We have located links that may give you full text access.
A Prospective Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes of Subpectoral and Prepectoral Strattice-Based Immediate Breast Reconstruction.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2018 May
BACKGROUND: Prepectoral acellular dermal matrix-assisted immediate implant-based breast reconstruction is gaining popularity, involving complete implant coverage with acellular dermal matrix. The authors aimed to compare pain, patient-reported outcome measures (including implant rippling), and safety of prepectoral and subpectoral Strattice-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction.
METHODS: Consecutive patients were recruited prospectively, having either therapeutic or risk-reducing mastectomy. Patients scored their pain three times per day for the first 7 postoperative days on a Likert scale, and completed the BREAST-Q reconstruction module 3 months postoperatively. Clinical records and the authors' prospective complications database were used to compare the early morbidity of the two procedures.
RESULTS: Forty patients were recruited into the study. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the prepectoral group (mean, 1.5) and the subpectoral cohort (mean, 1.5; p = 0.45) during the first 7 days. Thirty-one BREAST-Q questionnaires were returned; mean Q scores were similar for both prepectoral and subpectoral (72 and 71, respectively; p = 0.81) groups. Patients reported significantly more visible implant rippling in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (seven of 13 versus two of 17; p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in length of stay or early morbidity, with implant loss being 4.7 percent in the prepectoral group compared with 0 percent in the subpectoral group.
CONCLUSIONS: Early postoperative pain and quality of life at 3 months are equivalent between groups. Early experience of prepectoral implant placement with complete acellular dermal matrix coverage suggests this is safe and provides good quality of life for patients. Further studies are required to compare short- and long-term outcomes with the current standard forms of reconstruction.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
METHODS: Consecutive patients were recruited prospectively, having either therapeutic or risk-reducing mastectomy. Patients scored their pain three times per day for the first 7 postoperative days on a Likert scale, and completed the BREAST-Q reconstruction module 3 months postoperatively. Clinical records and the authors' prospective complications database were used to compare the early morbidity of the two procedures.
RESULTS: Forty patients were recruited into the study. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the prepectoral group (mean, 1.5) and the subpectoral cohort (mean, 1.5; p = 0.45) during the first 7 days. Thirty-one BREAST-Q questionnaires were returned; mean Q scores were similar for both prepectoral and subpectoral (72 and 71, respectively; p = 0.81) groups. Patients reported significantly more visible implant rippling in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (seven of 13 versus two of 17; p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in length of stay or early morbidity, with implant loss being 4.7 percent in the prepectoral group compared with 0 percent in the subpectoral group.
CONCLUSIONS: Early postoperative pain and quality of life at 3 months are equivalent between groups. Early experience of prepectoral implant placement with complete acellular dermal matrix coverage suggests this is safe and provides good quality of life for patients. Further studies are required to compare short- and long-term outcomes with the current standard forms of reconstruction.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app