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
Review
. 2023 Aug 30;12(8):1082-1093.
doi: 10.21037/gs-23-78. Epub 2023 Aug 21.

Literature review and guide for optimal position in implant-based breast reconstruction

Affiliations
Review

Literature review and guide for optimal position in implant-based breast reconstruction

Caroline A King et al. Gland Surg. .

Abstract

Background and objective: Identification of ideal candidates for prepectoral versus retropectoral implant-based breast reconstruction relies on careful preoperative risk assessment and intraoperative flap evaluation. Few guidelines exist to guide the surgeon's decision-making process when evaluating the preferred plane for implant placement.

Methods: A literature review was performed to develop clinical decision-making algorithms for direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for patients undergoing prophylactic or therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) based on patient characteristics, surgical techniques, and outcomes.

Key content and findings: Prepectoral reconstruction is most suitable for patients with small breasts or macromastia with desire for breast reduction, low-grade ptosis, smaller implant sizes, those undergoing PMRT, and for those who aim to mitigate animation deformity and capsular contracture. Retropectoral reconstruction may be recommended for patients with larger breasts with no desire for size change requiring additional prosthesis support, and in patients who aim to reduce likelihood of rippling and need for subsequent fat grafting procedures to address contour abnormalities.

Conclusions: Careful preoperative and intraoperative assessment of reconstruction options for patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction is necessary to mitigate complications and produce superior aesthetic outcomes. Decision algorithms may be used to determine ideal surgical techniques based on patient factors, like radiation history and planning, breast size and ptosis, and patient preferences.

Keywords: Implant-based breast reconstruction; decision algorithm; prepectoral; retropectoral.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://gs.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/gs-23-78/coif). CAS serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Gland Surgery from September 2022 to August 2024. EAT discloses a faculty position for Medtronic educational courses. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preoperative decision algorithm for reconstruction assessment based on patient characteristics and preferences. BMI, body mass index; DTI, direct-to-implant reconstruction; ADM, acellular dermal matrix.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Preoperative decision algorithm for reconstruction assessment of patients undergoing prophylactic NSM. NSM, nipple-sparing mastectomy; DTI, direct-to-implant reconstruction; IMF, inframammary fold.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Preoperative decision algorithm for reconstruction assessment of patients undergoing therapeutic NSM. NSM, nipple-sparing mastectomy; DTI, direct-to-implant reconstruction; IMF, inframammary fold.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Intraoperative decision algorithm for implant-based reconstruction based on mastectomy flap perfusion quality. ICG, indocyanine green angiography; DTI, direct-to-implant reconstruction; ADM, acellular dermal matrix; TE, tissue expander.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Palve JS, Luukkaala TH, Kääriäinen MT. Predictive risk factors of complications in different breast reconstruction methods. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020;182:345-54. 10.1007/s10549-020-05705-3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thorarinsson A, Fröjd V, Kölby L, et al. Patient determinants as independent risk factors for postoperative complications of breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2017;6:355-67. 10.21037/gs.2017.04.04 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kobraei EM, Nimtz J, Wong L, et al. Risk factors for adverse outcome following skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate prosthetic reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129:234e-41e. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aec7f - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hanwright PJ, Davila AA, Hirsch EM, et al. The differential effect of BMI on prosthetic versus autogenous breast reconstruction: a multivariate analysis of 12,986 patients. Breast 2013;22:938-45. 10.1016/j.breast.2013.05.009 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Friedman HI, Talebagha S, Gilstrap J, et al. Wise Pattern Direct Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Review and Improved Outcomes Using Dermal Matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019;7:e2439. 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002439 - DOI - PMC - PubMed