The Timing of Acute and Late Complications Following Mastectomy and Implant-based Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Implant-based breast reconstruction is a common plastic surgery procedure with well-documented clinical outcomes. Despite this, the natural history and timing of key complication endpoints are not well described. The goal of this study is to determine when patients are most likely to experience specific adverse events after implant-based reconstruction. METHODS: Retrospective consecutive series of patients who received mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction over a 6-year period were included. Complications and unfavorable outcomes including hematoma, seroma, wound infection, skin flap necrosis, capsular contracture, implant rippling, and implant loss were identified. A time-to-event analysis was performed and Cox regression models identified patient and treatment characteristics associated with each outcome. RESULTS: Of 1473 patients and 2434 total reconstructed breasts, 785 complications/unfavorable outcomes were identified. The 12-month cumulative incidence of hematoma was 1.4%, seroma: 4.3%, infection: 3.2%, skin flap necrosis: 3.9%, capsular contracture: 5.7%, implant rippling: 7.1%, and implant loss: 3.9%. In the analysis, 332/785 (42.3%) complications occurred within 60 days of surgery; 94% of hematomas, 85% of skin necrosis events, and 75% of seromas occurred during this period. Half of all infections and implant losses also occurred within 60 days. Of the remaining complications, 94% of capsular contractures and 93% of implant rippling occurred >60 days from surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Complications following mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction exhibit a discrete temporal distribution. These data represent the first comprehensive study of the timing of adverse events following implant-based reconstruction. These findings are immediately useful to guide postoperative care, follow-up, and clinical trial design.

Cost analysis of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction.

With improvement in mastectomy skin flap viability and increasing recognition of animation deformity following sub-pectoral implant placement, there has been a transition toward pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. While studies have explored the cost effectiveness of implant-based breast reconstruction, few investigations have evaluated cost with respect to pre-pectoral versus sub-pectoral breast reconstruction. A retrospective review of 548 patients who underwent mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction was performed from 2017 to 2020. The demographic and surgical characteristics of the pre-pectoral and sub-pectoral cohorts were well matched, except for reconstructive staging, as patients who underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction were more likely to undergo single-stage instead of two-stage reconstruction. Comparison of institutional cost ratios by reconstructive technique revealed that the sub-pectoral approach was more costly (1.70 ± 0.44 vs 1.58 ± 0.31, p < 0.01). However, further stratification by laterality and reconstructive staging failed to demonstrate difference in cost by reconstructive technique. These results were confirmed by multivariable linear regression, which did not reveal reconstructive technique to be an independent variable for cost. This study suggests that pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is a cost-effective alternative to sub-pectoral breast reconstruction and may confer cost benefit, as it is more strongly associated with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Target coverage and cardiopulmonary sparing with the updated ESTRO-ACROP contouring guidelines for postmastectomy radiation therapy after breast reconstruction: a treatment planning study using VMAT and proton PBS techniques.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice (ESTRO-ACROP) recently released new contouring guidelines for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) after implant-based reconstruction (IBR). As compared to prior ESTRO guidelines, the new guidelines primarily redefined the chest wall (CW) target to exclude the breast prosthesis. In this study, we assessed the impact of these changes on treatment planning and dosimetric outcomes using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and proton pencil-beam scanning (PBS) therapy. METHODS: We performed a treatment planning study of 10 women with left-sided breast cancer who underwent PMRT after IBR. All target structures were delineated first using standard (ESTRO) breast contouring guidelines and then separately using the new (ESTRO-ACROP) guidelines. Standard organs-at-risk (OARs) and cardiac substructures were contoured. Four sets of plans were generated: (1) VMAT using standard ESTRO contours, (2) VMAT using new ESTRO-ACROP contours, (3) PBS using standard contours, and (4) PBS using new contours. RESULTS: VMAT plans using the new ESTRO-ACROP guidelines resulted in modest sparing of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) (mean dose: 6.99 Gy standard ESTRO vs. 6.08 Gy new ESTRO-ACROP, p = 0.010) and ipsilateral lung (V20: 21.66% vs 19.45%, p = 0.017), but similar exposure to the heart (mean dose: 4.6 Gy vs. 4.3 Gy, p = 0.513), with a trend toward higher contralateral lung (V5: 31.0% vs 35.3%, p = 0.331) and CW doses (V5: 31.9% vs 35.4%, p = 0.599). PBS plans using the new guidelines resulted in further sparing of the heart (mean dose: 1.05 Gy(RBE) vs. 0.54 Gy(RBE), p < 0.001), nearly all cardiac substructures (LAD mean dose: 2.01 Gy(RBE) vs. 0.66 Gy(RBE), p < 0.001), and ipsilateral lung (V20: 16.22% vs 6.02%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PMRT after IBR using the new ESTRO-ACROP contouring guidelines with both VMAT and PBS therapy is associated with significant changes in exposure to several cardiopulmonary structures.

Meta-analysis of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: guide to patient selection and current outcomes.

PURPOSE:  This meta-analysis provides a large-scale comparison of prepectoral vs. subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction, with primary outcomes of patient safety and efficacy. METHODS: Literature review was performed via PRISMA criteria, 33 studies met inclusion criteria for prepectoral review and 13 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Patient characteristics and per-breast complications were collected. Data were analyzed using Cochrane RevMan and IBM SPSS. RESULTS: In 4692 breasts of 3014 patients that underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction, rippling was observed as the most common complication, followed by seroma and skin flap necrosis. Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant decrease in odds of skin flap necrosis and capsular contracture in prepectoral groups compared to subpectoral groups. Odds of infection, seroma, and hematoma were equal between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has surged in popularity in recent years. This review and large-scale analysis corroborates current literature reporting a favorable safety profile with emphasis on patient selection. Variability in skin flap thickness and vascularity mandates thoughtful selection of patients whose overall health and intra-operative skin flap assessment can tolerate a muscle-sparing reconstruction.

High-Efficiency Same-Day Approach to Breast Reconstruction During the COVID-19 Crisis.

PURPOSE: As our hospitals conserve and re-allocate resources during the COVID-19 crisis, there is urgent need to determine how best to continue caring for breast cancer patients. During the time window before the COVID-19 critical peak and particularly thereafter, as hospitals are able to resume cancer operations, we anticipate that there will be great need to maximize efficiency to treat breast cancer. The goal of this study is to present a same-day protocol that minimizes resource utilization to enable hospitals to increase inpatient capacity, while providing care for breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 crisis. METHODS: IRB exempt patient quality improvement initiative was conducted to detail the operationalization of a novel same-day breast reconstruction protocol. Consecutive patients having undergone immediate breast reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between February and March of 2020 at Massachusetts General Hospital during the COVID-19 crisis. Peri-operative results and postoperative complications were summarized. RESULTS: Time interval from surgical closure to patient discharge was 5.02 ± 1.29 h. All patients were discharged home, with no re-admissions or emergency department visits. No postoperative complications were observed. CONCLUSION: This report provides an instruction manual to operationalize a same-day breast reconstruction protocol, to meet demands of providing appropriate cancer treatment during times of unprecedented resource limitations. Pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction can be the definitive procedure or be used as a bridge to autologous reconstruction. Importantly, we hope this work will be helpful to our patients and community as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic.