Advertisement

Risk Stratification in Subpectoral to Prepectoral Pocket Conversion to Reduce Post-Reconstruction Animation Deformity

Published:November 21, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2022.11.014

      Abstract

      Background

      Animation deformity is a morbid complication that impacts women undergoing subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Transferring implants from the subpectoral to prepectoral space, pocket conversion, can be performed to minimize this issue. While prior literature has evaluated outcomes associated with this procedure, we investigated risk factors most commonly associated with post-conversion complications.

      Methods

      We performed a retrospective cohort investigation of women undergoing prepectoral pocket conversion. Pre-conversion clinical characteristics and surgical complications (major and minor) were collected. Predictors for postoperative complications were identified using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Odds ratios (OR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) are presented with 95% confidence intervals, and p-values were assessed at α = 0.05.

      Results

      A total of 34 patients (63 breasts) were included. Pocket conversion relieved animation deformity in all breasts. Overall rates of major and minor complications were 14.3% (n= 9/63) and 34.9% (n= 22/63), respectively, by mean follow-up of 11.1 months. After adjusting for confounders, pre-conversion implant rupture (OR= 6.00, CI= 0.99-34.58; aOR= 12.8, CI= 1.15-170.32) and duration of implant placement (OR=1.35, CI= 1.07-1.78; aOR= 1.1, CI= 1.00-1.21) were found to be significant predictors of major postoperative complications.

      Conclusion

      With a fairly inclusive patient population, this series provides data for improved risk stratification of patients considering conversion to relieve animation deformity. Interestingly, traditional risk factors (namely BMI and smoking status) were not significant predictors for postoperative complications, suggesting that conversion may be safe in high-risk patients. Such data supports more informed preoperative counseling and wider application of this procedure.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2020 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics. [Accessibility verified September 17, 2022]

        • O'Halloran N
        • Potter S
        • Kerin M
        • Lowery A.
        Recent Advances and Future Directions in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction.
        Clin Breast Cancer. 2018; 18: e571-e585
        • Nahabedian MY.
        Innovations and advancements with prosthetic breast reconstruction.
        Breast J. 2018; 24: 586-591
        • Salibian AA
        • Frey JD
        • Choi M
        • Karp NS.
        Subcutaneous Implant-based Breast Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix/Mesh: A Systematic Review.
        Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016; 4: e1139
        • 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: 1540-1544
        • Lentz R
        • Alcon A
        • Sbitany H.
        Correction of animation deformity with subpectoral to prepectoral implant exchange.
        Gland Surg. 2019; 8: 75-81
        • Becker H
        • Fregosi N.
        The Impact of Animation Deformity on Quality of Life in Post-Mastectomy Reconstruction Patients.
        Aesthet Surg J. 2017; 37: 531-536
        • Gabriel A
        • Sigalove S
        • Sigalove NM
        • et al.
        Prepectoral Revision Breast Reconstruction for Treatment of Implant-Associated Animation Deformity: A Review of 102 Reconstructions.
        Aesthet Surg J. 2018; 38: 519-526
        • Lesavoy MA
        • Trussler AP
        • Dickinson BP.
        Difficulties with subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty and its correction: the role of subglandular site change in revision aesthetic breast surgery.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 125: 363-371
        • Nigro LC
        • Blanchet NP.
        Animation Deformity in Postmastectomy Implant-Based Reconstruction.
        Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. Jul 2017; 5: e1407https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001407
        • Holland Michael C
        • Lentz R
        • Sbitany H.
        Surgical Correction of Breast Animation Deformity with Implant Pocket Conversion to a Prepectoral Plane.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. Mar 2020; 145: 632-642https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006590
        • Alnaif N
        • Safran T
        • Viezel-Mathieu A
        • et al.
        Treatment of breast animation deformity: A systematic review.
        J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. May 2019; 72: 781-788https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.02.025
        • Jones GE
        • King VA
        • Yoo A.
        Prepectoral Site Conversion for Animation Deformity.
        Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. Jul 2019; 7: e2301https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002301
        • Hammond DC
        • Hidalgo D
        • Slavin S
        • et al.
        Revising the unsatisfactory breast augmentation.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. Jul 1999; 104: 277-283
      2. StatPearls Publishing. Breast Implant Rupture. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459308/. [Accessibility verified September 17, 2022]

        • Pinchuk V
        • Tymofii O
        • Tkach O
        • et al.
        Implant Ruptures After Augmentation Mammoplasty.
        Aesth Plast Surg. 2013; 37: 60-67https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-0017-9
        • Hillard C
        • Fowler JD
        • Barta R
        • Cunningham B.
        Silicone breast implant rupture: a review.
        Gland Surg. Apr 2017; 6: 163-168https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2016.09.12
        • Wong T
        • Lo LW
        • Fung PY
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging of breast augmentation: a pictorial review.
        Insights Imaging. 2016; 7: 399-410https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-016-0482-9
        • Weintraub JL
        • Kahn DM.
        The timing of implant exchange in the development of capsular contracture after breast reconstruction.
        Eplasty. May 2008; 8: e31
        • Thorarinsson A
        • Fröjd V
        • Kölby L
        • et al.
        Patient determinants as independent risk factors for postoperative complications of breast reconstruction.
        Gland Surg. Aug 2017; 6: 355-367https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2017.04.04
        • Hirsch EM
        • Seth AK
        • Kim JY
        • et al.
        Analysis of risk factors for complications in expander/implant breast reconstruction by stage of reconstruction.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. Nov 2014; 134: 692e-699ehttps://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000607
        • Kruchevsky D
        • Tobias T
        • Halperin Ben-Ami T
        • Shoufani A
        Biplanar Technique for Breast Implant Replacement through Mastectomy Scar.
        Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. Apr 2020; 8: e2702https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002702
        • Gass J
        • Mitchell S
        • Hanna M.
        How do breast cancer surgery scars impact survivorship? Findings from a nationwide survey in the United States.
        BMC Cancer. Apr 2019; 19: 342https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5553-0