Comparing Direct-to-Implant and Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction in the Australian Breast Device Registry.

BACKGROUND

There remains a lack of clarity surrounding the benefits, risks, and outcomes between two-stage expander/implant reconstruction and single-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction. This study used a national data set to examine real-world outcomes of two-stage and DTI reconstructions.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted examining patients in the Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) from 2015 to 2018 who underwent prosthetic breast reconstruction following mastectomy. DTI and two-stage cohorts after definitive implant insertion were compared. Rate of revision surgery, reasons for revision, and patient-reported outcome measures were recorded. Statistical analysis was undertaken using Fisher exact or chi-square, Wilcoxon rank sum, or t tests; Nelson-Aalen cumulative incidence estimates; and Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

A total of 5152 breast reconstructions were recorded, including 3093 two-stage and 2059 DTI reconstructions. Overall revision surgery rates were 15.6% for DTI (median follow-up, 24.7 months), compared with 9.7% in the two-stage cohort (median follow-up, 26.5 months; P < 0.001). The most common reasons for revision for DTI and two-stage reconstruction were capsular contracture (25.2% versus 26.7%; P = 0.714) and implant malposition (26.7% versus 34.3%; P = 0.045). Multivariate analysis found acellular dermal matrix use ( P = 0.028) was significantly associated with a higher risk of revision. The influence of radiotherapy on revision rates was unable to be studied. Patient satisfaction levels were similar between reconstructive groups; however, patient experience was better in the DTI cohort than in the two-stage cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The ABDR data set demonstrated that DTI reconstruction had a higher revision rate than two-stage, but with comparable patient satisfaction and better patient experience. Capsular contracture and device malposition were leading causes of revision in both cohorts.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.