Journal
ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY
Volume 85, Issue 4, Pages 437-447Publisher
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002190
Keywords
ADM; breast reconstruction; prepectoral; subpectoral
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background There is currently no consensus on the ideal plane for implant placement in breast reconstruction. The study compares the clinical efficacy and safety between prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods PubMed, Web of Sciences, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched following the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were articles describing implant-based breast reconstructions with implant placed either prepectorally or subpectorally. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, pain score, and patients' quality of life. Results There were 15 studies including a total of 1868 patients. Overall complication rates were comparable between the prepectoral and subpectoral groups (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.10). The capsular contracture rate was reduced in the prepectoral group (OR, 0.45; CI, 0.27-0.73), whereas no significant difference was observed in terms of skin necrosis (OR, 0.72; CI, 0.45-1.17), implant loss (OR, 0.85; CI, 0.56-1.30), and patients' quality of life (standardised mean difference, 0.25; CI, -0.51 to 1.00). Conclusion The prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is a good alternative to subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction for a certain group of patients, eliminating animation deformity without increasing complications.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available