Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Staged Suprapectoral Expander/Implant Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

Salibian, Arthur H. M.D.; Harness, Jay K. M.D.; Mowlds, Donald S. M.D., M.B.A.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: January 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 1 - p 30-39
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002845
Breast: Original Articles
Buy

Background: Since the introduction of nipple-sparing mastectomy as an oncologically safe procedure for the treatment of breast cancer, reconstructive efforts for immediate staged expander/implant reconstruction have focused on submuscular implantation with or without acellular dermal matrix. Suprapectoral reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix has received little attention in the reconstructive literature of nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Methods: Between 2005 and 2015, 155 patients (250 breasts) underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with prepectoral staged expander/implant reconstruction using thick mastectomy skin flaps without acellular dermal matrix. Patients with different breast sizes, including those patients with very large breasts who required a primary mastopexy, were considered candidates for the suprapectoral reconstruction. Tumor-related data, comorbidities, and preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy were evaluated for correlation with the final outcome.

Results: Patients were followed up for an average of 55.5 months (range, 138.1 to 23.6 months). The tumor recurrence rate was 2.6 percent. Adverse outcomes such as capsular contracture, implant dystopia, and rippling were studied. Aesthetic outcome, based on a three-point evaluation scale, showed 53.6 percent of patients as having a very good result, 31.6 percent showing a good result, 9 percent showing a fair result, and 5.8 percent showing a poor result.

Conclusions: The suprapectoral two-stage expander/implant reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix in nipple-sparing mastectomy has certain advantages with respect to breast shape, less morbidity related to expansion, ease of reconstruction, and cost effectiveness. These advantages have to be weighed against those of subpectoral reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix to determine the method of choice.

CLINCAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Orange, Calif.

From St. Joseph Hospital and the Departments of Plastic Surgery and Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center.

Received for publication February 25, 2016; accepted August 8, 2016.

Disclosure:None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products or devices mentioned in this article.

Arthur H. Salibian, M.D., 1310 Stewart Drive, Suite 211, Orange, Calif. 92868, salibianplastic@gmail.com

Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons