Comparison of Postoperative Breast Asymmetry Using Vectra 3D Imaging in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction
- PMID: 39685943
- PMCID: PMC11642326
- DOI: 10.3390/jcm13237486
Comparison of Postoperative Breast Asymmetry Using Vectra 3D Imaging in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is increasingly favored over autologous reconstruction due to its procedural simplicity and recovery benefits. Conducting this reconstruction using either the subpectoral or prepectoral planes has varied aesthetic outcomes. This study utilizes VECTRA XT 3D imaging to objectively assess breast symmetry differences between these surgical techniques. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted analyzing data from patients undergoing unilateral total mastectomy followed by immediate silicone implant reconstruction via subpectoral or prepectoral techniques. The VECTRA XT 3D system provided measurements, including sternal-notch-to-nipple (SN-N), midline-to-nipple (ML-N), and nipple-to-inframammary fold (N-IMF) distances, as well as breast width, volume, and projection, taken more than a year postoperatively, to assess symmetry and aesthetic outcomes. Results: The study included 63 patients-29 in the subpectoral group and 38 in the prepectoral group. The SN-N ratio was 0.91 for the subpectoral group compared to 0.95 for the prepectoral group (p = 0.014). Among patients with a BMI of 25 or higher, the prepectoral group had an SN-N ratio significantly closer to 1 (0.97 ± 0.07) than the subpectoral group (0.89 ± 0.06) (p = 0.027). No statistically significant differences were found in metrics based on the surgical method across age categories divided at 50. Conclusions: The prepectoral IBBR technique shows improved nipple positioning and breast symmetry compared to subpectoral methods, as assessed via precise 3D imaging. This finding suggests potential advantages for surgical planning and patient satisfaction, indicating the need for large cohort studies to further investigate the factors influencing breast symmetry.
Keywords: breast implant; breast reconstruction; outcome assessment; postoperative complication; three-dimensional imaging.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Figures

Similar articles
-
Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (OPBC-02/ PREPEC): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial.BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 2;11(9):e045239. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045239. BMJ Open. 2021. PMID: 34475143 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Quality of Life and Early Functional Evaluation in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy: A Comparative Study Between Prepectoral Versus Dual-Plane Reconstruction.Clin Breast Cancer. 2021 Aug;21(4):344-351. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2020.11.013. Epub 2020 Nov 24. Clin Breast Cancer. 2021. PMID: 33308993
-
Oncological Safety of Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Conservative Mastectomy: Insights from 842 Consecutive Breast Cancer Patients.Cancers (Basel). 2025 Mar 8;17(6):925. doi: 10.3390/cancers17060925. Cancers (Basel). 2025. PMID: 40149261 Free PMC article.
-
Prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: U.S. medical center experience and narrative review.Ann Transl Med. 2023 Dec 20;11(12):411. doi: 10.21037/atm-23-1094. Epub 2023 Jun 20. Ann Transl Med. 2023. PMID: 38213807 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Quality of life, pain of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with a discussion on cost: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022 Aug;75(8):2550-2560. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.02.019. Epub 2022 Feb 24. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022. PMID: 35393263
References
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources