Superior Sensibility after Full Breast Reconstruction with Autologous Fat Transfer.

BACKGROUND: With developments in screening and treatment, survival rates of breast cancer patients are increasing, and so is the number of women opting for breast reconstruction to improve their quality of life. One factor that could play an important role in improving the quality of life is breast sensibility. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore breast sensibility in participants of the Breast Reconstruction with External Preexpansion and Autologous Fat Transfer versus Standard Therapy trial: an ongoing randomized controlled trial comparing breast reconstruction with autologous fat transfer (AFT) versus implant-based reconstruction (IBR). METHODS: This study was conducted on participants of the Breast Reconstruction with External Preexpansion and Autologous Fat Transfer versus Standard Therapy trial who were at least 12 months after final surgery. Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments were used to measure skin sensibility in breast cancer patients who underwent breast reconstruction with either AFT or IBR following their mastectomy. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were included in this study, resulting in 62 breast reconstructions (28 AFT breasts and 34 IBR breasts). Significantly higher mean monofilament values were found for skin sensibility after AFT (-0.7; P < 0.001), clinically correlating to "diminished protective function," as opposed to the IBR group, with clinical values indicating "loss of protective function." CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the authors found that breast cancer patients who underwent a mastectomy had a significantly better sensibility of the breast following AFT for total breast reconstruction as compared with IBR. Larger studies that include null measurements are required to further explore these noteworthy results of AFT. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Effect of Total Breast Reconstruction With Autologous Fat Transfer Using an Expansion Device vs Implants on Quality of Life Among Patients With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is a need for a new, less invasive breast reconstruction option for patients who undergo mastectomy in their breast cancer treatment. Objective: To investigate quality of life (QoL) among patients undergoing a new breast reconstruction technique, autologous fat transfer (AFT), compared with that among patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction (IBR). Design, Setting, and Participants: The BREAST trial was a randomized clinical trial conducted between November 2, 2015, and October 31, 2021, performed in 7 hospitals across the Netherlands. Follow-up was 12 months. Referrals could be obtained from general practitioners and all departments from participating or nonparticipating hospitals. The patients with breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy and were seeking breast reconstruction were screened for eligibility (radiotherapy history and physique) by participating plastic surgeons. Patients receiving postmastectomy radiotherapy were excluded. Interventions: Breast reconstruction with AFT plus expansion or 2-phased IBR. Randomization was done in a 1:1 ratio. Main Outcomes and Measures: The statistical analysis was performed per protocol. The predefined primary outcome was QoL at 12 months after final surgery. This was measured by the BREAST-Q questionnaire, a validated breast reconstruction surgery questionnaire. Questions on the BREAST-Q questionnaire are scored from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating greater satisfaction or better QoL (depending on the scale). Secondary outcomes were breast volume and the safety and efficacy of the techniques. Results: A total of 193 female patients (mean [SD] age, 49.2 [10.6] years) 18 years or older who desired breast reconstruction were included, of whom 91 patients in the AFT group (mean [SD] age, 49.3 [10.3] years) and 80 in the IBR group (mean age, 49.1 [11.0] years) received the allocated intervention. In total, 64 women in the AFT group and 68 women in the IBR group completed follow-up. In the IBR group, 18 patients dropped out mainly due to their aversion to implant use while in the AFT group 6 patients ended their treatment prematurely because of the burden (that is, the treatment being too heavy or tiring). The BREAST-Q scores were higher in the AFT group in all 5 domains and significantly higher in 3: satisfaction with breasts (difference, 9.9; P = .002), physical well-being: chest (difference; 7.6; P = .007), and satisfaction with outcome (difference, 7.6; P = .04). Linear mixed-effects regression analysis showed that QoL change over time was dependent on the treatment group in favor of AFT. The mean (SD) breast volume achieved differed between the groups (AFT: 300.3 [111.4] mL; IBR: 384.1 [86.6] mL). No differences in oncological serious adverse events were found. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found higher QoL and an increase in QoL scores over time in the AFT group compared with the IBR group. No evidence was found that AFT was unsafe. This is encouraging news since it provides a third, less invasive reconstruction option for patients with breast cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02339779.

Donor Site Satisfaction Following Autologous Fat Transfer for Total Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: With evolving breast cancer survival and patient preferences, it is essential that reconstructive surgeons worldwide continue searching for the best reconstruction technique for patients. Autologous fat transfer (AFT) is a relatively new technique for total breast reconstruction that has already proven to be effective and safe with all advantages of autologous tissue. However, little is known about the aesthetic results and satisfaction concerning donor sites. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to measure donor site satisfaction following AFT for total breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Between May and August of 2021, participants of the BREAST- trial who were at least 24 months after their final reconstruction surgery were invited to complete an additional survey concerning donor sites. The BODY-Q was utilized for data collection. Results of AFT patients were compared with a control group of implant-based reconstruction patients who did not have a donor site. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients (20 control, 31 intervention) completed the questionnaire. Satisfaction with body did not statistically differ between the groups. The most frequent complaint was contour irregularities (31 reports, 60.8%), with the least favorable donor site being thighs (23 reports, 53.5%) in the AFT group. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction with body did not differ between breast cancer patients receiving AFT or implant-based reconstruction, meaning that large-volume liposuction does not aesthetically affect the utilized donor sites. Nevertheless, reconstructive surgeons should be aware of possible donor site complications, especially contour irregularities at the thighs, and discuss this with their patients.

Aesthetic Evaluation of Breast Reconstruction with Autologous Fat Transfer vs. Implants.

BACKGROUND: Autologous fat transfer (AFT) seems to be a new minimal invasive method for total breast reconstruction, yet how patients, surgeons, and laymen evaluate cosmesis is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the aesthetic outcome of AFT (intervention group) for total breast reconstruction post-mastectomy, as compared to implant-based reconstruction (IBR) (control group). METHODS: A random and blinded 3D photographic aesthetic outcome study was performed on a selection of 50 patients, scored by three panels: plastic surgeons, breast cancer patients, and laymen. Secondary outcomes included agreement within groups and possible patient characteristics influencing scoring. RESULTS: Breast cancer patients and plastic surgeons did not differ in the aesthetic scores between the treatment groups. In contrast, the laymen group scored AFT patients lower than IBR patients (- 1.04, p < 0.001). Remarkably, mean given scores were low for all groups and overall agreement within groups was poor (ICC < 0.50). Higher scores were given when subjects underwent a bilateral reconstruction and if a mamilla was present. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of aesthetic outcomes varies greatly. Hence, aesthetic outcome remains a very personal measure and this emphasizes the importance of thorough patient counseling including information on achievable aesthetic results before starting a reconstructive procedure. 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 .

Donor site complications and satisfaction in autologous fat grafting for breast reconstruction: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in females worldwide. One option for total breast reconstruction following total breast amputation is autologous fat transfer (AFT). However, this is still an upcoming reconstruction technique, and little is known about the donor site complications and their influence on the patient's overall satisfaction. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to review the current literature regarding donor site complications and donor site satisfaction following AFT for total breast reconstruction. SEARCH METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, TRIP pro, and Prospero. All published original literature reporting on complications or satisfaction at the donor site in patients who underwent liposuction, followed by high-volume lipofilling was considered. MAIN RESULTS: This systematic review resulted in the inclusion of 21 cohort studies, consisting of 2241 participants. None of the studies reported donor site satisfaction scores of any kind. The most frequently reported donor site complication was ecchymosis (268 cases), followed by pain (122 cases), haematoma (58 cases), irregularities (12 cases), burns (four cases), and infection (three cases). Reports on follow-up and management of donor site complications were generally lacking. AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: Results regarding the donor site are inconclusive. Pre-specified complications, a standardized manner of reporting, long-term follow-up, and patient-reported outcome measures are lacking in most of the studies. The impact of the donor site on quality of life after autologous fat grafting in breast reconstruction remains a blind spot. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020222870.