PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2022; 49(05): 587-595
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756337
Breast/Trunk: Original Article

Evaluation of Breast Animation Deformity following Pre- and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Diana L. Dyrberg 
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense/Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
,
Camilla Bille 
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
,
Vibeke Koudahl 
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense/Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
,
Oke Gerke 
3   Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
,
Jens A. Sørensen 
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
,
Jørn B. Thomsen 
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background The incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) is reported to be substantial after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with subpectoral implant placement. It has, however, never been examined if BAD can occur following prepectoral implant placement. Our primary aim was to compare the incidence and degree of BAD after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement. Secondary aim of this study was to assess and compare the level of pain between sub- and prepectoral reconstructed women.

Methods In this randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to reconstruction by either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines. The degree of BAD was assessed by the “Nipple, Surrounding skin, Entire breast (NSE)” grading scale 12 months after surgery. The level of postoperative pain was assessed on a numerical pain rating scale.

Results We found a significant difference in the degree of BAD favoring patients in the prepectoral group (23.8 vs. 100%, p < 0.0001; mean NSE grading scale score: 0.4 vs. 3.6, p < 0.0001). The subpectoral reconstructed group reported higher levels of pain on the three subsequent days after surgery. No significant difference in pain levels could be found at 3 months postoperatively.

Conclusion The incidence and degree of BAD was significantly lower in women reconstructed by prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Unexpectedly, we found mild degrees of BAD in the prepectoral group. When assessing BAD, distortion can be challenging to discern from rippling.

Keywords

breast reconstruction - breast deformity - breast implant - treatment outcome - incidence

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (approval no.: S-20160160) and performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from the included participants. The study has been prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT03143335) and the protocol has been published in trials (Direct-to-Implant Extracellular Matrix Hammock-based Breast Reconstruction; Prepectoral or Subpectoral? Doi:10.1186/s13063-020-4125-6).


Authors' Contributions

Conceptualization: D.L.D., J.B.T., and C.B.; data curation: D.L.D.; formal analysis: O.G. and D.L.D.; investigation: D.L.D.; methodology: J.B.T. and C.B.; project administration: D.L.D., J.B.T., and J.A.S.; supervision: J.B.T., C.B., J.A.S., and V.K.; writing the original draft: D.L.D. and J.B.T.; and writing and review and editing: all authors.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 11. November 2021

Angenommen: 29. März 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
23. September 2022

© 2022. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

Kommentar zu diesem Artikel:

Commentary: Evaluation of Breast Animation Deformity following Pre- and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled TrialArch Plast Surg 2022; 49(05): V1-V1
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777254

 

  • References

  • 1 Becker H, Fregosi N. The impact of animation deformity on quality of life in post-mastectomy reconstruction patients. Aesthet Surg J 2017; 37 (05) 531-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lesavoy MA, Trussler AP, Dickinson BP. Difficulties with subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty and its correction: the role of subglandular site change in revision aesthetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (01) 363-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vidya R, Iqbal FM, Becker H, Zhadan O. Rippling associated with pre-pectoral implant based breast reconstruction: a new grading system. World J Plast Surg 2019; 8 (03) 311-315
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Henriksen TF, Fryzek JP, Hölmich LR. et al. Surgical intervention and capsular contracture after breast augmentation: a prospective study of risk factors. Ann Plast Surg 2005; 54 (04) 343-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML. Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118(7, suppl):188S–196S, discussion 197S–198S
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (03) 432-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wallace MS, Wallace AM, Lee J, Dobke MK. Pain after breast surgery: a survey of 282 women. Pain 1996; 66 (2,3): 195-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Vadivelu N, Schreck M, Lopez J, Kodumudi G, Narayan D. Pain after mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Am Surg 2008; 74 (04) 285-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dyrberg DL, Gunnarsson GL, Bille C, Sørensen JA, Thomsen JB. A simple clinical assessment of breast animation deformity following direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2019; 46 (06) 535-543
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O'Connor EA. Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (06) 1540-1544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Holland MC, Lentz R, Sbitany H. Surgical correction of breast animation deformity with implant pocket conversion to a prepectoral plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (03) 632-642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Reitsamer R, Peintinger F. Prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with porcine acellular dermal matrix: a new technique for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68 (02) 162-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kümmel S, Kümmel A, Hagemann F. et al. Jumping breast phenomenon following subcutaneous mastectomy: first description and grading of a well-known breast deformity. Breast Care (Basel) 2018; 13 (05) 354-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dalaei F, Dyrberg DL, Bille C, Salzberg CA, Sørensen JA, Thomsen JB. An update on breast animation deformity grading systems—a systematic review. Ann Breast Surg 2021; DOI: 10.21037/abs-21-46.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dyrberg DL, Bille C, Gunnarsson GL. et al. Breast animation deformity. Arch Plast Surg 2019; 46 (01) 7-15
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c332
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Regnault P. Breast ptosis. Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 1976; 3 (02) 193-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dyrberg DL, Bille C, Gunnarsson GL, Sørensen JA, Thomsen JB. Visualized pre- and subpectoral implant placement for immediate breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2019; 8 (Suppl. 04) S251-S254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Kim K, DeMets DL. Design and analysis of group sequential tests based on the type I error spending rate function. Biometrika 1987; 74 (01) 149-154
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S. et al. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64 (01) 96-106
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW. Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33 (01) 44-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kim JYS, Qiu CS, Chiu W-K. et al. A quantitative analysis of animation deformity in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (02) 291-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Fracol M, Qiu CS, Chiu MW-K. et al. The relationship between animation deformity and patient-reported outcomes: application of the BREAST-Q to a quantitative stratification of animation severity. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (01) 11-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Vidya R, Tafazal H, Salem F, Iqbal FM, Sircar T. Management based on grading of animation deformity following implant-based subpectoral breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2018; 45 (02) 185-190
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59 (10) 1033-1039
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cattelani L, Polotto S, Arcuri MF, Pedrazzi G, Linguadoca C, Bonati E. One-step prepectoral breast reconstruction with dermal matrix-covered implant compared to submuscular implantation: functional and cost evaluation. Clin Breast Cancer 2018; 18 (04) e703-e711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Baker BG, Irri R, MacCallum V, Chattopadhyay R, Murphy J, Harvey JR. A prospective comparison of short-term outcomes of subpectoral and prepectoral strattice-based immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (05) 1077-1084
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Manrique OJ, Kapoor T, Banuelos J. et al. Single-stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: a comparison between subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement. Ann Plast Surg 2020; 84 (04) 361-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Riggio E, Toffoli E, Tartaglione C, Marano G, Biganzoli E. Local safety of immediate reconstruction during primary treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant versus expander-based surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2019; 72 (02) 232-242
    Google Scholar