A Propensity Score–Matched Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes in Prepectoral Smooth Versus Textured Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction

Author:

Perez Kevin,Rodnoi Pope,Teotia Sumeet S.,Haddock Nicholas T.

Abstract

IntroductionTextured tissue expanders (TEs) had previously gained popularity due to minimizing expander migration, rotation, and capsule migration. Recent studies, though, have revealed increased risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma associated with certain macrotextured implants, prompting surgeons at our institution to switch to smooth TEs; evaluation is thus required for specific viability and similarity of outcomes of smooth TEs. Our study aims to evaluate perioperative complications in prepectoral placement of smooth versus textured TEs.MethodsOur retrospective study evaluated perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent bilateral prepectoral TE placement, with either smooth or textured TE, at an academic institution between 2017 and 2021 performed by 2 reconstructive surgeons. The perioperative period was defined as the interval between expander placement until conversion to flap/implant or removal of TE due to complications. Our primary outcomes included hematoma, seroma, wounds, infection, unspecified redness, total number of complications, and returns to operating room secondary to complications. Secondary outcomes included time to drain removal, total number of expansions, hospital length of stay, length of time until the next breast reconstruction procedure, next breast reconstruction procedure, and number of expansions.ResultsTwo hundred twenty-two patients were evaluated in our study (141 textured, 81 smooth). After propensity matching (71 textured, 71 smooth), our univariate logistic regression showed no significant difference in perioperative complications between smooth and textured expanders (17.1% vs 21.1%;P= 0.396) or complications that required a return to the operating room (10.0% vs 9.2%;P= 0.809). No significant differences were noted for hematoma, seroma, infections, unspecified redness, or wounds between both groups. A significant difference was noted in days to drain out (18.57 ± 8.17 vs 20.13 ± 0.07,P= 0.001) and type of the next breast reconstruction procedure (P< 0.001). Our multivariate regression showed that breast surgeon, hypertension, smoking status, and mastectomy weight were significant for increased risk for complications.ConclusionOur study demonstrates similar rates and effectiveness of smooth versus textured TE when used for prepectoral placement, making smooth TEs a safe and valuable alternative for breast reconstruction because of their decreased risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma compared with textured TEs.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Surgery

Reference37 articles.

1. Current trends in prepectoral breast reconstruction: a survey of American Society of Plastic Surgeons members;Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open,2020

2. Early functional outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction: a case-matched cohort study;Ann Plast Surg,2019

3. Surgical outcomes in prepectoral breast reconstruction;Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open,2020

4. Prepectoral breast reconstruction;Yeungnam Univ J Med,2019

5. Strategies and considerations in selecting between subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction;Gland Surg,2019

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3