Background: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) using traditional submuscular (SM) positioning of implants versus prepectoral (PP) positioning of micropolyurethane-foam-coated implants (microthane) without further coverage. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of breast cancer patients treated by nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and IPBR in our institution during the two-year period from January 2018 to December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based on the plane of implant placement: SM versus PP. Results: 177 patients who received IPBR after NSM were included in the study; implants were positioned in a SM plane in 95 patients and in a PP plane in 82 patients. The two cohorts were similar for mean age (44 years and 47 years in the SM and PP groups, respectively) and follow-up (20 months and 16 months, respectively). The mean operative time was 70 min shorter in the PP group. No significant differences were observed in length of hospital stay or overall major complication rates. Statistically significant advantages were observed in the PP group in terms of aesthetic results, chronic pain, shoulder dysfunction, and skin sensibility (p < 0.05), as well as a trend of better outcomes for sports activity and sexual/relationship life. Cost analysis revealed that PP-IPBR was also economically advantageous over SM-IPBR. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience seems to confirm that PP positioning of a polyurethane-coated implant is a safe, reliable and effective method to perform IPBR after NSM.

Franceschini, G., Scardina, L., Di Leone, A., Terribile, D. A., Sanchez, A. M., Magno, S., D'Archi, S., Franco, A., Mason, E. J., Carnassale, B., Murando, F., Orlandi, A., Adesi, L. B., Visconti, G., Salgarello, M., Masetti, R., Immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy: Traditional subpectoral technique versus direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix, <<JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE>>, 2021; 11 (11 (2)): 1-12. [doi:10.3390/jpm11020153] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/178069]

Immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy: Traditional subpectoral technique versus direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix

Franceschini, Gianluca;Di Leone, Alba;Terribile, Daniela Andreina;Magno, Stefano;Franco, Antonio;Mason, Elena Jane;Carnassale, Beatrice;Orlandi, Armando;Visconti, Giuseppe;Salgarello, Marzia;Masetti, Riccardo
2021

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) using traditional submuscular (SM) positioning of implants versus prepectoral (PP) positioning of micropolyurethane-foam-coated implants (microthane) without further coverage. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of breast cancer patients treated by nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and IPBR in our institution during the two-year period from January 2018 to December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based on the plane of implant placement: SM versus PP. Results: 177 patients who received IPBR after NSM were included in the study; implants were positioned in a SM plane in 95 patients and in a PP plane in 82 patients. The two cohorts were similar for mean age (44 years and 47 years in the SM and PP groups, respectively) and follow-up (20 months and 16 months, respectively). The mean operative time was 70 min shorter in the PP group. No significant differences were observed in length of hospital stay or overall major complication rates. Statistically significant advantages were observed in the PP group in terms of aesthetic results, chronic pain, shoulder dysfunction, and skin sensibility (p < 0.05), as well as a trend of better outcomes for sports activity and sexual/relationship life. Cost analysis revealed that PP-IPBR was also economically advantageous over SM-IPBR. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience seems to confirm that PP positioning of a polyurethane-coated implant is a safe, reliable and effective method to perform IPBR after NSM.
2021
Inglese
Franceschini, G., Scardina, L., Di Leone, A., Terribile, D. A., Sanchez, A. M., Magno, S., D'Archi, S., Franco, A., Mason, E. J., Carnassale, B., Murando, F., Orlandi, A., Adesi, L. B., Visconti, G., Salgarello, M., Masetti, R., Immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy: Traditional subpectoral technique versus direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix, <<JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE>>, 2021; 11 (11 (2)): 1-12. [doi:10.3390/jpm11020153] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/178069]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Immediate Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction - JPM.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia file ?: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 916.31 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
916.31 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10807/178069
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 9
  • Scopus 24
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 25
social impact