Wythenshawe, Manchester, United Kingdom.
From the Nightingale Centre, University Hospital South Manchester; and the University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 May;141(5):1077-1084. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004270.
Prepectoral acellular dermal matrix-assisted immediate implant-based breast reconstruction is gaining popularity, involving complete implant coverage with acellular dermal matrix. The authors aimed to compare pain, patient-reported outcome measures (including implant rippling), and safety of prepectoral and subpectoral Strattice-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction.
Consecutive patients were recruited prospectively, having either therapeutic or risk-reducing mastectomy. Patients scored their pain three times per day for the first 7 postoperative days on a Likert scale, and completed the BREAST-Q reconstruction module 3 months postoperatively. Clinical records and the authors' prospective complications database were used to compare the early morbidity of the two procedures.
Forty patients were recruited into the study. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the prepectoral group (mean, 1.5) and the subpectoral cohort (mean, 1.5; p = 0.45) during the first 7 days. Thirty-one BREAST-Q questionnaires were returned; mean Q scores were similar for both prepectoral and subpectoral (72 and 71, respectively; p = 0.81) groups. Patients reported significantly more visible implant rippling in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (seven of 13 versus two of 17; p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in length of stay or early morbidity, with implant loss being 4.7 percent in the prepectoral group compared with 0 percent in the subpectoral group.
Early postoperative pain and quality of life at 3 months are equivalent between groups. Early experience of prepectoral implant placement with complete acellular dermal matrix coverage suggests this is safe and provides good quality of life for patients. Further studies are required to compare short- and long-term outcomes with the current standard forms of reconstruction.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
预制胸大肌前脱细胞真皮基质辅助即刻假体乳房重建术日益流行,该术式采用脱细胞真皮基质完全覆盖假体。作者旨在比较预制胸大肌前和胸大肌下 Strattice 辅助假体乳房重建术的疼痛、患者报告的结果测量(包括假体波纹)和安全性。
前瞻性连续招募接受保乳或预防性乳房切除术的患者。患者在术后 7 天内每天 3 次使用 Likert 量表评分,术后 3 个月完成 BREAST-Q 重建模块。使用临床记录和作者前瞻性并发症数据库比较两种手术的早期发病率。
该研究共纳入 40 例患者。在术后 7 天内,预制胸大肌前组(平均 1.5)和胸大肌下组(平均 1.5;p = 0.45)的疼痛评分无显著差异。共收回 31 份 BREAST-Q 问卷;预制胸大肌前组和胸大肌下组的 Q 评分均值相似(分别为 72 和 71;p = 0.81)。预制胸大肌前组报告的假体波纹可见度明显高于胸大肌下组(13 例中有 7 例,17 例中有 2 例;p = 0.02)。两组患者的住院时间和早期发病率无显著差异,预制胸大肌前组的假体丢失率为 4.7%,而胸大肌下组为 0%。
两组患者术后早期疼痛和 3 个月时的生活质量相当。预制胸大肌前假体植入术并采用完全脱细胞真皮基质覆盖的早期经验表明该方法安全,可为患者提供良好的生活质量。需要进一步研究来比较该术式与当前标准重建形式的短期和长期结果。
临床问题/证据水平: 治疗性, II 级。