immediate breast reconstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020:4:CD013280. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013280.pub2. ∙Important review in area of clinical debate.

  23. Driessen C, Arnardottir TH, Lorenzo AR, Mani MR. How should indocyanine green dye angiography be assessed to best predict mastectomy skin flap necrosis? A systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2020:Epub Feb 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2020.02.025.

  24. Lee KT, Mun GH. Comparison of one-stage vs two-stage prosthesis-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Am J Surg 2016:212(2):336-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.07.015.

  25. Quin TT, Miller GS, Rostek M, Cabalag Ms, Rozen WM, Hunter-Smith DJ. Prosthetic breast reconstruction: indications and update. Gland Surg 2016:174–86. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2227-684x.2015.07.01.

  26. Nealon KP, Weitzman RE, Sobti N, Gadd M, Specht M, Jimenez RB. Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: safety outcome endpoints and delineation of risk factors. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(5):898e–908e. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000006721.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dicuonzo S, Leonardi MC, Radice D, Morra A, Gerardi MA, Rojas DP, et al. Long-Term Results and Reconstruction Failure in Patients Receiving Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy with a Temporary Expander or Permanent Implant in Place. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(2):317–27. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000006441.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ricci JA, Epstein S, Momoh AO, Lin SJ, Singhal D, Lee BT. A meta-analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction and timing of adjuvant radiation therapy. Surg Res. 2017;218:108–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Oliver JD, Boczar D, Huayllani MT, Restrepo DJ, Sisti A, Manrique OJ et al. Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy (PMRT) before and after 2-Stage Expander-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019:55(6). pii: E226. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina55060226.

  30. Javaid M, Song F, Leinster S, Dickson MG, James NK. Radiation effects on the cosmetic outcomes of immediate and delayed autologous breast reconstruction: an argument about timing. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(1):16–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dewael S, Vandevoort M, Fabre G, Nanhekhan L. Immediate versus delayed autologous breast reconstruction: a retrospective matched cohort study of irradiated patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72(11):1769–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.05.054.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Phan R, Hunter-Smith DJ, Rozen WM. The use of patient reported outcome measures in assessing patient outcomes when comparing autologous to alloplastic breast reconstruction: A systematic review. Gland Surg 2019;8(4):452–60. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2019.07.04.

  33. Nelson JA, Allen RJ JR, Polanco T, Shamsunder M, Patel AR, McCarthy CM, et al. Long-term patient-reported outcomes following postmastectomy breast reconstruction: An 8-year examination of 3268 patients. Ann Surg 2019:270(3):473-83. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003467. ∙Findings relate to major decision point in breast reconstruction

  34. Lagendijk M, van Egdom LSE, Richel C, van Leeuwen N, Verhoef C, Lingsma HF, et al. Patient reported outcome measures in breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(7):963–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tyserkani NM, Jorgensen MG, Tabatabaeifar S, Damsgaard T, Sorensen JA. Autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Breast-Q patient-reported outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73(2):278–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.09.040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Santosa KB, Ji A, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Wilkins EG, Pusic AL. Long-term patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(10):891–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Tsoi B, Ziolkowski NI, Thoma A, Campbell K, O’Reilly D, Goeree R. Safety of tissue expander/implant versus autologous abdominal tissue breast reconstruction in postmastectomy breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Plast Reconstr Surg 2014:234-49. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000436847.94408.11.

  38. Samra F, obtiN, Nelson JA, Allen RJ, Mehrara B, Dayan JH. Frontiers in oncologic reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019:7(6): e2181. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000002181.

  39. Temple CL, Ross DC, Kim S. Sensibility following innervated free TRAM flap for breast reconstruction: part II. Innervation improves patient-rated quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009:124:1419–1425.

  40. Beugels J, Cornelissen AJM, Spiegel AJ. Sensory recovery of the breast after innervated and non-innervated autologous breast reconstructions: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70:1229–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Puonti HK, Broth TA, Soinila SO. How to assess sensory recovery after breast reconstruction surgery? Clin Breast Cancer. 2017;17:471–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Spiegel AJ, Menn ZK, Eldo L, Kaufman Y, Dellon AL. Breast reinnervation: DIEP neurotization using the third anterior intercostal nerve. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2013:1(8): e72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000000008.

  43. Chiu WK, Fracol M, Feld LN, Qiu CS, Kim JYS. A Comparison of Fat Graft Processing Techniques: outcomes in 1,158 Procedures in Prosthetic Breast Reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(11):e2276. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000002276.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Ruan QZ, Rinkinen JR, Doval AF, Scott BB, Tobias AM, Lin SJ, et al. Safety Profiles of Fat Processing Techniques in Autologous Fat Transfer for Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(4):985–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005424.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Oranges CM, Striebel J, Tremp M, Madduri S, Kalbermatten DF, Schaefer DJ, et al. The Impact of Recipient Site External Expansion in Fat Grafting Surgical Outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(2):e1649. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox0000000000001649.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Herly M, Orholt M, Larsen A, Pipper CB, Bredgaard R, Gramkow CS, et al. Efficacy of breast reconstruction with fat grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(12):1740–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.08.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wang CL, Luan SS, Panayi AC, Xin MQ, Luan J. Methods used for evaluation of volume retention rate in autologous fat grafting for breast augmentation: a systematic review. Chin Med J (Engl). 2019;132(18):2223–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/cm9.0000000000000415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rocco N, Rispoli C, Moja L, Amato B, Iannone L, Testa S, et al. Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016:5:CD010895. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd010895.pub2. ∙∙Summary of findings related to breast implant type.

  49. Mempin M, Hu H, Chowdhury D, Deva A, Vickery K. The A,B, and C’s of silicone breast implants: Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, biofilm, and capsular contracture. Materials (Basel) 2018:11(12): 2393. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11122393.

  50. Munhoz AM, Clemens MW, Nahabedian MY. Breast implant surfaces and their impact on current practices: Where are we now and where are we going? Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019:7(10): e2466.https://doi.org/10.1097/gox0000000000002466.

  51. US Food and Drug Administration. Medical device reports of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. 2019 Jul 24. [cited 2020 Apr 26]. Accessed from https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/breast-implants/medical-device-reports-breast-implant-associated-anaplastic-large-cell-lymphoma. ∙Current information on rapidly changing topic.

  52. Coroneos CJ, Selber JC, Offodile AC 2nd, Butler CE, Clemens MW. US FDA breast implant postapproval studies: Long-term outcomes in 99,993 patients. Ann Surg 2019:269(1):30-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla0000000000002990. ∙Publication leading to much debate in the field

  53. Magnusson MR, Cooter RD, Rakhorst H, McGuire PA, Adams WP Jr, Deva AK. Breast implant illness: a way forward. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:74S–81S. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005573.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mcguire PA, Haws MJ, Nahai F. Breast implant illness: how can we help? Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(11):1260–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Singh N, Picha GJ, Hardas B, Schumacher A, Murphy DK. Five-year safety data for more than 55,000 subjects following breast implantation: comparison of rare adverse event rates with silicone implants versus national norms and saline implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(4):666–79. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000003711.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rohrich RJ, Kenkel JM, Adams WP, Beran S, Conner WC. A prospective analysis of patients undergoing silicone breast implant explantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:2529–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. de Boer M, Colaris M, van der Hulst RRWJ, Cohen Tervaert JW. Is explantation of silicone breast implants useful in patients with complaints? Immunol Res. 2017;65(1):25–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-016-8813-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Li L, Su Y, Xiu B, Huang X, Chi W, Hou J, et al. Comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomies: a systematic review and meta analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(9):1542–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.05.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Safran T, Al-Halabi B, Viezel-Mathieu A, Boileau JF, Dionisopoulos T. Direct-to-Implant, Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: a Single-Surgeon Experience with 201 Consecutive Patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(4):686e–96e. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000006654.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA executive summary: Breast implant special topics, page 37. 2019 Mar 25 [cited 2020 Apr 26]. https://www.fda.gov/media/122956/download.

  61. Cabalag MS, Rostek M, Miller GS, Chae MP, Quinn T Rozen WM, et al. Alloplastic adjuncts in breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2016:5(2):158–73. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2227-684x.2015.06.02.

  62. DeLong MR, Tandon VJ, Farajzadeh M, Berlin NL, MacEachern MP, Rudkin GH, et al. Systematic Review of the Impact of Acellular Dermal Matrix on Aesthetics and Patient Satisfaction in Tissue Expander-to-Implant Breast Reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(6):967e–74e. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000006212.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Hallberg H, Rafnsdottir S, Selvaggi G, Strandell A, Samuelsson O, Stadig I, et al. Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2018;52(3):130–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656x.2017.1419141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Bailey CR, Ogbuagu O, Baltodano PA, Simjee UF, Manahan MA, Cooney DS, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes improve with nipple-sparing mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(2):219–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Metcalfe KA, Cil TD, Semple JL, Li LD, Bagher S, Zhong T, et al. Long-term psychosocial functioning in women with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: does preservation of the nipple-areolar complex make a difference? Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3324–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ahn SJ, Woo TY, Lee DW, Lew DH, Song SY. Nipple-areolar complex ischemia and necrosis in nipple-sparing mastectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(8):1170–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.05.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Gdalevitch P, Van Laeken N, Bahng S, Ho A, Bovill E, Lennox P, et al. Effects of nitroglycerin ointment on mastectomy flap necrosis in immediate breast reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(6):1530–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 601 N. Caroline St., Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Michele A. Manahan

Authors
  1. Michele A. Manahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele A. Manahan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Michele Manahan declares that she has no conflict of interest.

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

Publisher's Note

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

This article is part of the Topical collection on Surgical Oncology.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manahan, M.A. What Surgeons Should Know About Breast Reconstruction for Oncology Patients. Curr Surg Rep 8, 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-020-00260-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-020-00260-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation