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
. 2023 Jan 1;151(1):7-15.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009745. Epub 2022 Oct 4.

A Comparative Study of Secondary Procedures after Subpectoral and Prepectoral Single-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Abeera Abbas  1 , Hirah Rizki  1 , Aleksandra Tanska  1 , Mae Concepcion  2 , Marios Konstantinos Tasoulis  1   3 , Gerald Gui  1   2
Affiliations

A Comparative Study of Secondary Procedures after Subpectoral and Prepectoral Single-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Abeera Abbas et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most commonly used procedure to reconstruct the breast after mastectomy. The advantages and disadvantages of subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement remain a matter of debate. This study compares the need for secondary aesthetic procedures between prepectoral and subpectoral IBR.

Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent subpectoral or prepectoral IBR between 2015 and 2018 under a single surgeon at a tertiary breast unit. The primary endpoint was the number of secondary procedures performed to improve the aesthetic outcome. Secondary endpoints included the number of secondary procedures during the first year.

Results: A total of 271 one-stage IBRs were performed (subpectoral, n = 128 in 74 patients; prepectoral, n = 143 in 84 patients). Overall, more patients required secondary procedures in the subpectoral group (36.5% versus 19%; P = 0.014), although through longer follow-up. The most common procedures were pocket revision and implant exchange [11.7% versus 3.5% ( P = 0.010); 11.7% versus 4.2% ( P = 0.021)], whereas fat grafting was similar between the two groups (46% versus 40.5%; P = 0.777). When adjusted for follow-up time, there was no significant difference in the number of secondary procedures undertaken in the subpectoral versus the prepectoral group (21% versus 16%, respectively; P = 0.288) at 1 year.

Conclusions: The requirement for secondary procedures at 1 year was not different between groups. The need for fat grafting was not increased following prepectoral IBR.

Clinical question/level of evidence: Therapeutic, III.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure : Dr. Gui serves on the speakers bureau and is a consultant for Integra Life Science on an ad hoc basis. The remaining authors have no financial interests or conflicts of interest to report. The authors have no financial interests to declare in relation to the content of this article. No funding was received for this research.

References

    1. Leff DR, Bottle A, Mayer E, et al. Trends in immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction in the United Kingdom. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3:e507.
    1. Tasoulis MK, Iqbal FM, Cawthorn S, MacNeill F, Vidya R. Subcutaneous implant breast reconstruction: time to reconsider? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:1636–1646.
    1. Bernini M, Meattini I, Casella D. Two-stage implant based breast reconstruction: should we always exchange the tissue expander for an implant right away? Gland Surg. 2016;5:369–371.
    1. Casella D, Bernini M, Bencini L, et al. TiLoop Bra mesh used for immediate breast reconstruction: comparison of retropectoral and subcutaneous implant placement in a prospective single-institution series. Eur J Plast Surg. 2014;37:599–604.
    1. Salibian AA, Frey JD, Karp NS. Strategies and considerations in selecting between subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2019;8:11–18.