WORLD JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY
Fri, May 16, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 10, Issue 2 (2021)
WJPS 2021, 10(2): 3-13 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Chopra S, Al-Ishaq Z, Vidya R. The Journey of Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction through Time. WJPS 2021; 10 (2) :3-13
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-796-en.html
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-796-en.html
1- Breast Centre, University Hospital Llandough, Penlan Road, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.
2- The Royal Wolverhampton N.H.S. Trust, Wolverhampton Road, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
2- The Royal Wolverhampton N.H.S. Trust, Wolverhampton Road, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
Abstract: (3028 Views)
BACKGROUND
The facet of breast reconstruction has evolved from complex surgery to simple implant-based breast reconstruction. Minimal invasive surgery or Prepectoral breast reconstruction has revolutionised the surgical treatment for breast cancer and became a reality due to advances in meshes and implants. In this review, we have looked at the journey of Prepectoral implant beast reconstruction through time.
METHODS
We conducted a literature review on pre-pectoral breast reconstruction, emphasising types of cover, its outcomes, complications, and the effect of postmastectomy radiotherapy.
RESULTS
Prepectoral breast reconstruction had advanced with time and appears to be a safe and effective method of breast reconstruction and is associated with minimal morbidity whilst providing adequate cosmesis. Radiotherapy seems to be well tolerated with early favourable results. The Implant loss rates in the Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) to be around 5%-6% and rippling appear to be a common adverse effect of this technique ranging from 0%-35% in various studies.
CONCLUSION
Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has emerged as a successful method of breast reconstruction.
The facet of breast reconstruction has evolved from complex surgery to simple implant-based breast reconstruction. Minimal invasive surgery or Prepectoral breast reconstruction has revolutionised the surgical treatment for breast cancer and became a reality due to advances in meshes and implants. In this review, we have looked at the journey of Prepectoral implant beast reconstruction through time.
METHODS
We conducted a literature review on pre-pectoral breast reconstruction, emphasising types of cover, its outcomes, complications, and the effect of postmastectomy radiotherapy.
RESULTS
Prepectoral breast reconstruction had advanced with time and appears to be a safe and effective method of breast reconstruction and is associated with minimal morbidity whilst providing adequate cosmesis. Radiotherapy seems to be well tolerated with early favourable results. The Implant loss rates in the Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) to be around 5%-6% and rippling appear to be a common adverse effect of this technique ranging from 0%-35% in various studies.
CONCLUSION
Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has emerged as a successful method of breast reconstruction.
Keywords: Prepectoral reconstruction, Breast, Acellular dermal matrix, Synthetic mesh, Complications, Radiotherapy
References
1. Cancer Research UK. Breast Cancer Statistics, Available at: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer. Accessed: January 04, 2021.
2. Goldwyn RM. Vincenz Czerny and the beginnings of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978;61:673-681. Epub 1978/05/01.
3. Snyderman RK, Guthrie RH. Reconstruction of the female breast following radical mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1971 Jun;47(6):565-7. doi: 10.1097/00006534-197106000-00008. PMID: 5088650.
4. Vidya R, Iqbal FM. Breast anatomy: Time to classify the subpectoral and prepectoral spaces. Clin Anat 2017 May;30(4):434-435. doi: 10.1002/ca.22878. Epub 2017 Apr 8.
5. PMID: 28318062.
6. Vidya R, Ghulam H, Wild J. Breast Anatomy: The Importance of Understanding the Superficial Fascial System for Oncoplastic Dissection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019 Aug;144(2):320e.
7. Doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005814. PMID: 31348381.
8. Sabel MS. Essentials of Breast Surgery: A Volume in the Surgical Foundations Series E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2009.
9. Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140(3):432-443. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000003627.
10. D. Casella, M. Bernini, L. Bencini, et al. TiLoop® Bra mesh used for immediate breast reconstruction: comparison of retropectoral and subcutaneous implant placement in a prospective single-institution series. Eur J Plast Surg, 37 (2014), pp. 599-604
11. Reitsamer R, Peintinger F. Prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with porcine acellular dermal matrix: a new technique for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Feb;68(2):162-7. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.10.012. Epub 2014 Oct 16. P.M.I.D.: 25455288.
12. Downs RK, Hedges K. An alternative technique for immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction-a case series. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4(7): e821. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000000839.
13. Bernini M, Calabrese C, Cecconi L, et al. Subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: surgical, functional, and aesthetic results after long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 3 (2016), p. e574.
14. Caputo GG, Marchetti A, Dalla Pozza E, et al. Skin-reduction breast reconstructions with prepectoral implant. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(6):1702-1705. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002227.
15. Vidya R, Cawthorn SJ. Muscle-sparing ADM-assisted breast reconstruction technique using complete breast implant coverage: a dual-institute UK-based experience. Breast Care (Basel). 2017;12(4):251-254. doi:10.1159/000464401.
16. Vidya R, Masià J, Cawthorn S, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the prepectoral breast reconstruction with Braxon dermal matrix: first multicenter European report on 100 cases. Breast J. 2017;23(6):670-676. doi:10.1111/tbj.12810.
17. Salibian AH, Harness JK, Mowlds DS. Staged suprapectoral expander/implant reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(1):30-39. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002845.
18. Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy: short-term outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(12): e1631. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000001631
19. Nahabedian MY, Cocilovo C. Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction: a comparison between prepectoral and partial subpectoral techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6S)Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):22S-30S. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000004047.
20. Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB. et al. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a five-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 132 (5) (2013), pp. 1115-1123.
21. Jafferbhoy S, Chandarana M, Houlihan M, et al. Early multicentre experience of pre-pectoral implant based immediate breast reconstruction using Braxon®. Gland Surg. 2017;6(6):682-688. doi:10.21037/gs.2017.07.07.
22. Sbitany H, Wang F, Peled AW, et al. Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following total skin-sparing mastectomy: Defining the risk of preoperative and postoperative radiation therapy for surgical outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:396404.
23. Cancer Research UK. Breast Cancer Statistics, Available at: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer. Accessed: January 04, 2021.
24. Goldwyn RM. Vincenz Czerny and the beginnings of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978;61:673-681. Epub 1978/05/01.
25. Snyderman RK, Guthrie RH. Reconstruction of the female breast following radical mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1971 Jun;47(6):565-7. doi: 10.1097/00006534-197106000-00008. PMID: 5088650.
26. Vidya R, Iqbal FM. Breast anatomy: Time to classify the subpectoral and prepectoral spaces. Clin Anat 2017 May;30(4):434-435. doi: 10.1002/ca.22878. Epub 2017 Apr 8.
27. PMID: 28318062.
28. Vidya R, Ghulam H, Wild J. Breast Anatomy: The Importance of Understanding the Superficial Fascial System for Oncoplastic Dissection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019 Aug;144(2):320e.
29. Doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005814. PMID: 31348381.
30. Sabel MS. Essentials of Breast Surgery: A Volume in the Surgical Foundations Series E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2009.
31. Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140(3):432-443. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000003627.
32. D. Casella, M. Bernini, L. Bencini, et al. TiLoop® Bra mesh used for immediate breast reconstruction: comparison of retropectoral and subcutaneous implant placement in a prospective single-institution series. Eur J Plast Surg, 37 (2014), pp. 599-604
33. Reitsamer R, Peintinger F. Prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with porcine acellular dermal matrix: a new technique for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Feb;68(2):162-7. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.10.012. Epub 2014 Oct 16. P.M.I.D.: 25455288.
34. Downs RK, Hedges K. An alternative technique for immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction-a case series. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4(7): e821. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000000839.
35. Bernini M, Calabrese C, Cecconi L, et al. Subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: surgical, functional, and aesthetic results after long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 3 (2016), p. e574.
36. Caputo GG, Marchetti A, Dalla Pozza E, et al. Skin-reduction breast reconstructions with prepectoral implant. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(6):1702-1705. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002227.
37. Vidya R, Cawthorn SJ. Muscle-sparing ADM-assisted breast reconstruction technique using complete breast implant coverage: a dual-institute UK-based experience. Breast Care (Basel). 2017;12(4):251-254. doi:10.1159/000464401.
38. Vidya R, Masià J, Cawthorn S, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the prepectoral breast reconstruction with Braxon dermal matrix: first multicenter European report on 100 cases. Breast J. 2017;23(6):670-676. doi:10.1111/tbj.12810.
39. Salibian AH, Harness JK, Mowlds DS. Staged suprapectoral expander/implant reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(1):30-39. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002845.
40. Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy: short-term outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(12): e1631. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000001631
41. Nahabedian MY, Cocilovo C. Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction: a comparison between prepectoral and partial subpectoral techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6S)Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):22S-30S. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000004047.
42. Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB. et al. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a five-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 132 (5) (2013), pp. 1115-1123.
43. Jafferbhoy S, Chandarana M, Houlihan M, et al. Early multicentre experience of pre-pectoral implant based immediate breast reconstruction using Braxon®. Gland Surg. 2017;6(6):682-688. doi:10.21037/gs.2017.07.07.
44. Sbitany H, Wang F, Peled AW, et al. Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following total skin-sparing mastectomy: Defining the risk of preoperative and postoperative radiation therapy for surgical outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:396404.
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
