Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022 Dec 19. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010066. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There remains a lack of clarity surrounding the benefits, risks and outcomes between two-stage expander/implant reconstruction and single-stage direct-to-implant reconstruction. This study utilised a national dataset to examine real-world outcomes of two-stage and DTI reconstructions.
METHODS: A cohort study was conducted examining patients in the Australian Breast Device Registry from 2015-2018 who underwent prosthetic breast reconstruction post-mastectomy. Direct-to-implant and two-stage cohorts after definitive implant insertion were compared. Rate of revision surgery, reasons for revision and patient-reported outcome measures were recorded. Statistical analysis was undertaken using Fisher’s exact or chi-square, Wilcoxon rank-sum or student t-tests, Nelson-Aalen cumulative incidence estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression.
RESULTS: 5,152 breast reconstructions were recorded, including 3,093 two-stage and 2,059 direct-to-implant reconstructions. Overall revision surgery rates were 15.6% for direct-to-implant (median follow-up 24.7 months), compared with 9.7% in the two-stage cohort (median follow-up 26.5 months) (p<0.001). Most common reasons for revision for DTI and two-stage were capsular contracture (25.2% vs 26.7%, p=0.714) and implant malposition (26.7% vs 34.3%, p=0.045). Multivariate analysis found acellular dermal matrix usage (p=0.028) was significantly associated with a higher risk of revision. The influence of radiotherapy on revision rates was unable to be studied. Patient satisfaction levels were similar between reconstructive groups; however, patient experience was better in direct-to-implant than two-stage.
CONCLUSIONS: The Australian Breast Device Registry dataset demonstrated that direct-to-implant reconstruction had a higher revision rate than two-stage, but with comparable patient satisfaction and better patient experience. Capsular contracture and device malposition were leading causes of revision in both cohorts.
PMID:36729564 | DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000010066