California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, CA, USA.
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023 Nov;86:273-279. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.09.026. Epub 2023 Sep 14.
Fat grafting is commonly undertaken as a third-stage procedure in patients with staged implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). However, fat grafting performed during second-stage expander/implant exchange provides faster results without an additional procedure and associated risks (Patel et al., 2020). We previously demonstrated that fat grafting during second-stage expander/implant exchange did not increase clinical complications (Patel et al., 2020). As a corollary, this study investigates patients' satisfaction with second- versus third-stage fat grafting to help establish a set of best practices for the timing of fat grafting in such patients.
A review of PubMed/MEDLINE databases (2010-2022) was performed to identify articles investigating the quality of life in patients undergoing second- or third-stage fat grafting after IBR. BREAST-Q scores were pooled using random-effects modeling and the DerSimonian-Laird method. Post-hoc sensitivity analyses were completed using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. The Haldane-Anscombe correction was used for outcomes with low counts. All study analyses adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
Six studies (216 patients) were included. Pooled random-effects modeling demonstrated no significant changes in BREAST-Q satisfaction with outcome scores when comparing patients who received second- versus third-stage fat grafting (p = 0.178) with results robust to sensitivity analyses. In addition, pooled analyses of the available data demonstrated that second-stage fat grafting did not increase downstream revision surgery needs compared to third-stage fat grafting.
In combination with our prior work, this meta-analysis suggests that second-stage fat grafting provides not only equivalent but improved clinical and quality of life outcomes with fewer procedures in patients undergoing expander/IBR.
脂肪移植通常作为分期植入物乳房重建(IBR)患者的第三阶段手术进行。然而,在第二期扩张器/植入物交换时进行脂肪移植可以提供更快的结果,而无需进行额外的手术和相关风险(Patel 等人,2020 年)。我们之前证明,在第二期扩张器/植入物交换时进行脂肪移植不会增加临床并发症(Patel 等人,2020 年)。作为推论,本研究调查了患者对第二期与第三期脂肪移植的满意度,以帮助为这些患者的脂肪移植时间确定一套最佳实践。
对 PubMed/MEDLINE 数据库(2010-2022 年)进行了回顾,以确定调查 IBR 后接受第二期或第三期脂肪移植患者生活质量的文章。使用随机效应模型和 DerSimonian-Laird 方法对 BREAST-Q 评分进行汇总。使用 Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman 方法完成事后敏感性分析。对于计数较低的结果,使用 Haldane-Anscombe 校正。所有研究分析均符合系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南。
纳入了 6 项研究(216 名患者)。汇总随机效应模型显示,在比较接受第二期与第三期脂肪移植的患者时,BREAST-Q 对结果评分的满意度没有显著变化(p=0.178),并且结果对敏感性分析具有稳健性。此外,对可用数据的汇总分析表明,与第三期脂肪移植相比,第二期脂肪移植不会增加下游修正手术的需求。
结合我们之前的工作,这项荟萃分析表明,第二期脂肪移植不仅在接受扩张器/IBR 的患者中提供了等效的,而且改善了临床和生活质量结果,同时减少了手术次数。