The Risk of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is an emerging disorder that has gained global attention throughout the past era. The present meta-analysis was performed to retrieve the risk of BIA-ALCL from population-based epidemiological studies. Factors associated with BIA-ALCL were evaluated to identify patients at higher risk of BIA-ALCL. METHODS: A systematic literature search was executed throughout 12 databases. All epidemiological studies encompassing patients with breast implants either for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes and reported the risk of BIA-ALCL were included. Studies reported the risk factors of BIA-ALCL were included. RESULTS: The present meta-analysis included 17 articles, encompassing 525,475 patients with breast implants. There were 254 patients with BIA-ALCL with a mean duration to the diagnosis of BIA-ALCL of 13.16 years (95% CI 11.7-14.6, P < 0.001). There were 44 patients with textured breast implants and two with smooth implants. Patients with breast implants were 28.86 times more at high risk of BI-ALCL (95% CI 3.123-266.681). The risk ranged from 0 to 1 per 1000 cases with breast implants, with a similar risk among patients seeking aesthetic and reconstructive surgeries. The risk was 0 to 1 case per 1000 cases among patients with textured breast implants. There was a significant association between the history of breast cancer and BIA-ALCL (P = 0.0016). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirmed the association between breast implants and ALCL. There was a similar risk of BIA-ALCL among patients with aesthetic or reconstructive surgeries. Patients with a history of breast cancer were at higher risk of BIA-ALCL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .

Surgical outcomes of robotic versus conventional autologous breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Breast reconstruction is an integral part of breast cancer management. Conventional techniques of flap harvesting for autologous breast reconstruction are associated with considerable complications. Robotic surgery has enabled a new spectrum of minimally invasive breast surgeries. The current systematic review and meta-analysis study was designed to retrieve the surgical and clinical outcomes of robotic versus conventional techniques for autologous breast reconstruction. An extensive systematic literature review was performed from inception to 25 April 2023. All clinical studies comparing the outcomes of robotic and conventional autologous breast reconstruction were included for meta-analysis. The present meta-analysis included seven articles consisting of 783 patients. Of them, 263 patients received robotic breast reconstruction, while 520 patients received conventional technique. Of note, 477 patients received latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) and 306 were subjected to deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap. There was a significantly prolonged duration of surgery (MD 58.36;95% CI 32.05,84.67;P < 0.001) and duration of anaesthesia (MD 47;95% CI 16.23,77.77;P = 0.003) among patients who underwent robotic surgery. There was a similar risk of complications between robotic and conventional surgeries. The mean level of pain intensity was significantly lower among patients who received robotic breast surgery (MD- 0.28;95% CI - 0.73,0.17; P = 0.22). There was prolonged length of hospitalization among patients with conventional DIEP flap surgery (MD- 0.59;95% CI - 1.13,- 0.05;P = 0.03). The present meta-analysis highlighted the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of robotic autologous breast reconstruction. This included the successful harvesting of LDF and DIEP flap with acceptable surgical and functional outcomes.

The Impact of Botulinum Toxin Injection on the Outcomes of Breast Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast surgeries aim to restore the natural appearance of the breasts with acceptable functional and cosmetic outcomes. However, these surgical procedures may be associated with considerable adverse events. The present systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to reveal the functional and aesthetic outcomes of botulinum toxins (BTX) injection in patients subjected to breast surgeries. METHODS: A literature review was performed up to 21 September 2022. All clinical studies included patients older than 18 years old and treated with BTX injection for breast surgeries were included. RESULTS: The present study included 12 articles, encompassing 496 patients. The average dosage of BTX injection ranged from 20 to 100 units. Injecting BTX significantly reduced the mean post-operative opioid analgesics usage (SMD -1.577; 95% -2.087, -1.067; P < 0.001) and the risk of severe animation deformity (RR 12.37; 95% 1.76, 86.66; P = 0.01). There was a statistically significant higher mean expansion volume per visit in the BTX injection group (SMD 1.166; 95% 0.313, 2.018; P = 0.007). There was no statistically significant impact of BTX injection on the risk of surgical site infection (RR 0.59; 95% 0.15, 2.34; P = 0.45) and seroma (RR 0.51; 95% 0.03, 10.15; P = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The present study revealed the potential benefits of BTX injection in breast surgeries. This included reduced post-operative analgesics, as well as the risk of severe animation deformity. This was accomplished with increased expansion volume per visit and a similar risk of BTX injection-related complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .

The Impact of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on the Outcomes of Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is the mainstay treatment choice for patients subjected to a mastectomy. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is deemed to be a promising alternative to subpectoral reconstruction. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is necessary for locoregional recurrence control and to improve the disease-free survival rate in locally advanced breast cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was designed to reveal the surgical, aesthetic, and oncological outcomes of prepectoral IBBR after PMRT. METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed from inception to March 28, 2022. All clinical studies that included patients who were subjected to prepectoral IBBR and PMRT were included. Studies that included patients who received radiation therapy before prepectoral IBBR were excluded. RESULTS: This systematic review included six articles encompassing 1234 reconstructed breasts. Of them, 391 breasts were subjected to PMRT, while 843 breasts were not subjected. Irradiated breasts were more susceptible to develop wound infection (RR 2.49; 95% 1.43, 4.35; P = 0.001) and capsular contracture (RR 5.17; 95% 1.93, 13.80; P = 0.001) than the non-irradiated breasts. Furthermore, irradiated breasts were more vulnerable to losing implants (RR 2.89; 95% 1.30, 6.39; P = 0.009) than the non-irradiated breast. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the risk of implant extrusion (RR 1.88; 95% 0.20, 17.63; P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prepectorally IBBR and PMRT were more vulnerable to developing poor outcomes. This included a higher risk of breast-related and implant-related adverse events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .

The Impact of Aeroform Tissue Expanders on the Outcomes of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction can improve the quality of patients' lives by restoring the breasts' natural appearance. Saline-based tissue expanders are associated with significant drawbacks. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to reveal the usability, safety, and economic burden of AeroForm-based tissue expanders for breast reconstruction. METHODS: An extensive systematic literature review was implemented from inception to 9 December 2021. All clinical studies that included women with breast cancer subjected to AeroForm-based tissue expansion for breast reconstruction were included in the study. RESULTS: This systematic review included eleven articles consisting of 748 patients. There were 1220 reconstructed breasts in which 530 (43.44%) breasts were reconstructed using AeroForm devices. AeroForm-based tissue expanders were associated with shorter duration to complete breast expansion (MD-35.22; 95% -46.65, -23.78;P<0.001) and complete reconstruction (MD-30.511; 95% -54.659, -6.636;P=0.013). The overall satisfaction rate of the aesthetic results of the AeroForm expanders was 81.4% (95%CI; 60.3% to 92.6%,P=0.006) and 64.6% (95%CI; 53.8% to 74%,P=0.008) for patients and surgeons. Patients subjected to saline-based breast reconstruction were 1.17 times at high risk to develop breast-related adverse events (RR1.17; 95% 0.86, 1.58; P=0.31). This includes a high risk of mastectomy flap necrosis (RR1.91; 95% 1.03, 3.55;P=0.04) and post-operative wound infection (RR 1.63; 95% 0.91, 2.91;P=0.1). CONCLUSION: AeroForm-based tissue expanders represent a new era of breast reconstruction. These devices provided an earlier transition to exchange for the permanent implant with a convenient and comfortable expansion process. This was associated with a high satisfaction rate for patients and surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .