Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

INVITED DISCUSSION ON: Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient’s Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q

  • Editor’s Invited Discussion
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Abbas A, Rizki H, Tanska A, Concepcion M, Tasoulis MK, Gui G (2023) A comparative study of secondary procedures after subpectoral and prepectoral single-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 151:7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Le NK, Persing S, Dinis J, Gabrick KS, Wu RT, Sinnott CJ, Avraham T, Young AO, Alperovich M (2021) A comparison of BREAST-Q scores between prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 148:708e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Safran T, Al-Halabi B, Viezel-Mathieu A, Hazan J, Dionisopoulos T (2021) Direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction: patient-reported outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 148:882e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cogliandro A, Salzillo R, De Bernardis R, Loria FS, Petrucci V, Barone M, Tenna S, Cagli B, Persichetti P (2023) Prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: evaluation of patient's quality of life and satisfaction with BREAST-Q. Aesthet Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03316-z

  5. Alcon A, Rosser M, Gedallovich J, Foster RD, Sbitany H, Piper M (2023) Long-term patient reported outcomes and complication rates in pre-pectoral versus sub-pectoral two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chinta S, Koh DJ, Sobti N, Packowski K, Rosado N, Austen W, Jimenez RB, Specht M, Liao EC (2022) Cost analysis of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Sci Rep 12(1):17512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. de Vita R, Villanucci A, Buccheri EM, Pozzi M (2022) Extended clinical experience with nipple-sparing mastectomy and prepectoral polyurethane implant positioning (BRAND4P method). Clin Breast Cancer 22(5):e623–e628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Caputo GG, Mura S, ContessiNegrini F, Albanese R, Parodi PC (2023) From sub-pectoral to pre-pectoral implant reconstruction: a decisional algorithm to optimise outcomes of breast replacement surgery. Healthcare (Basel) 11(5):671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bostwick J (1990) Total mastectomy with breast skin and volume reduction using an inverted T incisio. In: Bostwick J (ed) Plastic and reconstructive breast surgery, vol 2. Quality Medical Publishing, St Louis, pp 1048–954

  10. Nava MB, Cortinovis U, Ottolenghi J, Riggio E, Pennati A, Catanuto G, Greco M, Rovere GQ (2006) Skin-reducing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(3):603–610

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Foroushani FT, Dzobo K, Khumalo NP, Mora VZ, de Mezerville R, Bayat A (2022) Advances in surface modifications of the silicone breast implant and impact on its biocompatibility and biointegration. Biomater Res 26(1):80

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Santanelli di Pompeo F, Sorotos M, Canese R, Valeri M, Roberto C, Giorgia S, Firmani G, di Napoli A (2023) Study of the effect of different breast implant surfaces on capsule formation and host inflammatory response in an animal model. Aesthet Surg J 43(4):506–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pelle-Ceravolo M, Del Vescovo A, Bertozzi E, Molinari P (2004) A technique to decrease breast shape deformity during muscle contraction in submuscular augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 28:288–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pelle Ceravolo M, Del Vescovo A. How to deal with pectoralis muscle in augmentation mammaplasty. Presented at the ASCLP II Meeting, Rome 1994

  15. Maxwell GP, Tornambe R (1988) Management of mammarysubpectoral implant distortion. Clin Plast Surg 15:601–611

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bernini M, Casella D, Mariotti C (2017) Selective pectoralis major muscle denervation in breast reconstruction: a technical modification for more effective and cosmetic results. Gland Surg 6(6):745–750

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

    Mario Pelle Ceravolo

  2. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, IRCSS – “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy

    Roy de Vita

Authors
  1. Mario Pelle Ceravolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roy de Vita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Pelle Ceravolo.

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any authors

Informed Consent

For this study, informed consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Two branches of medial pectoralis nerve are identified and removed for 3-4cm length. (MPG 57726 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ceravolo, M.P., de Vita, R. INVITED DISCUSSION ON: Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient’s Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q. Aesth Plast Surg 47, 1300–1302 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03393-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03393-0

Search

Navigation