Background: In conservative mastectomies, in which the native skin envelope is preserved, positioning an implant in the submuscular plane commonly leads to functional consequences like upper limb movement impairment and animation phenomena. In recent years, however, a new conservative prepectoral breast reconstruction technique has been proposed, with demonstrated surgical safety and aesthetic effectiveness. The aim of our study was to explore and compare the functional and aesthetic outcomes of the prepectoral/acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-wrapped implant procedure versus subpectoral/ADM-assisted reconstruction. Patients and Methods: A retrospective nonrandomized comparative study of 94 patients (121 breasts) undergoing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after skin-/nipple-sparing and skin reduction was conducted from February 2013 to October 2017. Fifty-five patients (group A) received subpectoral ADM-assisted reconstruction with dual-plane implant positioning, and 39 patients (group B) received prepectoral partially or totally ADM-wrapped implant reconstruction. Patients were allocated to either group A or B depending on the mastectomy flap thickness and vitality, as assessed clinically during the operation. Details of rehabilitation program, postoperative pain at 72 hours, postoperative analgesic therapies, demographic data, and complications were recorded. Upper limb function was assessed before and 1 month after surgery by a physiatrist according to a precise protocol. Patients were asked to fill in the BREAST-Q reconstruction questionnaire after surgery to evaluate outcomes. Results: Differences in upper limb function between groups, namely flexion (P =.03), abduction (P =.003), internal rotation (P =.02), and external rotation (P =.05), were statistically significant. Although most patients required postoperative rehabilitation, the individual rehabilitation intervention frequency was greater in the subpectoral group (91% in group A vs 74% in group B). There was also a significant difference in postoperative pain (within 72 hours), with less pain perceived in the prepectoral group (P =.01). Furthermore, prepectoral patients reported slightly better postoperative quality of life than subpectoral patients, particularly in the domains of sexual well-being (P =.005) and satisfaction with breast (P =.002). Conclusion: In our case series, prepectoral implant positioning with partial or total ADM coverage led to less impairment of upper limb function in terms of flexion, abduction, and internal and external rotation, and also reduce the need for rehabilitation. Furthermore, as a result of the less invasive procedure, prepectoral patients had less immediate postoperative pain and were more satisfied with breast appearance.

Quality of Life and Early Functional Evaluation in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy: A Comparative Study Between Prepectoral Versus Dual-Plane Reconstruction

Zingaretti N.;Parodi P. C.
;
2020-01-01

Abstract

Background: In conservative mastectomies, in which the native skin envelope is preserved, positioning an implant in the submuscular plane commonly leads to functional consequences like upper limb movement impairment and animation phenomena. In recent years, however, a new conservative prepectoral breast reconstruction technique has been proposed, with demonstrated surgical safety and aesthetic effectiveness. The aim of our study was to explore and compare the functional and aesthetic outcomes of the prepectoral/acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-wrapped implant procedure versus subpectoral/ADM-assisted reconstruction. Patients and Methods: A retrospective nonrandomized comparative study of 94 patients (121 breasts) undergoing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after skin-/nipple-sparing and skin reduction was conducted from February 2013 to October 2017. Fifty-five patients (group A) received subpectoral ADM-assisted reconstruction with dual-plane implant positioning, and 39 patients (group B) received prepectoral partially or totally ADM-wrapped implant reconstruction. Patients were allocated to either group A or B depending on the mastectomy flap thickness and vitality, as assessed clinically during the operation. Details of rehabilitation program, postoperative pain at 72 hours, postoperative analgesic therapies, demographic data, and complications were recorded. Upper limb function was assessed before and 1 month after surgery by a physiatrist according to a precise protocol. Patients were asked to fill in the BREAST-Q reconstruction questionnaire after surgery to evaluate outcomes. Results: Differences in upper limb function between groups, namely flexion (P =.03), abduction (P =.003), internal rotation (P =.02), and external rotation (P =.05), were statistically significant. Although most patients required postoperative rehabilitation, the individual rehabilitation intervention frequency was greater in the subpectoral group (91% in group A vs 74% in group B). There was also a significant difference in postoperative pain (within 72 hours), with less pain perceived in the prepectoral group (P =.01). Furthermore, prepectoral patients reported slightly better postoperative quality of life than subpectoral patients, particularly in the domains of sexual well-being (P =.005) and satisfaction with breast (P =.002). Conclusion: In our case series, prepectoral implant positioning with partial or total ADM coverage led to less impairment of upper limb function in terms of flexion, abduction, and internal and external rotation, and also reduce the need for rehabilitation. Furthermore, as a result of the less invasive procedure, prepectoral patients had less immediate postoperative pain and were more satisfied with breast appearance.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11390/1196148
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 33
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 28
social impact