View : 489 Download: 0

A comparative analysis between subpectoral versus prepectoral single stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction

Title
A comparative analysis between subpectoral versus prepectoral single stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction
Authors
Kim J.-H.Hong S.E.
Ewha Authors
홍승은
SCOPUS Author ID
홍승은scopus
Issue Date
2020
Journal Title
Medicina (Lithuania)
ISSN
1010-660XJCR Link
Citation
Medicina (Lithuania) vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 1 - 10
Keywords
Acellular dermal matrixBreast reconstructionPrepectoralSubpectoral
Publisher
MDPI AG
Indexed
SCIE; SCOPUS WOS scopus
Document Type
Article
Abstract
Background and objectives: Until now subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) has been the predominant form; however, it can present with pectoralis muscle contraction and animation deformity. To avoid these complications, surgeons have begun placing breast implants in the same anatomic space as the breast tissue that was removed. We report a comparative analysis of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) versus subpectoral breast reconstruction to analyze their differences. Materials and Methods: Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) performed from February 2015 to February 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We then compared the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of the two groups (prepectoral vs. subpectoral) based on the overall incidence of complications, pain scale, and the duration of drainage. Results: A total of 167 patients underwent unilateral DTI, with SBR 114 (68.3%) and PBR 53 (31.7%). Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of seroma, infection (requiring intravenous antibiotics), hematoma, and skin necrosis. Implant loss rates in the SBR 6.1% (n = 7) and PBR 9.4% (n = 5) were also not statistically significant (p = 0.99). The hemovac duration period was significantly longer in the SBR (14.93 ± 5.57 days) group than in the PBR group (11.09 ± 4.82 days) (p < 0.01). However, postoperative pain scores are similar between two groups, although it is not clear whether this was due to the effect of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia. Conclusions: A SBR is a commonly used procedure with various advantages, but there are many problems due to damage to the normal pectoralis major muscle. According to the results of our study, the PBR group had a shorter hemovac duration period compared to the SBR group, although there was no significant difference in complication rate. A PBR is a simple and safe technique allowing early discharge without increasing the incidence of long-term complications. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
DOI
10.3390/medicina56100537
Appears in Collections:
의과대학 > 의학과 > Journal papers
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

BROWSE