Evaluation of capsular contracture following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction

Nikhil Sobti, Rachel E Weitzman, Kassandra P Nealon, Rachel B Jimenez, Lisa Gfrerer, David Mattos, Richard J Ehrlichman, Michele Gadd, Michelle Specht, William G Austen, Eric C Liao, Nikhil Sobti, Rachel E Weitzman, Kassandra P Nealon, Rachel B Jimenez, Lisa Gfrerer, David Mattos, Richard J Ehrlichman, Michele Gadd, Michelle Specht, William G Austen, Eric C Liao

Abstract

Capsular contracture is a common adverse outcome following implant breast reconstruction, often associated with radiation treatment. The authors hypothesize that muscle fibrosis is the main contributor of breast reconstruction contracture after radiation. Retrospective chart review identified patients that underwent DTI reconstruction with pre-or post-operative breast irradiation. Signs of capsular contracture were assessed using clinic notes and independent graders reviewing two-dimensional images and anatomic landmarks. Capsular contracture rate was greater in the subpectoral vs. prepectoral group (n = 28, 51.8% vs. n = 12, 30.0%, p = 0.02). When compared to prepectoral DTI reconstruction in irradiated patients, subpectoral implant placement was nearly 4 times as likely to result in capsular contracture (p < 0.01). Rates of explantation, infection, tissue necrosis, and hematoma were comparable between groups. We also found that when subpectoral patients present with breast contracture, chemoparalysis of the muscle alone can resolve breast asymmetry, corroborating that muscle is a key contributor to breast contracture. As prepectoral breast reconstruction is gaining popularity, there have been questions regarding outcome following radiation treatment. This study suggest that prepectoral breast reconstruction is safe in an irradiated patient population, and in fact compares favorably with regard to breast contracture.

Conflict of interest statement

E.C.L. has consultant agreements with, but is explicitly not a speaker for, Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation and Allergan Inc., manufacturers of FlexHD and AlloDerm, respectively. The other authors declares no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bilateral subpectoral DTI breast reconstruction. Patient images capture signs of capsular contracture following subpectoral implant placement and breast irradiation. Patient example (row 1) received pre-operative irradiation therapy on the right breast, where breast location remained consistent with no evidence of capsular contracture. Patient example (row 2) underwent PMRT on the right breast, with no evidence of breast mound elevation or implant deformity at 3-month follow-up post breast irradiation. Patient example (row 3) with image evidence of capsular contracture demonstrated progressive elevation of the left breast. Elevation of the nipple relative to the inframammary fold can be observed concurrent with apparent breast mound rigidity, which suggests capsular contracture. Similarly, the patient image (bottom row) demonstrated elevation of the nipple and breast mound on the irradiated side compared to the contralateral, non-irradiated side. Breast asymmetry and limited prosthesis deformity were observed following subpectoral DTI breast reconstruction when compared to the control (upper rows).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bilateral prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction. Implant placement in the prepectoral space confers superior aesthetic result without significant prosthesis deformity or implant elevation, as evidenced by favorable nipple position relative to the inframammary fold and apparent breast symmetry. The top two patients did not exhibit signs of capsular contracture, but the bottom patient who had a tighter skin envelope on the right breast without nipple sparing, did show signs of capsular contracture. Importantly, skin dimpling or creasing is usually not observed in contracted prepectoral breast reconstruction, which suggests significant contribution by the pectoralis major muscle to breast mound deformity.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Change in implant positioning in subpectoral breast reconstruction following induction of generalized anesthesia. Relaxation of the pectoralis major muscle allows for descent of the implant from the superior margin of the mastectomy space and alignment along the inframammary fold, conferring a more natural breast shape and contour.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Change in breast form following post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). Panels (A–C) depict implant positioning relative to pectoralis major muscle in subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction in patients who did not undergo post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). Skeletal muscle fibrosis (panels D–F) is associated with PMRT and often results in the following clinical signs after subpectoral breast reconstruction: (I) superolateral displacement of nipple areolar complex, (II) dimpling or creasing of the soft tissue envelope at the level of the pectoralis major muscle, (III) flattening of inferior pole projection, and (IV) axillary fold crease.

References

    1. McPherson K, Steel CM, Dixon JM. ABC of breast diseases: Breast cancer-epidemiology, risk factors, and genetics. BMJ. 2000;321:624–628. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7261.624.
    1. Albornoz CR, et al. Implant breast reconstruction and radiation: a multicenter analysis of long-term health-related quality of life and satisfaction. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2014;21:2159–2164. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3483-2.
    1. Roostaeian J, Adams WP., Jr. Three-Dimensional Imaging for Breast Augmentation: Is This Technology Providing Accurate Simulations? Aesthet. Surg. J. 2014;34:857–875. doi: 10.1177/1090820X14538805.
    1. Davila AA, et al. Immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstruction compared with one-stage permanent implant breast reconstruction: a multi-institutional comparison of short-term complications. J. Plast. Surg. Hand Surg. 2013;47:344–349. doi: 10.3109/2000656X.2013.767202.
    1. Sobti N, et al. Evaluation of Acellular Dermal Matrix Efficacy in Prosthesis-Based Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2018;141:541–549. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004109.
    1. Ter Louw RP, Nahabedian MY. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017;140:51S–59S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003942.
    1. Vardanian AJ, et al. Comparison of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011;128:403e–410e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31822b6637.
    1. Reitsamer R, Peintinger F. Prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with porcine acellular dermal matrix: a new technique for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2015;68:162–167. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.10.012.
    1. Harless C, Jacobson SR. Current strategies with 2-staged prosthetic breast reconstruction. Gland. Surg. 2015;4:204–211.
    1. Kobraei EM, Cauley R, Gadd M, Austen WG, Jr., Liao EC. Avoiding Breast Animation Deformity with Pectoralis-Sparing Subcutaneous Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open. 2016;4:e708. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000681.
    1. Gabriel A, Maxwell GP. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction in Challenging Patients. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017;140:14S–21S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004046.
    1. Bernini M, et al. Subcutaneous Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Surgical, Functional, and Aesthetic Results after Long-Term Follow-Up. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open. 2015;3:e574. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000533.
    1. Walia GS, et al. Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes Study. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open. 2018;6:e1731. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001731.
    1. Nahabedian MY, Cocilovo C. Two-Stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Prepectoral and Partial Subpectoral Techniques. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017;140:22S–30S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004047.
    1. Momoh AO, et al. A systematic review of complications of implant-based breast reconstruction with prereconstruction and postreconstruction radiotherapy. Ann. surgical oncology. 2014;21:118–124. doi: 10.1245/s10434-013-3284-z.
    1. Ohri N, et al. Trends and variations in postmastectomy radiation therapy for breast cancer in patients with 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes: A National Cancer Data Base analysis. Cancer. 2018;124:482–490. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31080.
    1. Nelson JA, Disa JJ. Breast Reconstruction and Radiation Therapy: An Update. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017;140:60S–68S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003943.
    1. Rosato RM, Dowden RV. Radiation therapy as a cause of capsular contracture. Ann. Plast. Surg. 1994;32:342–345. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199404000-00002.
    1. Kearney AM, Brown MS, Soltanian HT. Timing of radiation and outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2015;68:1719–1726. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.08.034.
    1. Mioton LM, Gaido J, Small W, Jr., Fine NA, Kim JY. Differences in breast aesthetic outcomes due to radiation: A validated, quantitative analysis of expander-implant reconstruction. Can. J. Plast. Surg. 2013;21:73–77. doi: 10.1177/229255031302100206.
    1. Ricci JA, et al. A meta-analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction and timing of adjuvant radiation therapy. J. Surg. Res. 2017;218:108–116. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.072.
    1. Pu Y, Mao TC, Zhang YM, Wang SL, Fan DL. The role of postmastectomy radiation therapy in patients with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction: A meta-analysis. Medicine. 2018;97:e9548. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009548.
    1. Elswick SM, et al. Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2018;142:1–12. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004453.
    1. Sigalove S, et al. Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction and Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: Short-Term Outcomes. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open. 2017;5:e1631. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001631.
    1. Cattelani, L. et al. One-Step Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction With Dermal Matrix-Covered Implant Compared to Submuscular Implantation: Functional and Cost Evaluation. Clin Breast Cancer. (2017).
    1. Bettinger LN, Waters LM, Reese SW, Kutner SE, Jacobs DI. Comparative Study of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction and Clavien IIIb Score Outcomes. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open. 2017;5:e1433. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001433.
    1. Highton L, Johnson R, Kirwan C, Murphy J. Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open. 2017;5:e1488. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001488.
    1. Gillette EL, Mahler PA, Powers BE, Gillette SM, Vujaskovic Z. Late radiation injury to muscle and peripheral nerves. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1995;31:1309–1318. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(94)00422-H.
    1. Sbitany H, Gomez-Sanchez C, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy: An Assessment of Clinical Outcomes and Benefits. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2019;143:10–20. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005140.
    1. Sinnott, C. J. et al. Impact of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol (2018).
    1. Gfrerer L, Liao EC. Technique Refinement in Prepectoral Implant Breast Reconstruction with Vicryl Mesh Pocket and Acellular Dermal Matrix Support. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open. 2018;6:e1749. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001749.
    1. Nahabedian MY, Spear SL. Acellular dermal matrix for secondary procedures following prosthetic breast reconstruction. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2011;31:38S–50S. doi: 10.1177/1090820X11418093.
    1. Spear SL, Seruya M, Clemens MW, Teitelbaum S, Nahabedian MY. Acellular dermal matrix for the treatment and prevention of implant-associated breast deformities. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011;127:1047–1058. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820436af.
    1. Tessler O, Reish RG, Maman DY, Smith BL, Austen WG., Jr. Beyond biologics: absorbable mesh as a low-cost, low-complication sling for implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2014;133:90e–99e. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000437253.55457.63.
    1. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Stat. Sci. 2010;25:1–21. doi: 10.1214/09-STS313.
    1. Adkinson JM, Miller NF, Murphy RX., Jr. Neurectomy for breast reconstruction-related spasms of the pectoralis major muscle. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2014;67:257–259. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2013.06.025.
    1. Sbitany H. Important Considerations for Performing Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017;140:7S–13S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004045.
    1. Brown RH, Siy R, Khan K, Izaddoost S. The Superomedial Pedicle Wise-Pattern Breast Reduction: Reproducible, Reliable, and Resilient. Semin. Plast. Surg. 2015;29:94–101. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1549052.
    1. Garcia-Etienne CA, Cody Iii HS, 3rd, Disa JJ, Cordeiro P, Sacchini V. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: initial experience at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and a comprehensive review of literature. Breast J. 2009;15:440–449. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00758.x.
    1. Paepke S, et al. Subcutaneous mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola skin: broadening the indications. Ann. Surg. 2009;250:288–292. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b0c7d8.
    1. Rawlani V, et al. The effect of incision choice on outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy reconstruction. Can. J. Plast. Surg. 2011;19:129–133. doi: 10.1177/229255031101900410.
    1. Spear SL, Hannan CM, Willey SC, Cocilovo C. Nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009;123:1665–1673. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181a64d94.
    1. Spear SL, Baker JL., Jr. Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1995;96:1119–1123. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199510000-00018.
    1. Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O’Connor EA. Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2015;135:1540–1544. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001277.
    1. Nava MB, et al. Outcome of different timings of radiotherapy in implant-based breast reconstructions. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011;128:353–359. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31821e6c10.
    1. Hvilsom GB, et al. Delayed breast implant reconstruction: is radiation therapy associated with capsular contracture or reoperations? Ann. Plast. Surg. 2012;68:246–252. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318214e69c.
    1. McGuire P, Reisman NR, Murphy DK. Risk Factor Analysis for Capsular Contracture, Malposition, and Late Seroma in Subjects Receiving Natrelle 410 Form-Stable Silicone Breast Implants. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017;139:1–9. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002837.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa