Download PDF
Semin Plast Surg 2019; 33(04): 264-269
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697028
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Update in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

Aurelia Trisliana Perdanasari
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Amjed Abu-Ghname
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Sarth Raj
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Sebastian J. Winocour
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Rene D. Largo
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
17 October 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Implant-based reconstruction (IBR) remains the most commonly utilized breast reconstruction option for post-mastectomy patients. IBR can be approached as either a one-stage reconstruction or a two-stage reconstruction. Facilitated by improvements in surgical technology and advanced techniques, one-stage reconstruction, also known as direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, involves the insertion of an implant at the time of mastectomy. The decision to pursue either a DTI or a two-stage reconstruction is based on several factors, including the patient's overall health, expected risk of postoperative complications, and associated costs to both the patient and hospital.

Keywords

direct-to-implant - single-stage - implant-based breast reconstruction - mastectomy

Financial Disclosures

None of the authors of this manuscript have a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned herein.


 

  • References

  • 1 Miller AM, Steiner CA, Barrett ML. , et al. Breast Reconstruction Surgery for Mastectomy in Hospital Inpatient and Ambulatory Settings, 2009–2014: Statistical Brief #228. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Cemal Y, Albornoz CR, Disa JJ. , et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: Part 2. The influence of changing mastectomy patterns on reconstructive rate and method. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (03) 320e-326e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ. , et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (01) 15-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 2016 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report: 2016 Reconstructive Breast Procedures. Dallas, TX: American Society of Plastic Surgeons; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Salzberg CA. Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann Plast Surg 2006; 57 (01) 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Colwell AS. Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2012; 1 (03) 139-141
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Krishnan NM, Fischer JP, Basta MN, Nahabedian MY. Is single-stage prosthetic reconstruction cost effective? a cost-utility analysis for the use of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction relative to expander-implant reconstruction in postmastectomy patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (03) 537-547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lanitis S, Tekkis PP, Sgourakis G, Dimopoulos N, Al Mufti R, Hadjiminas DJ. Comparison of skin-sparing mastectomy versus non-skin-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Surg 2010; 251 (04) 632-639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Jakub JW, Peled AW, Gray RJ. , et al. Oncologic safety of prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy in a population with brca mutations: a multi-institutional study. JAMA Surg 2018; 153 (02) 123-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Headon HL, Kasem A, Mokbel K. The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with a pooled analysis of 12,358 procedures. Arch Plast Surg 2016; 43 (04) 328-338
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Santoro S, Loreti A, Cavaliere F. , et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not a contraindication for nipple sparing mastectomy. Breast 2015; 24 (05) 661-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Murphy BL, Hoskin TL, Boughey JC. , et al. Outcomes and feasibility of nipple-sparing mastectomy for node-positive breast cancer Patients. Am J Surg 2017; 213 (04) 810-813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Venturi ML, Mesbahi AN, Copeland-Halperin LR, Suh VY, Yemc L. SPY Elite's ability to predict nipple necrosis in nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate tissue expander reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (05) e1334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Harless CA, Jacobson SR. Tailoring through technology: a retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience with implant-based breast reconstruction before and after implementation of laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography. Breast J 2016; 22 (03) 274-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Srinivasa DR, Garvey PB, Qi J. , et al. Direct-to-implant versus two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction: 2-year risks and patient-reported outcomes from a prospective, multicenter study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (05) 869-877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Salzberg CA. Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 2012; 39 (02) 119-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cassileth L, Kohanzadeh S, Amersi F. One-stage immediate breast reconstruction with implants: a new option for immediate reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 69 (02) 134-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gunnarsson GL, Bille C, Reitsma LC, Wamberg P, Thomsen JB. Prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant reconstruction of the large and ptotic breast: is preshaping of the challenging breast a key to success?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (03) 449-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lohsiriwat V, Rotmensz N, Botteri E. , et al. Do clinicopathological features of the cancer patient relate with nipple areolar complex necrosis in nipple-sparing mastectomy?. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20 (03) 990-996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mastroianni M, Lin AM, Smith BL, Austen Jr WG, Colwell AS. Nipple Loss following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (01) 24e-30e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jarrett JR, Cutler RG, Teal DF. Subcutaneous mastectomy in small, large, or ptotic breasts with immediate submuscular placement of implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978; 62 (05) 702-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Highton LR, Murphy JA. Immediate nipple-areolar complex reconstruction for patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction or therapeutic mammoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (09) e1243
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rodriguez-Feliz J, Codner MA. Embrace the change: incorporating single-stage implant breast reconstruction into your practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136 (02) 221-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wei CH, Scott AM, Price AN. , et al. Psychosocial and sexual well-being following nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction. Breast J 2016; 22 (01) 10-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bailey CR, Ogbuagu O, Baltodano PA. , et al. Quality-of-life outcomes improve with nipple-sparing mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (02) 219-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Petit JY, Veronesi U, Rey P. , et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: risk of nipple-areolar recurrences in a series of 579 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 114 (01) 97-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Phillips BT, Lanier ST, Conkling N. , et al. Intraoperative perfusion techniques can accurately predict mastectomy skin flap necrosis in breast reconstruction: results of a prospective trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (05) 778e-788e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Wapnir I, Dua M, Kieryn A. , et al. Intraoperative imaging of nipple perfusion patterns and ischemic complications in nipple-sparing mastectomies. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21 (01) 100-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Salgarello M, Barone-Adesi L, Terribile D, Masetti R. Update on one-stage immediate breast reconstruction with definitive prosthesis after sparing mastectomies. Breast 2011; 20 (01) 7-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Spear SL, Pelletiere CV. Immediate breast reconstruction in two stages using textured, integrated-valve tissue expanders and breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (07) 2098-2103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Fernandez Delgado JM, Martínez-Méndez JR, de Santiago J, Hernández-Cortes G, Casado C. Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with direct, anatomic, extra-projection prosthesis: 102 cases. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 58 (01) 99-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Becker S, Saint-Cyr M, Wong C. , et al. AlloDerm versus DermaMatrix in immediate expander-based breast reconstruction: a preliminary comparison of complication profiles and material compliance. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (01) 1-6 , discussion 107–108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Topol BM, Dalton EF, Ponn T, Campbell CJ. Immediate single-stage breast reconstruction using implants and human acellular dermal tissue matrix with adjustment of the lower pole of the breast to reduce unwanted lift. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 61 (05) 494-499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Endara M, Chen D, Verma K, Nahabedian MY, Spear SL. Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with pooled analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (05) 1043-1054
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gould DJ, Hunt KK, Liu J. , et al. Impact of surgical techniques, biomaterials, and patient variables on rate of nipple necrosis after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (03) 330e-338e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Colwell AS. Current strategies with 1-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2015; 4 (02) 111-115
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 de Blacam C, Momoh AO, Colakoglu S, Slavin SA, Tobias AM, Lee BT. Cost analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 69 (05) 516-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Colwell AS, Gadd M, Smith BL, Austen Jr WG. An inferolateral approach to nipple-sparing mastectomy: optimizing mastectomy and reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 65 (02) 140-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kamali P, Koolen PG, Ibrahim AM. , et al. Analyzing regional differences over a 15-year trend of one-stage versus two-stage breast reconstruction in 941,191 postmastectomy patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (01) 1e-14e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Inbal A, Gur E, Lemelman BT. , et al. Optimizing patient selection for direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using wise-pattern skin-reducing mastectomy in large and ptotic breasts. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2017; 41 (05) 1058-1067
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Toth BA, Lappert P. Modified skin incisions for mastectomy: the need for plastic surgical input in preoperative planning. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991; 87 (06) 1048-1053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Razdan SN, Panchal H, Albornoz CR. , et al. Impact of contralateral symmetry procedures on long-term patient-reported outcomes following unilateral prosthetic breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (02) 124-128
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Nahabedian MY. Managing the opposite breast: contralateral symmetry procedures. Cancer J 2008; 14 (04) 258-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar