Complications after simultaneous prepectoral breast reconstruction using polyurethane-coated implants in patients with breast cancer

Background. The development and improvement of reconstructive breast surgery provides medical, psychological and social rehabilitation of cancer patients, allowing them to achieve the best cosmetic and functional results. The trend towards the return of prepectoral reconstruction is associated not only with the improvement of mastectomy techniques, but also with implant coating and the emergence of highly cohesive silicone gel filling of implants. The use of polyurethane-coated endoprostheses in prepectoral reconstruction provides more reliable fixation to the surrounding tissues and allows reconstruction of the mammary glands without additional covering of the endoprosthesis.

Objective: to improve the results of surgical treatment when performing a one-stage reconstruction by pre-rectal placement of polyurethanecoated implants in breast cancer. Materials and methods. In the period from April 2017 to September 2020 at the Department of Oncology and Reconstructive Plastic Surgery of the Breast and Skin of P.A. Herzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute performed 340 prepectoral breast reconstructions (direct-toimplant) using polyurethane-coated implants in breast cancer patients. A group of patients was analyzed (n = 208).

Results. We noted the following complications: prolonged seroma (more than 30 days) in 39 (18.6 %) patients, red breast syndrome in 31 (14.8 %) patients, capsular contracture III–IV degree by J.L. Baker in 43 (20.57 %) patients, protrusion/extrusion of the endoprosthesis in 23 (11 %) patients, suture divergence in 8 (3.8 %) patients, necrosis in 8 (3.8 %) patients, infectious complications in 14 (6.7 %) patients, ripping in 10 (4.8 %) patients. Also, 2 (0.95 %) patients had a violation of the integrity of the endoprosthesis, and 2 (0.95 %) patients had rotation of the endoprosthesis. 

Conclusions. Prepectoral breast reconstruction can be used as an alternative to subpectoral reconstruction in primary operable forms of breast cancer with sufficient thickness of integumentary tissues.

1. Situation with cancer care in Russia in 2019. Ed. by A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinskiy, G.V. Petrova. Moscow: P.A. Herzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – a branch of the National Medical Research Center of Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia, 2020. 236 p. (In Russ.).

2. Zikiryahodzhaev A.D., Rasskazova E.A., Tukmakov A.Yu., Shirokikh I.M. Relapses after radical subcutaneous/skin-sparing mastectomies with simultaneous reconstruction in patients with breast cancer. Issledovaniya i praktika v meditsine = Research'n Practical Medicine Journal 2019;(6):33–40. (In Russ.).

3. Zikiryahodzhaev A.D., Shirokih I.M., Ablitsova N.V. et al. Simultaneous breast reconstruction and postoperative radiotherapy: development of capsular contracture. Voprosy onkologii = Problems in Oncology 2019;(65): 374–85. (In Russ.).

4. Heimes A.S., Stewen K., Hasenburg A. Psychosocial aspects of immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction. Breast Care 2017;12:374–7.

5. Yarygin M.L., Sobolevskiy V.A., Egorov Yu.S., Yarygin L.M. Complications of reconstructive surgeries with silicone implants in patients with breast cancer. Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova = Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery 2011;(6):11–7. (In Russ.).

6. Ivanova N.Yu. Main psychosexual syndromes in women who have undergone mastectomy. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta = Bulletin of Tomsk State Pedagogical University 2013;(5):146–8. (In Russ.).

7. Chen W., Lv X., Xu X. et al. Meta-analysis for psychological impact of breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2018;25:464–9. DOI: 10.1007/s12282-018-0846-8.

8. Farago-Magrini S., Auba C., Camargo C. et al. The relationship between patients’ personality traits and breast reconstruction process. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2018;42:702–7. DOI: 10.1007/s00266-018-1099-9. 9. Aerts L., Christiaens M.R., Enzlin P., Neven F. Amant, Sexual functioning in women after mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer: a prospective controlled study. Breast 2014;23:629–36.

9. Manrique O.J., Banuelos J., Abu-Ghname A. et al. Surgical outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral implant based breast reconstruction in young women. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019;7:e2119.

10. Ermoschenkova M.V., Chissov V.I., Usov A.V. et al. Biological and synthetic materials in reconstructive plastic surgery for breast cancer. Issledovaniya i praktika v meditsine = Research'n Practical Medicine Journal 2017;4(1):23–32. (In Russ.).

11. Goldman Yu.I., Tsarev O.N. Evolution of breast cancer surgery. Akademicheskiy zhurnal Zapadnoj Sibiri = Academic Journal of Western Siberia 2016;(12):42–5. (In Russ.).

12. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. Available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/ documents/News/Statistics/2019/plastic surgery-statistics-full-report-2019.pdf.

13. Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D., Ermoshchenkova M.V., Fetisova E.Yu. et al. Experience of using Mentor silicone implants for breast cancer reconstruction in 2015. Povolzhskiy onkologicheskiy vestnik = Volga Oncology Bulletin 2016;(1):37–41. (In Russ.).

14. Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D., Sobolevskiy V.A., Chistyakov S.S. et al. Reconstructive surgery and rehabilitation of breast cancer patients. Russkiy meditsinskiy zhurnal = Russian Medical Journal. Annex. Oncology 2011;(2):42–3. (In Russ.).

15. Vidya R., Berna G., Sbitany H. et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: a joint consensus guide from UK, European and USA breast and plastic reconstructive surgeons. E-Cancer Med Sci 2019;13:1–12. DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2019.927.

16. Paula J., James R. Systematic review of the effectiveness of polyurethane-coated compared with textured silicone implants in breast surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2016;69:452–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.01.013.

17. De Vita R., Buccheri E.M., Villanucci A., Pozzi M. Breast reconstruction actualized in nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct to-implant, prepectoral polyurethane positioning: early experience and preliminary results. Clin Breast Cancer 2019;19:e358–e363. DOI: 10.1016/ j.clbc.2018.12.015.

18. Fernandez-Delgado J., Lo  pez-Pedraza M.J.,  Blasco J.A. et al. Satisfaction with and psychological impact of immediate and deferred breast reconstruction. Ann Oncol 2008;19:1430–4. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdn153.

19. Snyderman R.K., Guthrie R.H. Reconstruction of the female breast following radical mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1971;47:565–7. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-197106000-00008.

20. Sigalove S., Maxwel G.P., Sigalove N. et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: rationale, indications, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;139:287–94.

21. Schlenker J.D., Bueno R.A., Ricketson G., Lynch J. Loss of silicone implants after subcutaneous mastectomy and reconstruc tion. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978;62:853–61. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-197812000-00004.

22. Vidya R., Masià J., Cawthorn S. et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the prepectoral breast reconstruction with Braxon dermal matrix: first multicenter European report on 100 cases. Breast J 2017;23:670–6. DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12810.

23. Rebowe R.E., Allred L.J., Nahabedian M.Y. The evolution from subcutaneous to prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6:e1797. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001797.

24. Ter Louw R.P., Nahabedian M.Y. Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140:51S–59S. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003942.

25. Vlasova M.Yu., Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D., Reshetov I.V. et al. Prepectoral breast reconstruction using polyurethane implants after subcutaneous mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. Issledovaniya i praktika v meditsine = Research'n Practical Medicine Journal 2020;(7):3–73. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17709/2409-2231-2020-7-3-6.

26. Becker H., Lind J.G., Hopkins E.G. Immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction using a vertical incision. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015;e412. DOI: 10.1097/ GOX.0000000000000384.

27. Gfrerer L., Liao E.C. Technique refinement in prepectoral implant breast reconstruction with Vicryl mesh pocket and acellular dermal matrix support. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6:e1749. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001749.

28. Bergmann P.A., Tamouridis G., Lohmeyer J.A. et al. The effect of a bacterial contamination on the formation of capsular contracture with polyurethane breast implants in comparison with textured silicone implants – an animal study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2014;67:1364–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.05.040.

29. Sinclair T.M., Kerrigan C.L., Buntic R. Biodegradation of the polyurethane foam covering of breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;92:1003.

30. Fallbjork U., Karlsson S., Salander P., Rasmussen B.H. Differences between women who have and have not undergone breast reconstruction after mastectomy due to breast cancer. Acta Oncol (Madr) 2010;49:174–9. DOI: 10.3109/02841860903490069.

31. Onesti M.G., Maruccia M., Di Taranto G. et al. Clinical, histological, and ultrasound follow-up of breast reconstruction with one-stage muscle sparing “wrap” technique: a single-center experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2017;70:1527–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2017.06.023.

32. Gabriel A., Sigalove S., Sigalove N.M. et al. Prepectoral revision breast reconstruction for treatment of implant associated animation deformity: a review of 102 reconstructions. Aesthetic Surg J 2018;38:519–26.

33. Benediktsson K., Perbeck L. Capsular contracture around salinefilled and textured subcutaneously-placed implants in irradiated and non-irradiated breast cancer patients: five years of monitoring of a prospective trial. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2006;59:27–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2005.08.005.

34. Nahabedian M.Y. Prosthetic breast reconstruction and red breast syndrome: demystification and a review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019;7:e2108. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002108.

35. Peter S.W., Winocour S., Jacobson S.R. Red breast syndrome: a review of available literature. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2015;39:227–230. DOI: 10.1007/s00266-014-0444-x.