For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
9
views
27
references
 Top references
cited by
28
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      623
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Traditionally, tissue expanders (TEs) for breast reconstruction have been placed beneath the pectoralis major muscle with or without acellular dermal matrix. More recently, full acellular dermal matrix coverage has been described for prepectoral TE placement. Our study aims to explore differences in clinical and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes for prepectoral versus subpectoral TE breast reconstruction.

          Methods:

          We identified patients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction with prepectoral or subpectoral TE placement between 2011 and 2015 and completed QOL surveys. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain and QOL scores. Secondary outcomes were clinical outcomes. We used Wilcoxon rank-sum test, chi-square test, and linear regression to compare outcomes. Postoperative follow-up for each patient was at least 60 days, except that of pain scores, which were at least 30 days. Mean age was 49 ± 10 years.

          Results:

          Twenty-six prepectoral TE patients and 109 subpectoral TE patients met inclusion criteria. Pain scores were significantly lower at 12 hours, 1 day, 7 days, and 30 days postoperatively for the prepectoral group, compared with the subpectoral group, even after adjusting for confounding variables [PO12H: Sub-Pectoral (SP) median (interquartile range), 7 (5–8), Pre-Pectoral (PP), 5 (2.5–7.5), P value = 0.004; PO1D: SP, 5 (4–6), PP 3 (2–4), P value = < 0.001; PO7D: SP, 2 (0–4), PP, 0 (0–2), P value = 0.004; PO30D: SP, 0 (0–2), PP, 0 (0–0), P value = 0.039)]. Breast-Q scores were not significantly different between study groups. RAND-36 Physical Health scores were lower among prepectoral TE patients.

          Conclusions:

          Prepectoral TE breast reconstruction presents an opportunity to improve upon current reconstructive methods and does result in significantly lower pain scores. The associated risks have yet to be fully described and are important considerations, as these prepectoral patients had lower physical health outcome scores.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates.

          Claudia Albornoz, Peter B Bach, Babak Mehrara … (2013)
          Despite its benefits in body image, self-esteem, sexuality, and quality of life, historically fewer than 25 percent of patients undergo immediate breast reconstruction. After passage of the Women Health and Cancer Rights Act, studies failed to demonstrate changes in reconstructive rates. A recent single-year report suggests significant shifts in U.S. breast reconstruction patterns. The authors' goal was to assess long-term trends in rates and types of immediate reconstruction. A serial cross-sectional study of immediate breast reconstruction trends was performed using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 1998 to 2008. Data on mastectomies, reconstructive method (autologous/implant), and sociodemographic/hospital predictors were obtained. Immediate breast reconstruction rates increased on average 5 percent per year, from 20.8 percent to 37.8 percent (p < 0.01). Autologous reconstruction rates were unchanged. Implant use increased by an average of 11 percent per year (p < 0.01), surpassing autologous methods as the leading reconstructive modality after 2002. The strongest predictors of implant use were procedures performed after 2002, bilateral mastectomies, patients operated on in Midwest/West regions, and Medicare recipients. In contrast to bilateral mastectomies, which increased by 17 percent per year (p < 0.01), unilateral mastectomies decreased by 2 percent per year (p < 0.01). Bilateral mastectomy defects had significantly higher reconstruction rates than unilateral counterparts (p < 0.01). The significant rise in immediate reconstruction rates in the United States correlates closely to a 203 percent expansion in implant use. Although the reason for the increase in implant use is multifactorial, changes in mastectomy patterns, such as increased use of bilateral mastectomies, are one important contributor.
          Article 0 comments Cited 267 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Breast reconstruction after mastectomy using the temporary expander.

            C Radovan (1982)
            Breast reconstruction after a radical mastectomy using the temporary subcutaneous tissue expander is described. The main principle of this method is recovery of the amount of lost tissue through expansion of the remaining chest skin to large proportions and filling of the breast envelope with a smaller permanent mammary implant. Sixty-eight patients were reconstructed with an average follow-up of 18 months. Average expansion time for breast development was 6 weeks, with an average reconstructed breast size of 300 to 400 cc. Contralateral round dermal mastopexy with simultaneous nipple enlargement, contralateral subcutaneous mastectomy through a similar round dermal mastopexy, and reconstruction of the nipple are discussed.
            Article 0 comments Cited 100 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patient-Reported Outcomes 1 Year After Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Results of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study

              Andrea Pusic, Evan Matros, Neil Fine … (2017)
              Purpose The goals of immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction are to minimize deformity and optimize quality of life as perceived by patients. We prospectively evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in women undergoing immediate implant-based or autologous reconstruction. Methods Women undergoing immediate postmastectomy reconstruction for invasive cancer and/or carcinoma in situ were enrolled at 11 sites. Women underwent implant-based or autologous tissue reconstruction. Patients completed the BREAST-Q, a condition-specific PRO measure for breast surgery patients, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System–29, a generic PRO measure, before and 1 year after surgery. Mean changes in PRO scores were summarized. Mixed-effects regression models were used to compare PRO scores across procedure types. Results In total, 1,632 patients (n = 1,139 implant, n = 493 autologous) were included; 1,183 (72.5%) responded to 1-year questionnaires. After analysis was controlled for baseline values, patients who underwent autologous reconstruction had greater satisfaction with their breasts than those who underwent implant-based reconstruction (difference, 6.3; P < .001), greater sexual well-being (difference, 4.5; P = .003), and greater psychosocial well-being (difference, 3.7; P = .02) at 1 year. Patients in the autologous reconstruction group had improved satisfaction with breasts (difference, 8.0; P = .002) and psychosocial well-being (difference, 4.6; P = .047) compared with preoperative baseline. Physical well-being of the chest was not fully restored in either the implant group (difference, −3.8; P = .001) or autologous group (−2.2; P = .04), nor was physical well-being of the abdomen in patients who underwent autologous reconstruction (−13.4; P < .001). Anxiety and depression were mitigated at 1 year in both groups. Compared with their baseline reports, patients who underwent implant reconstruction had decreased fatigue (difference, −1.4; P = .035), whereas patients who underwent autologous reconstruction had increased pain interference (difference, 2.0; P = .006). Conclusion At 1 year after mastectomy, patients who underwent autologous reconstruction were more satisfied with their breasts and had greater psychosocial and sexual well-being than those who underwent implant reconstruction. Although satisfaction with breasts was equal to or greater than baseline levels, physical well-being was not fully restored. This information can help patients better understand expected outcomes and may guide innovations to improve outcomes.
              Article 0 comments Cited 85 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
                Journal ID (publisher-id): GOX
                Title: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
                Publisher: Wolters Kluwer Health
                ISSN (Electronic): 2169-7574
                Publication date (Electronic): 20 April 2018
                Publication date Collection: April 2018
                Volume: 6
                Issue: 4
                Electronic Location Identifier: e1731
                Affiliations
                [1]From the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md.
                Author notes
                Justin M. Sacks, MD, MBA, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Johns Hopkins Outpatient Center 8150, Baltimore, MD 21287, E-mail: jmsacks@ 123456jhmi.edu
                Article
                Accession ID: 00003
                DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001731
                PMC ID: 5977939
                PubMed ID: 29876176
                SO-VID: 3fab095a-a72b-46a6-b6ee-363fab17ba6b
                Copyright © Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
                License:

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                Date received : 1 December 2017
                Date accepted : 6 February 2018
                Categories
                Subject: Original Article
                Custom metadata
                OPEN-ACCESS TRUE

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content623

                See all similar

                Cited by39

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors289

                See all reference authors