These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evolution of the Surgical Technique for "Breast in a Day" Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Transitioning from Dual-Plane to Prepectoral Implant Placement.
    Author: Antony AK, Poirier J, Madrigrano A, Kopkash KA, Robinson EC.
    Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg; 2019 Jun; 143(6):1547-1556. PubMed ID: 31136464.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction offers the intuitive advantages of shortening the reconstructive process and reducing costs. In the authors' practice, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction has evolved from dual-plane to prepectoral implant placement. The authors sought to understand postoperative complications and aesthetic outcomes and identify differences in the dual-plane and prepectoral direct-to-implant subcohorts. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted from November of 2014 to March of 2018. Postoperative complication data, reoperation, and aesthetic outcomes were reviewed. Aesthetic outcomes were evaluated by a blinded panel of practitioners using standardized photographs. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four direct-to-implant reconstructions were performed in 81 women: 42.5 percent were dual-plane (n = 57) and 57.5 percent were prepectoral (n = 77). Statistical analysis was limited to patients with at least 1 year of follow-up. Total complications were low overall (8 percent), although the incidence of prepectoral complications [n = 1 (2 percent)] was lower than the incidence of dual-plane complications [n = 7 (12 percent)], with the difference approaching statistical significance (p = 0.07). Panel evaluation for aesthetic outcomes favored prepectoral reconstruction. Pectoralis animation deformity was completely eliminated in the prepectoral cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The authors present the largest comparative direct-to-implant series using acellular dermal matrix to date. Transition to prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction has not resulted in increased complications, degradation of aesthetic results, or an increase in revision procedures. Prepectoral reconstruction is a viable reconstructive option with elimination of animation deformity and potential for enhanced aesthetic results. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]