From the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; Twin Cities Plastic Surgery; Section of Plastic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University College of Medicine-Inova Branch; and the National Center for Plastic Surgery.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021 May 1;147(5):743e-748e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007885.
Prepectoral reconstruction using prosthetic devices has demonstrated a notable increase in popularity and confers a number of advantages over subpectoral placement, including minimal animation, no pain secondary to muscle spasm, and less device displacement or malposition. As such, more women with implants in the dual-plane position are seeking a remedy for animation deformities, chronic pain caused by muscle spasm, and implant malposition. The purpose of this study was to review outcomes following the conversion from subpectoral to prepectoral implant placement.
This was a retrospective review of 63 patients who underwent breast implant conversion from the subpectoral plane to the prepectoral plane from 2009 to 2019.
A total of 73 implant pocket conversions from subpectoral to prepectoral were performed on 41 women who met inclusion criteria for this study. The mean time interval from the initial subpectoral operation to the prepectoral conversion was 1608.4 days. The reasons cited for prepectoral conversion was animation deformity (87.8 percent), significant levels of pain related to the implant (34.1 percent), capsular contracture (26.8 percent), or asymmetries and implant displacements (9.8 percent); 7.8 percent of individuals continued to experience their presenting symptom after plane conversion. Rippling and wrinkling were noted in 19.5 percent of individuals and edge visibility was documented in 4.9 percent. Complication rates were low, and no patients experienced necrosis of the mastectomy flap or nipple-areola complex.
The use of prepectoral conversion for revision implant-based breast reconstruction successfully resolves animation deformity. This technique can be reliably and safely performed in a variety of patient demographics.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
使用假体进行胸肌前重建已经显示出明显的普及,与胸肌下放置相比具有许多优势,包括最小的运动、无肌肉痉挛引起的疼痛以及较少的器械移位或错位。因此,更多双平面植入物的女性正在寻求解决运动畸形、肌肉痉挛引起的慢性疼痛和植入物错位的方法。本研究的目的是回顾从胸肌下到胸肌前植入物位置转换后的结果。
这是一项回顾性研究,对 2009 年至 2019 年期间 63 名接受乳房植入物从胸肌下平面转换为胸肌前平面的患者进行了回顾。
共有 41 名符合本研究纳入标准的女性进行了 73 次从胸肌下到胸肌前的植入物口袋转换。从初始胸肌下手术到胸肌前转换的平均时间间隔为 1608.4 天。胸肌前转换的原因是运动畸形(87.8%)、与植入物相关的明显疼痛程度(34.1%)、包膜挛缩(26.8%)或不对称和植入物移位(9.8%);9.8%的人在平面转换后继续出现其主要症状。19.5%的人出现波纹和皱纹,4.9%的人出现边缘可见度。并发症发生率低,没有患者发生乳房切除术皮瓣或乳头乳晕复合体坏死。
使用胸肌前转换进行修复植入物乳房重建成功解决了运动畸形。这种技术可以在各种患者人群中可靠和安全地进行。
临床问题/证据水平:治疗性,IV。