Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction: Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Two-Stages vs Single-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction
Zingaretti N., Piana M., Battellino L., Galvano F., De Francesco F., Riccio M.
Retrospective Study, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Retrospective Study
- Journal
- Aesthetic Plast Surg (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 37644192
- PMCID
- PMC11093833
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00266-023-03601-x
- Citations
- 7
Abstract (original English)
Background Two-stages pre-pectoral breast reconstruction may confer advantages over direct to implant (DTI) and subpectoral reconstruction in selected patients who have no indication for autologous reconstruction. The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate and compare the incidence of capsular contracture in the pre-pectoral two-stages technique versus the direct to implant technique. Complications related to the two surgical techniques and patient satisfaction were also evaluated. Methods A retrospective review of 45 two stages and 45 Direct-to-implant, DTI patients was completed. Acellular dermal matrix was used in all patients. An evaluation of anthropometric and clinical parameters, surgical procedures and complications was conducted. Minimum follow-up was 12 months after placement of the definitive implant. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of capsular contracture in the two groups. Rippling occurred more in DTI reconstruction. In the two-stages reconstruction, lipofilling was applied more often and there was a higher incidence of seroma. Patient satisfaction extrapolated from the Breast Q questionnaire was better for patients submitted to two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Conclusion Dual-stage pre-pectoral reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix appears to be a good reconstructive solution in patients with relati
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.