Background: The use of conservative mastectomies has risen significantly during the last few years. The reconstructive choice of direct-to-implant reconstruction has become more practicable with modern mastectomy techniques. The initial trend in Italian centers was to use dual-plane hybrid reconstruction. However, a high level of complications has been registered. From 2015 onward, in our centers, a pre-pectoral approach has been adopted. The authors sought to describe the Italian trend to gradually discard the sub-pectoral technique with lower lateral pole coverage of the prosthesis using ADMs comparing it with the pre-pectoral approach with ADMs, without any muscle dissection, in terms of complication rates. Materials and Methods: A multicenter retrospective clinical study was performed from January 2010 to June 2018. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: Cases with an ADM-only coverage pre-pectoral reconstruction made up the first group (Group 1). Those with the retro-pectoral muscular position + ADM implant coverage comprised the second one (Group 2). Complications such as seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, surgical site infection, reconstruction failure, animation deformity and capsular contracture were recorded. Results: We performed 716 direct-to-implant reconstructions: 509 were partially sub-pectoral and 207 were pre-pectoral. Minimum follow-up was 1 year. Incidence of complications was higher in dual-plane reconstructions. There were statistical significant differences in the rates of seroma and hematoma. Conclusion: Using the pre-pectoral approach, the authors have experienced favorable aesthetics and superior clinical and functional outcomes. Retro-pectoral muscular ADM implant coverage has to be considered only in specific complicated second-stage surgeries. Level of Evidence V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Dual-plane retro-pectoral versus pre-pectoral DTI breast reconstruction. An Italian Multicenter experience
Losco L.;
2020-01-01
Abstract
Background: The use of conservative mastectomies has risen significantly during the last few years. The reconstructive choice of direct-to-implant reconstruction has become more practicable with modern mastectomy techniques. The initial trend in Italian centers was to use dual-plane hybrid reconstruction. However, a high level of complications has been registered. From 2015 onward, in our centers, a pre-pectoral approach has been adopted. The authors sought to describe the Italian trend to gradually discard the sub-pectoral technique with lower lateral pole coverage of the prosthesis using ADMs comparing it with the pre-pectoral approach with ADMs, without any muscle dissection, in terms of complication rates. Materials and Methods: A multicenter retrospective clinical study was performed from January 2010 to June 2018. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: Cases with an ADM-only coverage pre-pectoral reconstruction made up the first group (Group 1). Those with the retro-pectoral muscular position + ADM implant coverage comprised the second one (Group 2). Complications such as seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, surgical site infection, reconstruction failure, animation deformity and capsular contracture were recorded. Results: We performed 716 direct-to-implant reconstructions: 509 were partially sub-pectoral and 207 were pre-pectoral. Minimum follow-up was 1 year. Incidence of complications was higher in dual-plane reconstructions. There were statistical significant differences in the rates of seroma and hematoma. Conclusion: Using the pre-pectoral approach, the authors have experienced favorable aesthetics and superior clinical and functional outcomes. Retro-pectoral muscular ADM implant coverage has to be considered only in specific complicated second-stage surgeries. Level of Evidence V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
