Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Associated Factors and Prevention of Upper Pole Rippling in Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

  • Da Hye Ryu (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Oh Young Joo (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Yun Ho Roh (Biostatistics Collaboration Unit, Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Eun Jung Yang (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Seung Yong Song (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Dong Won Lee (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2022.11.22
  • Accepted : 2023.06.21
  • Published : 2023.11.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background Despite its many advantages, prepectoral breast reconstruction also carries the risk of implant rippling. The recent introduction of partial superior implant coverage using a pectoralis muscle slip in prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction has shown the potential to minimize upper pole rippling. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with rippling and the effectiveness of our surgical technique. Methods In total, 156 patients (186 breasts) who underwent prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction between August 2019 and March 2021 were identified retrospectively. Patient data were analyzed from medical records. Univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were performed to contextualize the risks associated with rippling deformity relative to demographic characteristics and other clinical factors. Retrospective propensity-matched analysis was performed to identify the relationship between rippling deformity and the reconstruction method. Results Patients with body mass index (BMI; odds ratio [OR], 0.736; p < 0.001), those with a postoperative chemotherapy history (OR, 0.324; p = 0.027) and those who received breast reconstruction via the superior coverage technique (OR, 0.2; p = 0.004), were less likely to develop rippling deformity. The median follow-up period was 64.9 weeks, and there were no significant differences between patients in types of mastectomy, implant, or acellular dermal matrix. Patients who underwent superior coverage technique-based reconstruction showed significantly reduced rippling (OR, 0.083; p = 0.017) Conclusion Patients with higher BMI and prior postoperative chemotherapy were less likely to develop rippling deformity. The superior coverage technique can be effective in minimizing upper pole rippling.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT; grant no.: 2022R1F1A1076491).

References

  1. Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;131(01):15-23 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729cde
  2. Song WJ, Kang SG, Kim EK, et al. Current status of and trends in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction in Korea. Arch Plast Surg 2020;47(02):118-125 https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2019.01676
  3. Clemens MW, Kronowitz SJ. Acellular dermal matrix in irradiated tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction: evidencebased review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;130(5, suppl 2):27S-34S https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318265f690
  4. Komorowska-Timek E, Gurtner GC. Intraoperative perfusion mapping with laser-assisted indocyanine green imaging can predict and prevent complications in immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125(04):1065-1073 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d17f80
  5. Newman MI, Samson MC, Tamburrino JF, Swartz KA. Intraoperative laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography for the evaluation of mastectomy flaps in immediate breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2010;26(07):487-492 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1261701
  6. Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, Menon NG. Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008;32(03):418-425 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-008-9128-8
  7. Antony AK, Robinson EC. An algorithmic approach to prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: Version 2.0. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143(05):1311-1319 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005519
  8. Frey JD, Salibian AA, Levine JP, Karp NS, Choi M. Evolution of the surgical technique for "breast in a day" direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: transitioning from dual-plane to prepectoral implant placement. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;145(03):647e-648e https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006566
  9. Highton L, Johnson R, Kirwan C, Murphy J. Prepectoral implantbased breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017;5(09):e1488
  10. Pittman TA, Abbate OA, Economides JM. The P1 method: prepectoral breast reconstruction to minimize the palpable implant edge and upper pole rippling. Ann Plast Surg 2018;80(05):487-492 https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001426
  11. Sbitany H, Gomez-Sanchez C, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy: an assessment of clinical outcomes and benefits. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143(01):10-20 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005140
  12. Woo A, Harless C, Jacobson SR. Revisiting an old place: singlesurgeon experience on post-mastectomy subcutaneous implantbased breast reconstruction. Breast J 2017;23(05):545-553 https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12790
  13. Colwell AS, Taylor EM. Recent advances in implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;145(02):421e-432e https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006510
  14. Busse B, Orbay H, Sahar DE. Sterile acellular dermal collagen as a treatment for rippling deformity of breast. Case Rep Surg 2014;2014:876254
  15. Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O'Connor EA. Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;135(06):1540-1544 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001277
  16. Sbitany H, Serletti JM. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;128(06):1162-1169 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318230c29e
  17. Codner MA, Mejia JD, Locke MB, et al. A 15-year experience with primary breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127(03):1300-1310 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318205f41b
  18. Pantelides NM, Srinivasan JR. Rippling following breast augmentation or reconstruction: aetiology, emerging treatment options and a novel classification of severity. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2018;42(04):980-985 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1117-y
  19. Lee WY, Kim MJ, Lew DH, Song SY, Lee DW. Three-dimensional surface imaging is an effective tool for measuring breast volume: a validation study. Arch Plast Surg 2016;43(05):430-437 https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2016.43.5.430
  20. Safran T, Al-Badarin F, Al-Halabi B, Viezel-Mathieu A, Dionisopoulos T. Aesthetic limitations in direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022;150(01):22e-31e https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009189
  21. Silva J, Carvalho F, Marques M. Direct-to-implant subcutaneous breast reconstruction: a systematic review of complications and patient's quality of life. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2023;47(01):92-105 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-03068-2
  22. Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. Bioengineered breast: concept, technique, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137(02):415-421 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000475750.40838.53
  23. Vidya R, Iqbal FM, Becker H, Zhadan O. Rippling associated with pre-pectoral implant based breast reconstruction: a new grading system. World J Plast Surg 2019;8(03):311-315
  24. Anampa J, Makower D, Sparano JA. Progress in adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: an overview. BMC Med 2015;13:195
  25. Semb KA, Aamdal S, Oian P. Capillary protein leak syndrome appears to explain fluid retention in cancer patients who receive docetaxel treatment. J Clin Oncol 1998;16(10):3426-3432 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1998.16.10.3426
  26. Piccart MJ, Klijn J, Paridaens R, et al. Corticosteroids significantly delay the onset of docetaxel-induced fluid retention: final results of a randomized study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Investigational Drug Branch for Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997;15(09):3149-3155 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1997.15.9.3149
  27. Pronk LC, van Putten WL, van Beurden V, de Boer-Dennert M, Stoter G, Verweij J. The venotonic drug hydroxyethylrutosiden does not prevent or reduce docetaxel-induced fluid retention: results of a comparative study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1999;43(02):173-177 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002800050880
  28. Miller CL, Colwell AS, Horick N, et al. Immediate implant reconstruction is associated with a reduced risk of lymphedema compared to mastectomy alone: a prospective cohort study. Ann Surg 2016;263(02):399-405 https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001128
  29. Jeon HB, Jung JH, Im SH, et al. Association between immediate breast reconstruction and the development of breast cancerrelated lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023;151(02):214e-222e https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009831
  30. Panettiere P, Marchetti L, Accorsi D. Soft cohesive silicone gel breast prostheses: a comparative prospective study of aesthetic results versus lower cohesivity silicone gel prostheses. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2007;60(05):482-489
  31. Abramo AC, Scartozzoni M, Lucena TW, Sgarbi RG. High- and extra-high-profile round implants in breast augmentation: guidelines to prevent rippling and implant edge visibility. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2019;43(02):305-312  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1264-1