RESUMO
Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) presents unique benefits and challenges. The literature has compared outcomes among total submuscular (TSM), dual-plane (DP), and prepectoral (PP) planes; however, a dedicated meta-analysis relevant to NSM is lacking. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies on immediate breast reconstruction after NSM using TSM, DP, or PP prosthesis placement in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. In total, 1317 unique articles were identified, of which 49 were included in the systematic review and six met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Pooled descriptive outcomes were analyzed for each cohort for all 49 studies. Fixed-effects meta-analytic methods were used to compare PP with subpectoral (TSM and DP) reconstructions. Results: A total of 1432 TSM, 1546 DP, and 1668 PP reconstructions were identified for descriptive analysis. Demographics were similar between cohorts. Pooled descriptive outcomes demonstrated overall similar rates of reconstructive failure (3.3%-5.1%) as well as capsular contracture (0%-3.9%) among cohorts. Fixed-effects meta-analysis of six comparative studies demonstrated a significantly lower rate of mastectomy flap necrosis in the PP cohort compared with the subpectoral cohort (relative risk 0.24, 95% confidence interval [0.08-0.74]). All other consistently reported outcomes, including, hematoma, seroma, infection, mastectomy flap necrosis, nipple -areola complex necrosis, and explantation were comparable. Conclusions: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis demonstrated the safety of immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction after NSM, compared with submuscular techniques. Submuscular reconstruction had a higher risk of mastectomy flap necrosis, though potentially influenced by selection bias.
RESUMO
Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are commonly used in prepectoral breast reconstruction. However, ADM is associated with high cost and potentially infection and seroma. Comparative studies on prepectoral reconstruction with and without ADM are limited to small, single-institution series. The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of prepectoral reconstruction with and without ADM. A systematic literature review was performed to identify studies comparing prepectoral reconstruction with and without ADM using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Pooled rates of patient demographics and outcomes were analyzed. Meta-analytic effect size estimates were calculated for reconstructive complications in studies comparing reconstruction with and without ADM. In total, 515 reconstructions from four studies were included. Most cases were nipple-sparing mastectomies and utilized tissue-expander reconstructions. Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the rate of complications between cohorts with and without ADM. Short-term complications included reconstructive failure (1.2% in ADM cohort and 2.8% in no-ADM), seroma (1.2% and 8.3%, respectively), hematoma (1.2% and 2.1%), infection (4.7% and 4.2%), and mastectomy flap ischemia and/or necrosis (2.4% and 5.2%). Long-term complications included rippling (3.3% in ADM and 5.1% in no-ADM cohorts) and capsular contracture (6.8% and 3.4%, respectively). This meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in the rate of complications between cases with and without ADM. However, the outcomes data from no-ADM reconstruction mostly reflect robust mastectomy flaps. Surgeon discretion as informed by specific clinical scenarios should guide decisions regarding the use of ADM in prepectoral breast reconstruction.
