Comparative analysis of health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer after immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction

Baichorov E.A.; Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D.; Ismagilov A.Kh.; Vanesyan A.S.

doi:https://doi.org/10.17116/plast.hirurgia202202125

Baichorov E.A.

Stavropol Medical University

Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D.

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University) of the Ministry of Russia;
P.A. Herzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute — Branch of the National Medical Radiology Research Center of the Ministry of Russia;
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

SPIN RSCI: 8421-0364
Scopus AuthorID: 57220129122
ORCID: 0000-0001-7141-2502

Ismagilov A.Kh.

Republican Clinical Oncology Dispensary

Vanesyan A.S.

Mona Lisa Clinic

Comparative analysis of health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer after immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction

Authors:

Baichorov E.A., Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D., Ismagilov A.Kh., Vanesyan A.S.

More about the authors

Journal: Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2022;(2): 25‑32

DOI: 10.17116/plast.hirurgia202202125

Read: 1572 times

To cite this article:

Baichorov EA, Zikiryakhodzhaev AD, Ismagilov AKh, Vanesyan AS. Comparative analysis of health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer after immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2022;(2):25‑32. (In Russ., In Engl.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/plast.hirurgia202202125

Подписка 2026 Пластическая хирургия и эстетическая медицина (Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine)

Использование инфографики авторами научных работ

Close metadata

OBJECTIVE

To analyze patient quality of life after simultaneous breast reconstruction with implants and biological or synthetic matrices.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective controlled study involved 91 patients aged 53.7±2.1 years with breast cancer who were treated between 2013 and 2018. Depending on reconstruction technique, all patients were divided into two groups: classical prepectoral reconstruction (n=49) and prepectoral reconstruction using functionally sparing method (n=42).

RESULTS

Incidence of seroma was 2 times higher in the 2^nd group (9 (21.4%) vs. 6 (12.4%)). Biological matrix was followed by 2-fold higher incidence of complications compared to synthetic mesh (66.6% vs. 33.4%). Postoperative analysis revealed a significant deterioration of all QoL parameters in the 1^st group and improvement of all these parameters in the 2^nd group, except for sexual well-being.

CONCLUSION

Functionally sparing prepectoral breast reconstruction improves health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients regarding mental well-being, breast shape satisfaction and psychosocial well-being. At the same time, there was no deterioration of sexual well-being. We observed significantly less incidence of certain complications such as animation deformity and postoperative pain syndrome.

Keywords:

breast cancer

acellular dermal matrix

synthetic mesh

breast reconstruction

reconstruction with implants

prepectoral breast reconstruction

prepectoral pocket for an implant

Authors:

Baichorov E.A.

Stavropol Medical University

Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D.

SPIN RSCI: 8421-0364
Scopus AuthorID: 57220129122
ORCID: 0000-0001-7141-2502

Ismagilov A.Kh.

Republican Clinical Oncology Dispensary

Vanesyan A.S.

Mona Lisa Clinic

Received:

17.11.2021

Accepted:

06.02.2022

Close metadata

References:

Caputo GG, Zingaretti N, Kiprianidis I, Zanfisi C, Domenici L, Parodi PC, Governa M. Quality of life and early functional evaluation in Direct-to-Implant breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A comparative study between Prepectoral versus Dual-Plane reconstruction. Clin Breast Cancer. 2021; 21(4):344-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2020.11.013
Cuomo R, Giardino FR, Neri A, Nisi G, Brandi C, Zerini I, Grimaldi L. Optimization of prepectoral breast reconstruction. Breast Care. 2021;16(1): 36-42. https://doi.org/10.1159/000506347
Plachinski SJ, Boehm LM, Adamson KA, et al. Comparative Analysis of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open. 2021;9(7):e3709. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003709
Kraenzlin F, Darrach H, Khavanin N, et al. Tissue Expander — Based Breast Reconstruction in the Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Plane: An Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes. Annals of plastic surgery. 2021;86(1):19-23. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002415
Salibian AH, Harness JK, Mowlds DS. Staged Suprapectoral Expander/Implant Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(1):30-39. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002845
Sigalove S. Prepectoral breast reconstruction and radiotherapy — a closer look. Gland Surg. 2019;8(1):67. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2019.01.01
Sigalove S. Options in Acellular Dermal Matrix-Device Assembly. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6):39-42. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004049
Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, et al. Nipple-sparing bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with TiLoop Bra mesh in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: A prospective study of long-term and patient reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q. The Breast. 2018;39:8-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2018.02.001
Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, et al. Subcutaneous expanders and synthetic mesh for breast reconstruction: Long-term and patient-reported BREAST-Q outcomes of a single-center prospective study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2019;72(5):805-812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.12.018
Ismagilov AKh, Yagdzhyan GV, Vanesyan AS. Algorithm of cross-cultural adaptation of the BREAST-Q questionnaire. Povolzhskij onkologicheskij vestnik. 2013;3:49-—52. (In Russ.).
Nahabedian MY, Cocilovo C. Two-Stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Prepectoral and Partial Subpectoral Techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6):22-30. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004047