No abstract

Background: Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction offers the intuitive advantages of shortening the reconstructive process and reducing costs. In the authors’ practice, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction has evolved from dual-plane to prepectoral implant placement. The authors sought to understand postoperative complications and aesthetic outcomes and identify differences in the dual-plane and prepectoral direct-to-implant subcohorts. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted from November of 2014 to March of 2018. Postoperative complication data, reoperation, and aesthetic outcomes were reviewed. Aesthetic outcomes were evaluated by a blinded panel of practitioners using standardized photographs. Results: One hundred thirty-four direct-to-implant reconstructions were performed in 81 women: 42.5 percent were dual-plane (n = 57) and 57.5 percent were prepectoral (n = 77). Statistical analysis was limited to patients with at least 1 year of follow-up. Total complications were low overall (8 percent), although the incidence of prepectoral complications [n = 1 (2 percent)] was lower than the incidence of dual-plane complications [n = 7 (12 percent)], with the difference approaching statistical significance (p = 0.07). Panel evaluation for aesthetic outcomes favored prepectoral reconstruction. Pectoralis animation deformity was completely eliminated in the prepectoral cohort. Conclusions: The authors present the largest comparative direct-to-implant series using acellular dermal matrix to date. Transition to prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction has not resulted in increased complications, degradation of aesthetic results, or an increase in revision procedures. Prepectoral reconstruction is a viable reconstructive option with elimination of animation deformity and potential for enhanced aesthetic results. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.