Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Prepectoral vs Submuscular Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple Sparing Mastectomy

Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Prepectoral vs Submuscular Breast Reconstruction... Background: Preprectoral breast reconstruction and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have both risen in popularity due to advances in reconstructive techniques. However, it is unknown whether exposed lactiferous ducts in a NSM may increase the risk for infection after prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. We aimed to assess complication rates and BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being of the Chest (PWBC) scores in patients who underwent NSM and implant-based breast reconstruction in a prepectoral vs. submuscular plane. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent NSM with two-stage implant-based reconstruction from 2013-2023. Patients were grouped by prepectoral or submuscular placement. Post-operative complications and BREAST-Q scores were assessed after surgery. Results: 693 patients were included; 345 underwent prepectoral and 348 underwent submuscular reconstruction. Surgical site infection occurred in 10% of prepectoral patients and 5.7% of submuscular patients (p=0.03). Seroma occurred in 15% of prepectoral patients and 6.6% submuscular patients (p<0.001). Multivariable analysis showed prepectoral patients had significantly increased odds of developing surgical site infection and seroma compared to submuscular patients (Odds ratio [OR] 1.87, p=0.04 and OR 2.52, p<0.001, respectively). However, prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly higher BREAST-Q PWBC scores as compared to submuscular implant placement (β=3.4, p=0.01). Conclusions: Prepectoral reconstruction following NSM is associated with higher rates of surgical site infection and seroma but improved physical well-being of the chest compared to submuscular implant placement following NSM. An increased risk of infection and seroma should be weighed against improved patient-reported outcomes when deciding on implant plane placement after NSM. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Wolters Kluwer Health

Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Prepectoral vs Submuscular Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple Sparing Mastectomy

Download PDF
30 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters-kluwer-health/complications-and-patient-reported-outcomes-in-prepectoral-vs-m3QK7Y0715

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wolters Kluwer Health
Copyright
Copyright © 2025 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons
ISSN
1529-4242
eISSN
0032-1052
DOI
10.1097/prs.0000000000012096
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background: Preprectoral breast reconstruction and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have both risen in popularity due to advances in reconstructive techniques. However, it is unknown whether exposed lactiferous ducts in a NSM may increase the risk for infection after prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. We aimed to assess complication rates and BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being of the Chest (PWBC) scores in patients who underwent NSM and implant-based breast reconstruction in a prepectoral vs. submuscular plane. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent NSM with two-stage implant-based reconstruction from 2013-2023. Patients were grouped by prepectoral or submuscular placement. Post-operative complications and BREAST-Q scores were assessed after surgery. Results: 693 patients were included; 345 underwent prepectoral and 348 underwent submuscular reconstruction. Surgical site infection occurred in 10% of prepectoral patients and 5.7% of submuscular patients (p=0.03). Seroma occurred in 15% of prepectoral patients and 6.6% submuscular patients (p<0.001). Multivariable analysis showed prepectoral patients had significantly increased odds of developing surgical site infection and seroma compared to submuscular patients (Odds ratio [OR] 1.87, p=0.04 and OR 2.52, p<0.001, respectively). However, prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly higher BREAST-Q PWBC scores as compared to submuscular implant placement (β=3.4, p=0.01). Conclusions: Prepectoral reconstruction following NSM is associated with higher rates of surgical site infection and seroma but improved physical well-being of the chest compared to submuscular implant placement following NSM. An increased risk of infection and seroma should be weighed against improved patient-reported outcomes when deciding on implant plane placement after NSM.

Journal

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery – Wolters Kluwer Health

Published: Mar 17, 2025

There are no references for this article.