Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 2899–2908 | Cite as

Impact of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

  • Catherine J. SinnottEmail author
  • Sarah M. Persing
  • Mary Pronovost
  • Christine Hodyl
  • Daniel McConnell
  • Anke Ott Young
Breast Oncology



This study aimed to compare the impact of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) on outcomes after prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with local deepithelialized dermal flap and acellular dermal matrix (ADM).


From 2010 to 2017, 274 patients (426 breasts) underwent prepectoral reconstruction. In this group, 241 patients (370 breasts) were not exposed to PMRT, whereas 45 patients (56 breasts) were exposed to PMRT. Of 100 patients (163 breasts) who underwent partial subpectoral reconstruction, 87 (140 breasts) were not exposed to PMRT, whereas 21 patients (23 breasts) were exposed. The outcomes were assessed by comparing complication rates between the pre- and subpectoral groups.


A higher rate of capsular contracture was found for the prepectoral patients with PMRT than for those without PMRT (16.1 vs 3.5%; p = 0.0008) and for the subpectoral patients with PMRT than for those without PMRT (52.2 vs 2.9%; p = 0.0001). The contracture rate was three times higher for the subpectoral patients with PMRT than for the prepectoral patients with PMRT (52.2 vs 16.1%; p = 0.0018). In addition, 10 (83.3%) of 12 cases with capsular contracture in the subpectoral cohort that received PMRT were Baker grades 3 or 4 compared with only 2 (22.2%) of 9 cases of the prepectoral group with PMRT (p = 0.0092).


The patients undergoing subpectoral breast reconstruction who received PMRT had a capsular contracture rate three times greater with more severe contractures (Baker grade 3 or 4) than the patients receiving PMRT who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction.


  1. 1.
    American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2018 at
  2. 2.
    Vidya R, Iqbal FM. A guide to prepectoral breast reconstruction: a new dimension to implant-based breast reconstruction. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017;17:266–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kobraei EM, Cauley R, Gadd M, Austen WG, Liao EC. Avoiding breast animation deformity with pectoralis-sparing subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Glob Open. 2016;4:e708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bettinger LN, Waters LM, Reese SW, Kutner SE, Jacobs DI. Comparative study of prepectoral and subpectoral expander-based breast reconstruction and Clavien IIIb score outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1433.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhu L, Mohan AT, Abdelsattar JM, Wang Z, Vijayasekaren A, Hwang SM, et al. Comparison of subcutaneous versus submuscular expander placement in the first stage of immediate breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2016;69:e77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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. J Surg Res. 2017;218:108–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magill LJ, Robertson FP, Jell G, Mosahebi A, Keshtgar M. Determining the outcomes of postmastectomy radiation therapy delivered to the definitive implant in patients undergoing one- and two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2017;70:1329–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Recht A, Comen EA, Fine RE, et al. Postmastectomy radiotherapy: an American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology focused guideline update. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:38–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Downs RK, Hedges K. An alternative technique for immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: a case series. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;22;4:e821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bettinger LN, Waters LM, Reese SW, Kutner SE, Jacob DI. Comparative study of prepectoral and subpectoral expander-based breast reconstruction and Clavien IIIb score outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;26;5:e1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, Storm-Dickerson TL, Pope N, Rice J, Gabriel A. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: rationale, inidications, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:287–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sbitany H. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruciton following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;40:432–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Basu CB, Leong M, Hicks MJ. Acellular cadaveric dermis decreases the inflammatory response in capsular formation in reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1842–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheng A, Lakhiani C, Saint-Cyr M. Treatment of capsular contracture using complete implant coverage by acellular dermal matrix: a novel technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:519–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stump A, Holton LH III, Connor J, Harper JR, Slezak S, Silverman RP. The use of acellular dermal matrix to prevent capsule formation around implants in a primate model. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lardi AM, Ho-Asjoe M, Junge K, Farhadi J (2017) Capsular contracture in implant-based breast reconstruction: the effect of porcine acellular dermal matrix. Gland Surg 6:49–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Berry C, et al. Acellular dermal matrix-assisted direct-to-implant breast reconstruction and capsular contracture: a 13-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;131:921–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vardanian AJ, Clayton JL, Roostaeian J, et al. Comparison of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:403e–10e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine J. Sinnott
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sarah M. Persing
    • 2
  • Mary Pronovost
    • 3
  • Christine Hodyl
    • 4
  • Daniel McConnell
    • 1
  • Anke Ott Young
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Long Island Plastic Surgical GroupGarden CityUSA
  2. 2.Yale New Haven HealthNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Yale New Haven Health/Bridgeport HospitalBridgeportUSA
  4. 4.South Nassau Communities HospitalOceansideUSA

Personalised recommendations