Preservation of the Pectoral Fascia in Mastectomy With Immediate Reconstruction: A Nationwide Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Pectoral fascia (PF) removal during mastectomy still seems to be the standard procedure. However, preservation of the PF might improve postoperative and cosmetic outcomes, without compromising oncological safety. Here, we report on a national survey among Dutch plastic surgeons and oncological breast surgeons to evaluate their techniques and opinions regarding the PF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey based study was performed in the Netherlands, in which both plastic surgeons and oncological breast surgeons were included, each receiving a different version of the survey. The surveys were distributed to 460 and 150 e-mail addresses, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 68 responses were included from more than half of all Dutch medical centers. The results of this study indicate that circa one in five plastic surgeons and breast surgeons routinely preserve the PF during mastectomies and even more surgeons preserve the PF in specific cases. The surgical techniques and opinions regarding PF preservation widely differ between surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Preservation of the PF does occur in a substantial part of the Dutch medical centers and techniques and opinions are contradictory. Future studies on this topic should clarify the effect of PF preservation on oncological safety, complication rates, postoperative pain, cosmetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction.

Pectoral Fascia Preservation in Oncological Mastectomy to Reduce Complications and Improve Reconstructions: A Systematic Review.

Excision of the pectoral fascia (PF) is routinely performed in oncological mastectomies. Preservation of the PF may, however, decrease postoperative complication rates for bleeding, infections, and seroma. It may also improve reconstructive outcomes by better prosthesis coverage, thereby reducing implant extrusion rates and improving cosmetic outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis principles was performed. Studies describing PF preservation were searched in 3 databases. All studies including more than 10 patients were included. The main outcomes were oncological safety (local recurrence, regional and distant metastases, and mortality rates), complication rates (bleeding, infections, seroma), loss of the prosthesis after reconstructive surgery, and cosmetic outcomes following reconstruction. RESULTS: Five studies were included. Three reported on 2 different randomized controlled trials (n = 73, and n = 244), and 2 studies were retrospective case series (n = 203 and n = 256). PF preservation did not affect oncological outcomes in terms of local recurrences, regional and distant metastases, or mortality rates. One study described a significantly lower incidence of seroma in the PF preservation group. No differences were found for bleeding complications and infections. No objective data were provided for reconstructive complications or cosmetic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on PF preservation is scarce. Based on the current evidence, PF preservation seems oncologically safe while potentially reducing postoperative complication rates. It is expected that reconstructive outcomes will benefit from PF preservation, but these studies lack evidence on this topic. Future studies should provide insight into all aspects of PF preservation.

A systematic review of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: current weaknesses and future prospects.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of this systematic review on oncoplastic breast surgery (OPBS) were to evaluate the oncological and cosmetic outcomes of OPBS. The secondary objectives were to assess morbidity, quality of life, and applied algorithms. BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving therapy (BCT) has become the standard of care, and survival is now excellent. Consequently, the focus of BCT has increasingly shifted to cosmetic outcome, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Nonetheless, excision of certain tumors still presents a considerable challenge. Specialized approaches combining oncological surgery and plastic surgery techniques are collectively referred to as OPBS. A summary of OPBS outcomes would facilitate decision-making and best treatment selection by both clinicians and patients. METHODS: Using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria to analyze 2090 abstracts on the topic of OPBS published between 2000 and 2011, the authors evaluated each study with respect to design and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 88 articles were identified for potential inclusion and reviewed in detail by the lead authors. No randomized controlled trials were identified. Eleven prospective observational or comparative studies fulfilled inclusion criteria and were selected. In these studies, 80% to 93% of the tumors were invasive. Tumor-free resection margins were observed in 78% to 93%, resulting in a 3% to 16% mastectomy rate. Local recurrence was observed in 0% to 7% of the patients. Good cosmetic outcome was obtained in 84% to 89% of patients. However, most studies showed significant weaknesses including lack of robust design and important methodological shortcomings, negatively influencing generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review reveals that current evidence supporting the efficacy of OPBS is based on poorly designed and underpowered studies. Given the increasing importance and application of OPBS, there is a pressing need for robust comparative studies, including both randomized controlled trials and well-designed, multicenter prospective longitudinal studies.