Breast implants Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2024;46:e-rbgo13
The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain between SF flap and serratus anterior muscle (SM) in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.
This is a prospective cohort study that included 53 women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction from January 2020 to March 2021. Twenty-nine patients (54.7%) had SF elevation, and 24 patients (45.3%) underwent SM elevation. We evaluated patient-reported early postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Also, it was reported that all surgical complications in the first month and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were measured with the BRECON 23 questionnaire.
The serratus fascia group used implants with larger volumes, 407.6 ± 98.9 cc (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the fascial and muscular groups regarding the postoperative pain score reported by the patients (2 versus 3; p = 0.30). Also, there was no difference between the groups regarding early surgical complications and PROs after breast reconstruction.
The use of SF seems to cause less morbidity, which makes the technique an alternative to be considered in breast reconstruction. Although there was no statistical difference in postoperative pain scores between the fascia and serratus muscle groups.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2024;46:e-rbgo13
The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain between SF flap and serratus anterior muscle (SM) in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.
This is a prospective cohort study that included 53 women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction from January 2020 to March 2021. Twenty-nine patients (54.7%) had SF elevation, and 24 patients (45.3%) underwent SM elevation. We evaluated patient-reported early postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Also, it was reported that all surgical complications in the first month and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were measured with the BRECON 23 questionnaire.
The serratus fascia group used implants with larger volumes, 407.6 ± 98.9 cc (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the fascial and muscular groups regarding the postoperative pain score reported by the patients (2 versus 3; p = 0.30). Also, there was no difference between the groups regarding early surgical complications and PROs after breast reconstruction.
The use of SF seems to cause less morbidity, which makes the technique an alternative to be considered in breast reconstruction. Although there was no statistical difference in postoperative pain scores between the fascia and serratus muscle groups.
, , , , , Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2024;46:e-rbgo76
, , , , , , To evaluate early complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction.
A retrospective cohort study including 180 consecutive cases of nipple-sparing mastectomy, comparing immediate breast reconstruction with subpectoral to prepectoral mammary implants in 2012-2022. Clinical and demographic characteristics and complications in the first three months following surgery were compared between the two techniques.
The prepectoral technique was used in 22 cases (12.2%) and the subpectoral in 158 (87.8%). Median age was higher in the prepectoral group (47 versus 43.8 years; p=0.038), as was body mass index (25.1 versus 23.8; p=0.002) and implant volume (447.5 versus 409 cc; p=0.001). The prepectoral technique was more associated with an inframammary fold (IMF) incision (19 cases, 86.4% versus 85, 53.8%) than with periareolar incisions (3 cases, 13.6% versus 73, 46.2%); (p=0.004). All cases in the prepectoral group underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction compared to 54 cases (34.2%) in the subpectoral group. Thirty-eight complications were recorded: 36 (22.8%) in the subpectoral group and 2 (9.1%) in the prepectoral group (p=0.24). Necrosis of the nipple-areola complex/skin flap occurred in 27 patients (17.1%) in the subpectoral group (prepectoral group: no cases; p=0.04). The groups were comparable regarding dehiscence, seroma, infection, and hematoma. Reconstruction failed in one case per group (p=0.230). In the multivariate analysis, IMF incision was associated with the prepectoral group (aOR: 34.72; 95%CI: 2.84-424.63).
The incidence of early complications was comparable between the two techniques and compatible with previous reports. The clinical and demographic characteristics differed between the techniques. Randomized clinical trials are required.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2024;46:e-rbgo76
, , , , , , To evaluate early complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction.
A retrospective cohort study including 180 consecutive cases of nipple-sparing mastectomy, comparing immediate breast reconstruction with subpectoral to prepectoral mammary implants in 2012-2022. Clinical and demographic characteristics and complications in the first three months following surgery were compared between the two techniques.
The prepectoral technique was used in 22 cases (12.2%) and the subpectoral in 158 (87.8%). Median age was higher in the prepectoral group (47 versus 43.8 years; p=0.038), as was body mass index (25.1 versus 23.8; p=0.002) and implant volume (447.5 versus 409 cc; p=0.001). The prepectoral technique was more associated with an inframammary fold (IMF) incision (19 cases, 86.4% versus 85, 53.8%) than with periareolar incisions (3 cases, 13.6% versus 73, 46.2%); (p=0.004). All cases in the prepectoral group underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction compared to 54 cases (34.2%) in the subpectoral group. Thirty-eight complications were recorded: 36 (22.8%) in the subpectoral group and 2 (9.1%) in the prepectoral group (p=0.24). Necrosis of the nipple-areola complex/skin flap occurred in 27 patients (17.1%) in the subpectoral group (prepectoral group: no cases; p=0.04). The groups were comparable regarding dehiscence, seroma, infection, and hematoma. Reconstruction failed in one case per group (p=0.230). In the multivariate analysis, IMF incision was associated with the prepectoral group (aOR: 34.72; 95%CI: 2.84-424.63).
The incidence of early complications was comparable between the two techniques and compatible with previous reports. The clinical and demographic characteristics differed between the techniques. Randomized clinical trials are required.