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
. 2024 Dec;15(6):853-870.
doi: 10.14740/wjon1935. Epub 2024 Oct 6.

Updates on Breast Reconstruction: Surgical Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions

Affiliations
Review

Updates on Breast Reconstruction: Surgical Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions

Ryohei Katsuragi et al. World J Oncol. 2024 Dec.

Abstract

The increasing global incidence of breast cancer underscores the significance of breast reconstruction in enhancing patients' quality of life. Breast reconstruction primarily falls into two categories: implant-based techniques and autologous tissue transfers. In this study, we present a comprehensive review of various aspects of implant-based reconstruction, including different types of implants, surgical techniques, and their respective advantages and disadvantages. For autologous breast reconstruction, we classified flaps and optimal harvest sites and provided detailed insights into the characteristics, benefits, and potential complications associated with each flap type. In addition, this review explores the emerging role of fat grafting, which has received increasing attention in recent years. Despite advancements, there remains substantial scope for further improvements in breast reconstruction, emphasizing not only aesthetic outcomes, but also a reduction in complications and postoperative recovery. By offering a comprehensive overview of the historical evolution, current landscape, and future prospects of breast reconstruction, this review aims to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of breast cancer management strategies.

Keywords: Autologous breast reconstruction; Breast implant; Breast reconstruction; Fat grafting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Types of implants and anatomical planes of reconstruction. This figure shows a flowchart of implant types and anatomical planes. In terms of contents, silicone implants are preferred for their softness, while smooth implants are favored due to concerns about breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). For the anatomical plane, the prepectoral option is chosen when the mastectomy flap has sufficient thickness. The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is required in the prepectoral plane.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Subpectoral reconstruction. The tissue expander (TE) is inserted into the subpectoral plane. After several months of percutaneous saline infusion and gradual expansion, the TE will be replaced with the breast implant.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Subpectoral reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix (ADM). The pectoralis major muscle is detached inferiorly, and then sutured to the ADM to create a single plane. This eliminates the need for expanding the pectoralis major muscle using a tissue expander (TE), allowing for the implant to be inserted in a single phase.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Prepectoral reconstruction. The breast implant is entirely covered with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and inserted at the anterior aspect of pectoralis major muscle. This method is less invasive and becoming more widely used.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Representative examples of flaps used in autologous breast reconstruction. The LDMC flap is a pedicled myocutaneous flap, while the others are free perforator flaps that require vascular anastomoses. LDMC flap: latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap; DIEP flap: deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap; LAP flap: lumber artery perforator flap; PAP flap: profunda artery perforator flap; GAP flap: gluteal artery perforator flap.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(3):229–263. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):345–353. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aee807. - DOI - PubMed
    1. van Bommel ACM, de Ligt KM, Schreuder K, Maduro JH, Van Dalen T, Peeters M, Mureau MAM. et al. The added value of immediate breast reconstruction to health-related quality of life of breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(10 Pt A):1848–1853. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.06.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Klifto KM, Tecce MG, Serletti JM, Kovach SJ. Comparison of nine methods of immediate breast reconstruction after resection of localized breast cancer: A cost-effectiveness Markov decision analysis of prospective studies. Microsurgery. 2022;42(5):401–427. doi: 10.1002/micr.30882. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siegel EL, Whiting J, Kim Y, Sun W, Laronga C, Lee MC. Effect of surgical complications on outcomes in breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;188(3):641–648. doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06241-4. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources