Original Article
Early multicentre experience of pre-pectoral implant based immediate breast reconstruction using Braxon®
Abstract
Background: The last two decades have seen significant changes in surgical management of breast cancer. The offer of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) following mastectomy is currently standard practice. Skin sparing and nipple sparing mastectomy with implant-based IBR have emerged as oncologically safe treatment options. Prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage of implant with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) eliminates the need to detach the muscle from underlying chest wall in contrast to the subpectoral technique. We report short-term outcomes of a multicentre study from the United Kingdom using Braxon® in women having an IBR.
Methods: A prospective study was conducted from December 2015 to October 2016 and included all patients from three breast units in the UK who underwent a mastectomy and an implant-based IBR using Braxon®. The demographic details, co-morbidities, operative details, immediate and delayed complications were recorded. Specific complications recorded were infection, seroma, unplanned readmission and loss of implant. A comparison was made with complications reported in the National Mastectomy and Reconstruction Audit.
Results: Seventy-eight IBRs were included in the analysis with a median follow-up of 9.98 months. Mean age of the cohort was 50 years with a mean Body Mass Index of 25.7 kg/m2. Mean implant volume was 365 cc. The inpatient hospital stay was 1.48 days. About 23% of patients had a seroma, 30% had erythema requiring antibiotics and the explant rate was 10.2 percent. Bilateral reconstructions were significantly associated with implant loss and peri-operative complications on univariate analysis.
Conclusions: Our early experience with this novel prepectoral technique using Braxon® has shown it to be an effective technique with complication rates comparable to subpectoral IBR. The advantages of prepectoral implant-based IBR are quicker postoperative recovery and short post-operative hospital stay. Long-term studies are required to assess rippling, post-operative animation, capsular contracture and impact of radiotherapy.
Methods: A prospective study was conducted from December 2015 to October 2016 and included all patients from three breast units in the UK who underwent a mastectomy and an implant-based IBR using Braxon®. The demographic details, co-morbidities, operative details, immediate and delayed complications were recorded. Specific complications recorded were infection, seroma, unplanned readmission and loss of implant. A comparison was made with complications reported in the National Mastectomy and Reconstruction Audit.
Results: Seventy-eight IBRs were included in the analysis with a median follow-up of 9.98 months. Mean age of the cohort was 50 years with a mean Body Mass Index of 25.7 kg/m2. Mean implant volume was 365 cc. The inpatient hospital stay was 1.48 days. About 23% of patients had a seroma, 30% had erythema requiring antibiotics and the explant rate was 10.2 percent. Bilateral reconstructions were significantly associated with implant loss and peri-operative complications on univariate analysis.
Conclusions: Our early experience with this novel prepectoral technique using Braxon® has shown it to be an effective technique with complication rates comparable to subpectoral IBR. The advantages of prepectoral implant-based IBR are quicker postoperative recovery and short post-operative hospital stay. Long-term studies are required to assess rippling, post-operative animation, capsular contracture and impact of radiotherapy.
