Publication:

Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction and Clavien IIIb Score Outcomes

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2017

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Wolters Kluwer Health
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Bettinger, Lynne N., Linda M. Waters, Stephen W. Reese, Susan E. Kutner, and Daniel I. Jacobs. 2017. “Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction and Clavien IIIb Score Outcomes.” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open 5 (7): e1433. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000001433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001433.

Abstract

Background: Prepectoral breast reconstruction is increasingly popular. This study compares complications between 2 subpectoral and 1 prepectoral breast reconstruction technique. Methods: Between 2008 and 2015, 294 two-staged expander breast reconstructions in 213 patients were performed with 1 of 3 surgical techniques: (1) Prepectoral, (2) subpectoral with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) sling (“Classic”), or (3) subpectoral/subserratus expander placement without ADM (“No ADM”). Demographics, comorbidities, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy were assessed for correlation with Clavien IIIb score outcomes. Follow-up was a minimum of 6 months. Results: Surgical cohorts (n = 165 Prepectoral; n = 77 Classic; n = 52 No ADM) had comparable demographics except Classic had more cardiac disease (P = 0.03), No ADM had higher body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.01), and the Prepectoral group had more nipple-sparing mastectomies (P < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed higher expander complications with BMI ≥ 40 (P = 0.05), stage 4 breast cancer (P = 0.01), and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (P = 0.1), whereas implant complications were associated with prior history of radiation (P < 0.01). There was more skin necrosis (P = 0.05) and overall expander complications (P = 0.01) in the Classic cohort, whereas the No ADM group trended toward the lowest expander complications among the 3. Multivariate analysis showed no difference in overall expander complication rates between the 3 groups matching demographics, mastectomy surgery, risks, and surgical technique. Conclusions: Prepectoral and subpectoral Classic and No ADM breast reconstructions demonstrated comparable grade IIIb Clavien score complications. BMI > 40, stage 4 cancer, and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were associated with adverse expander outcomes and a prior history of radiation therapy adversely impacted implant outcomes. Ninety-day follow-up for expander and implant complications may be a better National Surgical Quality Improvement Program measure.

Description

Research Data

Keywords

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Related Stories