Background: The resurgence of prepectoral breast reconstruction has brought strict patient inclusion and exclusion criteria by numerous authors. This article provides an overview of a single surgeon’s experience with 201 patients, 313 breasts using immediate, direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction. The article compares surgical outcomes of different patient cohorts to elucidate risk factors that may predispose patients toward developing complications. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed, identifying all patients who underwent prepectoral, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction from June of 2016 to June of 2018. Results: A total of 201 patients representing 313 breasts were included. A midlateral incision was used in 157 breasts (50.2 percent), followed by a skin-reducing, Wise-pattern in 90 breasts (28.8 percent). Acellular dermal matrix was used in 243 breasts (77.6 percent), free nipple grafts were used in 39 breasts (12.5 percent), and postmastectomy radiation therapy was used in 58 breasts (18.5 percent). Complications requiring operative intervention occurred in 24 breasts (7.7 percent), and minor complications occurred in 23 breasts (7.3 percent). There were no significant differences in complication rates for (1) acellular dermal matrix use versus non–acellular dermal matrix use, (2) Wise-pattern versus other incision, or (3) postmastectomy radiotherapy (p > 0.05). Conclusions: This represents the largest single-surgeon, direct-to-implant prepectoral cohort in the literature. Surgical complications did not differ with acellular dermal matrix use, incision selection, and the use of postmastectomy radiation therapy. There may be an association between acellular dermal matrix use and major complications and radiotherapy with minor complications. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Introduction Refined mastectomy techniques, the advent of new technologies and materials such as acellular dermal matrix (ADM), cohesive gel silicone implants, and intraoperative tissue perfusion analysis, have fueled a resurgence in prepectoral breast reconstruction. This article aims to compare an immediate direct-to-implant prepectoral ADM-sparing approach with the traditional subpectoral 2-stage immediate reconstruction. A cost analysis within a Canadian-run single-payer system is also presented. Methods A retrospective 2-group comparative chart review study was performed (June 2015–January 2017) to identify all patients who underwent prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using an ADM-sparing technique. The comparison group consisted of patients having undergone traditional 2-stage subpectoral reconstruction with ADM. All countable variables were included in the cost analysis, which was performed in Canadian dollars. Results A total of 77 patients (116 reconstructed breasts) were included. Both the prepectoral and subpectoral groups were comparable in size, demographics including age, diabetic and smoking status, and receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and postmastectomy radiotherapy. Patients having undergone direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction benefited from fewer follow-up visits (3.8 vs 5.4, respectively) and from less complications (24.7% vs 35.6%, respectively) including animation deformity. In addition, direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction costs 25% less than the 2-stage subpectoral reconstruction when all associated costs were considered. Conclusion Prepectoral implant placement avoids many of the disadvantages of the traditional 2 stage subpectoral reconstruction, including pectoralis muscle dissection, animation deformity, and multiple surgeries. As the first comparative cost analysis study on the subject, our ADM-sparing direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction method costs 25% less than the traditional 2-stage subpectoral reconstruction with a comparable complication profile.

Summary:Outcome studies help provide the evidence-based science rationalizing treatment end results that factor the experience of patients and the impact on society. They improve the recognition of the shortcoming in clinical practice and provide the foundation for the development of gold standard care. With such evidence, health care practitioners can develop evidence-based justification for treatments and offer patients with superior informed consent for their treatment options. Furthermore, health care and insurance agencies can recognize improved cost-benefit options in the purpose of disease prevention and alleviation of its impact on the patient and society. Health care outcomes are ultimately measured by the treatment of disease, the reduction of symptoms, the normalization of laboratory results and physical measures, saving a life, and patient satisfaction. In this review, we outline the tools available to measure outcomes in plastic surgery and subsequently allow the objective measurements of plastic surgical conditions. Six major outcome categories are discussed: (1) functional measures; (2) preference-based measures and utility outcome scores; (3) patient satisfaction; (4) health outcomes and time; (5) other tools: patient-reported outcome measurement information system, BREAST-Q, and Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons; and (6) cost-effectiveness analysis. We use breast hypertrophy requiring breast reduction as an example throughout this review as a representative plastic surgical condition with multiple treatments available.