Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 10;21(1):160.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4125-6.

Direct-to-Implant Extracellular Matrix Hammock-based Breast Reconstruction; Prepectoral or Subpectoral?

Diana L Dyrberg  1 , Gudjon L Gunnarsson  2 , Camilla Bille  3 , Jens A Sørensen  3 , Jørn B Thomsen  4
Affiliations

Direct-to-Implant Extracellular Matrix Hammock-based Breast Reconstruction; Prepectoral or Subpectoral?

Diana L Dyrberg et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Skin-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate implant-based breast reconstruction is a commonly used treatment for breast cancer. However, when placing the implant in a subpectoral pocket, a high incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) has been reported. Besides the nuisance that BAD can cause, lifting of the pectoralis major muscle (PMM) can result in a more extended postoperative recovery period. When placing the implant solely prepectorally leaving the PMM undisturbed, the incidence and severity of BAD might be mitigated. However, new challenges may occur because of thinner skin cover.

Methods/design: A prospective, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial will be carried out with the primary aim of assessing and comparing the incidence and degree of BAD in women having a direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with either a prepectorally or a subpectorally placed implant. The secondary outcomes are shoulder and arm function, quality of life, aesthetic evaluation, length of stay, complications, need for surgical corrections, and development of capsular contracture. A total of 70 included patients will be followed under admittance and at clinical check-ups 3 months and 1 year after surgery.

Discussion: To our knowledge, this trial is the first randomised controlled trial evaluating and comparing subpectoral and prepectoral implant placement when performing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction following skin-sparing mastectomy. The results will hopefully provide us with a broader knowledge of the outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction, making better preoperative planning possible in the future by providing our patients with a more objective information.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03143335. Prospectively registered on 8 May 2017.

Keywords: Breast animation deformity; Breast implants; Immediate breast reconstruction; Prepectoral implant placement; Subpectoral implant placement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Participant timelines
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Nahabedian MY. Implant-based breast reconstruction following conservative mastectomy: one-stage vs. two-stage approach. Gland Surg. 2016;5(1):47–54. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gschwantler-Kaulich D, Leser C, Salama M, Singer CF. Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: Higher complication rate vs cosmetic benefits. Breast J. 2018;24(6):957–964. - PubMed
    1. Ibrahim AM, Koolen PG, Ganor O, Markarian MK, Tobias AM, Lee BT, et al. Does acellular dermal matrix really improve aesthetic outcome in tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction? Aesthet Plast Surg. 2015;39(3):359–368. - PubMed
    1. Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Berry C, Hunsicker LM. Acellular dermal matrix-assisted direct-to-implant breast reconstruction and capsular contracture: a 13-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(2):329–337. - PubMed
    1. Colwell AS, Damjanovic B, Zahedi B, Medford-Davis L, Hertl C, Austen WG. Retrospective review of 331 consecutive immediate single-stage implant reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix: indications, complications, trends, and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(6):1170–1178. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data