Introduction: Pectoral fascia (PF) removal during mastectomy still seems to be the standard procedure. However, preservation of the PF might improve postoperative and cosmetic outcomes, without... Show moreIntroduction: Pectoral fascia (PF) removal during mastectomy still seems to be the standard procedure. However, preservation of the PF might improve postoperative and cosmetic outcomes, without compromising oncological safety. Here, we report on a national survey among Dutch plastic surgeons and oncological breast surgeons to evaluate their techniques and opinions regarding the PF.Materials and methods: A survey based study was performed in the Netherlands, in which both plastic surgeons and oncological breast surgeons were included, each receiving a different version of the survey. The surveys were distributed to 460 and 150 e-mail addresses, respectively.Results: A total of 68 responses were included from more than half of all Dutch medical centers. The results of this study indicate that circa one in five plastic surgeons and breast surgeons routinely preserve the PF during mastectomies and even more surgeons preserve the PF in specific cases. The surgical techniques and opinions regarding PF preservation widely differ between surgeons.Conclusions: Preservation of the PF does occur in a substantial part of the Dutch medical centers and techniques and opinions are contradictory. Future studies on this topic should clarify the effect of PF preservation on oncological safety, complication rates, postoperative pain, cosmetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction. Show less
Blok, Y.L.; Suijker, J.; Tol, M.P. van den; Pol, C.C. van der; Mureau, M.A.M.; Hage, J.A. van der; Krekel, N.M.A. 2022
Introduction: Pectoral fascia (PF) removal during mastectomy still seems to be the standard procedure. However, preservation of the PF might improve postoperative and cosmetic outcomes, without... Show moreIntroduction: Pectoral fascia (PF) removal during mastectomy still seems to be the standard procedure. However, preservation of the PF might improve postoperative and cosmetic outcomes, without compromising oncological safety. Here, we report on a national survey among Dutch plastic surgeons and oncological breast surgeons to evaluate their tech-niques and opinions regarding the PF. Materials and methods: A survey based study was performed in the Netherlands, in which both plastic surgeons and oncological breast surgeons were included, each receiving a different version of the survey. The surveys were distributed to 460 and 150 e-mail ad-dresses, respectively. Results: A total of 68 responses were included from more than half of all Dutch medical centers. The results of this study indicate that circa one in five plastic surgeons and breast surgeons routinely preserve the PF during mastectomies and even more surgeons preserve the PF in specific cases. The surgical techniques and opinions regarding PF preservation widely differ between surgeons. Conclusions: Preservation of the PF does occur in a substantial part of the Dutch medical centers and techniques and opinions are contradictory. Future studies on this topic should clarify the effect of PF preservation on oncological safety, complication rates, postoperative pain, cosmetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction. (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Blok, Y.L.; Plat, V.D.; Hage, J.A. van der; Krekel, N.M.A.; Mureau, M.A.M. 2022
IntroductionImplant loss following breast reconstruction is a devastating complication, which should be prevented as much as possible. This study aimed to validate a previously developed... Show moreIntroductionImplant loss following breast reconstruction is a devastating complication, which should be prevented as much as possible. This study aimed to validate a previously developed multicenter risk model for implant loss after implant-based breast reconstructions, using national data from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR).MethodsThe validation cohort consisted of patients who underwent a mastectomy followed by either a direct-to-implant (DTI) or two-stage breast reconstruction between September 2017 and January 2021 registered in the DBIR. Reconstructions with an autologous adjunctive and patients with missing data on the risk factors extracted from the multicenter risk model (obesity, smoking, nipple preserving procedure, DTI reconstruction) were excluded. The primary outcome was implant loss. The predicted probability of implant loss was calculated using beta regression coefficients extracted from the multicenter risk model and compared to the observed probability.ResultsThe validation cohort consisted of 3769 reconstructions and implant loss occurred after 307 reconstructions (8.1%). Although the observed implant loss rate increased when the risk factors accumulated, the predicted and observed probabilities of implant loss did not match. Of the four risk factors in the multicenter risk model, only obesity and smoking were significantly associated to implant loss.ConclusionThe multicenter risk model could not be validated using nationwide data of the DBIR and is therefore not accurate in Dutch practice. In the future, the risk model should be improved by including other factors to provide a validated tool for the preoperative risk assessment of implant loss. Show less
Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate complication rates, patient satisfaction, and cosmetic outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPS). Furthermore, outcome differences... Show moreIntroduction: This study aimed to evaluate complication rates, patient satisfaction, and cosmetic outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPS). Furthermore, outcome differences between volume displacement and volume replacement techniques and the effect of postoperative complications on outcomes were evaluated.Methods: This was a prospective single-center study addressing patients who underwent OPS from 2017 to 2020. The BREAST-Q was used to measure patient satisfaction, and cosmetic outcomes were assessed by patient self-evaluation and panel evaluation based on medical photographs.Results: A total of 75 patients were included. The overall complication rate was 18.7%, of which 4% required invasive interventions. Median BREAST-Q scores ranged from 56 to 100 and cosmetic outcomes were scored good to excellent in 60-86%. No differences in complications were observed between volume replacement and volume displacement techniques. Following volume displacement techniques, patients-reported higher BREAST-Q scores for the domain "physical well-being of the chest" and lower cosmetic outcomes scores for "mammary symmetry." Patients with complications scored significantly lower on several domains of the BREAST-Q and in various cosmetic outcome categories.Conclusion: In this cohort, an overall complication rate of 18.7% was observed. Patients were generally satisfied, and most cosmetic outcomes were good to excellent. Volume displacement or replacement techniques were performed for different indications and generally showed comparable results. Expected differences in physical discomfort and symmetry between both techniques were observed. In addition, the occurrence of complications resulted in lower patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes. These findings emphasize the importance of thorough preoperative counselling. Show less
Suijker, J.; Blok, Y.L.; Vries, R. de; Tol, M.P. van den; Krekel, N.M.A. 2022
Excision of the pectoral fascia (PF) is routinely performed in oncological mastectomies. Preservation of the PF may, however, decrease postoperative complication rates for bleeding, infections, and... Show moreExcision of the pectoral fascia (PF) is routinely performed in oncological mastectomies. Preservation of the PF may, however, decrease postoperative complication rates for bleeding, infections, and seroma. It may also improve reconstructive outcomes by better prosthesis coverage, thereby reducing implant extrusion rates and improving cosmetic outcomes.Methods: A systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis principles was performed. Studies describing PF preservation were searched in 3 databases. All studies including more than 10 patients were included. The main outcomes were oncological safety (local recurrence, regional and distant metastases, and mortality rates), complication rates (bleeding, infections, seroma), loss of the prosthesis after reconstructive surgery, and cosmetic outcomes following reconstruction.Results: Five studies were included. Three reported on 2 different randomized controlled trials (n = 73, and n = 244), and 2 studies were retrospective case series (n = 203 and n = 256). PF preservation did not affect oncological outcomes in terms of local recurrences, regional and distant metastases, or mortality rates. One study described a significantly lower incidence of seroma in the PF preservation group. No differences were found for bleeding complications and infections. No objective data were provided for reconstructive complications or cosmetic outcomes.Conclusions: The literature on PF preservation is scarce. Based on the current evidence, PF preservation seems oncologically safe while potentially reducing postoperative complication rates. It is expected that reconstructive outcomes will benefit from PF preservation, but these studies lack evidence on this topic. Future studies should provide insight into all aspects of PF preservation. Show less
Background: Implant loss is the most severe complication of implant-based breast reconstructions. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of implant loss and other complications, identify... Show moreBackground: Implant loss is the most severe complication of implant-based breast reconstructions. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of implant loss and other complications, identify associated risk factors, and create a risk model for implant loss.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent a mastectomy, followed by either a two-stage or a direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Patient variables, operative characteristics, and postoperative complications were obtained from the patient records. A multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to create a risk model for implant loss.Results: A total of 297 implant-based breast reconstructions were evaluated. Overall, the incidence of implant loss was 11.8%. Six risk factors were significantly associated with implant loss: obesity, a bra cup size larger than C, active smoking status, a nipple-preserving procedure, a direct-to-implant reconstruction, and a lower surgeon's volume. A risk model for implant loss was created, showing a predicted risk of 8.4%-13% in the presence of one risk factor, 21.9%-32.5% in the presence of two, 47.5%-59.3% in the presence of three, and over 78.2% in the presence of four risk factors.Conclusions: The incidence of implant loss in this study was 11.8%. Six associated significant risk factors were identified. Our risk model for implant loss revealed that the predicted risk increased over 78.2% when four risk factors were present. This risk model can be used to better inform patients and decrease the risk of implant loss by optimizing surgery using personalized therapy. Show less
