Authors
Levchuk A.L., Khodyrev S.A., Shabaev R.M.
Pirogov National Medical and Surgical Center, Moscow
Abstract
The review of the literature is devoted to the issues of reconstructive surgery after mastectomy for cancer. The authors studied the origins of reconstructive breast surgery, the main directions of development and the current state, evaluated the role of reconstructive breast surgery in the prevention of breast cancer, complex treatment of breast diseases, and identified ways to improve the quality of life of women with breast diseases. An increase in the incidence of cancer in the general population, and breast cancer in women, was noted. Possible options for surgical treatment of breast cancer, both in isolation and in combination and complex treatment, are considered. The terms of reconstructive and reconstructive operations after mastectomy were studied. The oncological safety of organ-preserving treatment with simultaneous breast reconstruction was evaluated. The methods of reconstruction of the mammary glands, both previously used and modern, using various alloplastic materials, are considered. A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of the use of various alloplastic and autoplastic materials for breast reconstruction, possible postoperative complications. The directions of development of reconstructive breast surgery are determined: restoration of the shape and texture of the breast, and not only its volume; restoration of the inframammary fold of the breast, and not only its contours, while preserving the nipple-areolar complex. Analyzing the current literature, it can be concluded that in reconstructive breast surgery, the main emphasis is on understanding what the patient wants to get as a result of the operation performed on her, and, in accordance with the desired end result, using the most optimal way to restore or correct the breast. At the same time, the important components of success are the desire to minimize the surgical trauma, the number of corrective operations, the optimization of the rehabilitation period, the reduction of financial and economic costs, and the analysis of the degree of patient satisfaction with the results of the treatment. The literature review was carried out in accordance with the international recommendations of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and included electronic databases MEDLINE and SCOPUS and Russian-language sources of modern literature. To include more patients, full-text articles, references to modern literature sources, and abstracts were analyzed.
Keywords: breast cancer, skin-spairing mastectomy, immediate breast reconstruction, alloplastic materials, quality of life.
References
1. Kaprin AD, Starinsky VV, Shakhzadova AO. The state of oncological care for the population of Russia in 2019. Moscow, 2020. (In Russ).
2. Sung Н, Ferlay J, Siegel R, Laversanne М, Soerjomataram I, Jemal А, Bray F. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 Feb 4. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660.
3. Heimes A-S, Stewen K, et al. Psychosocial Aspects of Immediate versus Delayed Breast Reconstruction. Breast Care. 2017; 12(6): 374-377. doi: 10.1159/000485234.
4. Zikiryakhodzhaev AD, Ermoshchenkova MV, et al. Experience of using Mentor silicone implants for breast cancer reconstruction in 2015. Povolzhsky Oncological Bulletin. 2016; 1(23): 37-41. (In Russ).
5. Moiel D, Thompson J, et al. Mastectomy or Breast-Conserving Therapy: Which Factors Influence A Patient’s Decision? Perm J. 2019; 23: 18-049. doi: 10.7812/TPP/18-049.
6. Malygin SE. The role of mastectomy in treatment and prophylaxis of breast cancer: beginning, evolution and recent changes. Malignant Tumours. 2015; 4(15): 3-13. (In Russ). doi: 10.18027/2224–5057–2015–4-3–13.
7. Park S-H, et al. Oncologic Safety of Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Invasive Breast Cancer Patients: A Matched Case Control Study. Journal Breast Cancer. 2016; 19(1): 68-75.
8. Mazaeva BA, Karpov OE. The choice of reconstructive and plastic interventions in patients with breast cancer. Bulletin of the National Medical and Surgical Center named after N. I. Pirogov. 2018; 1(13): 139-142. (In Russ).
9. Urban C, Rietjens M, El-Tamer M, Sacchini V. Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery. Springer, 2019. Р. 461.
10. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. PLASTIC SURGERY STATISTICS REPORT 2019. ASPS Public Relations.
11. Kalinina-Masri AA, Zikiryakhodzhaev AD, Ermoshenkova MV, Sukhotko AS, Usov FN, Ratushnaya VV, Evtyagina NV. Historical aspects and modern ideas about lipofilling in reconstructive plastic surgery. Safety of use in patients with breast cancer after combined / complex / surgical treatment. Bulletin of the RNCRR. 2018; 4(18): 28–40. (In Russ).
12. Coleman SR. Long-term survival of fat transplants: controlled demonstrations. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2020; 44(4): 1268-1272. doi: 10.1007/s00266-020-01847-3.
13. Caruana G, Bertozzi N, Boschi E, Pio Grieco M, Grignaffini E, Raposio E. Role of adipose-derived stem cells in chronic cutaneous wound healing. Ann Ital Chir. 2015; 86(1): 1-4.
14. Petit JY, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, et al. Safety of lipofilling in patients with breast cancer. Clin Plast Surg. 2015; 42(3): 339-344. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2015.03.004.
15. Silva-Vergara C, Fontdevila J, Descarrega J, Burdio F, Yoon TS, Grande L. Oncological outcomes of lipo lling breast reconstruction: 195 consecutive cases and literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016; 69(4): 475-481. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.12.029.
16. Cohen O., Lam G., Karp N., Choi M. Determining the Oncologic Safety of Autologous Fat Grafting as a Reconstructive Modality: An Institutional Review of Breast Cancer Recurrence Rates and Surgical Outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017; 140(3): 382-392. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003576.
17. Biazus JA, Stumpf CC, Melo MP, Zucatto AE., Cericatto R, Cavalherio JA, Damin AP. Breast-Conserving Surgery with Immediate Autologous Fat Grafting Reconstruction: Oncologic Outcomes. Aesth Plast Surg. 2018; 43(8): 1-7. doi: 10.1007/s00266-018-1155-5.
18. Kronowitz SJ, Mandujano CC, Liu J, Kuerer HM, Smith B, Garvey P, Jagsi R, Hsu L, Hanson S, Valero V. Lipofilling of the Breast Does Not Increase the Risk of Recurrence of Breast Cancer: A Matched Controlled Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016; 137(2): 385-393. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000475741.32563.50.
19. Krastev T, Alshaikh G, Hommes J, Piatkowski A, Rene R.W.J. van der Hulst. Efficacy of autologous fat transfer for the correction of contour deformities in the breast: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018; 71(10): 1392-1409. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.05.021.
20. Borovikov AM. Breast recovery after mastectomy. Moscow: Gubernskaya meditsina, 2000. 96 p. (In Russ).
21. Jones C, Lancaster R, et al. Evolution of Operative Technique for Mastectomy. Surg Clin Nort Am. 2018; 98(4): 835-844. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2018.04.003.
22. Zoltan Ya. Reconstruction of the female breast. Akademiai Kiado. Budapest: Publishing House of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1989. 237 p. (In Russ).
23. Hartrampf CR, Scheflan M, Black PW. Breast reconstruction with a transverse abdominal island flap. Plast. Reconstr. Surg, 1982. 69: 216-225. doi: 10.1097/00006534-198202000-00006.
24. Holm С, Mayr М, Hofter Е, Ninkovic М. Perfusion zones of the DIEP flap revisited: a clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2006; 117(1): 37-43. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000185867.84172.c0.
25. Johnson AC, Colakoglu S, Chong TW, Mathes DW. Indocyanine Green Angiography in Breast Reconstruction: Utility, Limitations, and Search for Standardization. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020; 8(3): 2694. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002694.
26. Semiglazov VF, Krivorotko PV, Semiglazov VV, Dashyan GA., Paltuev RM. Recommendations for doctors on the management of patients with breast cancer. Medical Council. 2017; 14: 239. (In Russ).
27. Nahabedian MY, Momen В, Galdino G, and Manson PN. Breast Reconstruction with the free TRAM or DIEP flap: patient selection, choice of flap, and outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002; 110(2): 466-475. doi: 10.1097/00006534-200208000-00015.
28. Gill PS, Hunt JP, Guerra AB, Dellacroce FJ, Sullivan SK, Boraski SE, Metzinger CL, Allen RJ. A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004; 113(4): 1153-1160. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000110328.47206.50.
29. He S, Yin J, Robb GL, Sun J, Zhang X, Li H, Liu J, Han C. Considering the Optimal Timing of Breast Reconstruction With Abdominal Flaps With Adjuvant Irradiation in 370 Consecutive Pedicled Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap and Free Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Performed in a Chinese Oncology Center: Is There a Significant Difference Between Immediate and Delayed? Ann Plast Surg. 2017. 78(6): 633-640. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000927.
30. Patent RUS №2928947/28-13/21.04.1980. Byul. №5. Vishnevsky AA, Olenin VP. Method of breast augmentation. (In Russ).
31. Cronin TD, Gerow FJ. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new «natural feel» prosthesis. In: Transactions of the third international congress of plastic surgery. October 13-18, 1963. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica Foundation; 1963. Р. 41-49.
32. Hoopes JE, Edgerton MT, Shelly W. Organic synthetics for augmentation mammoplasty: Their relation to breast cancer. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1967; 39: 263.
33. Hillard C, Fowler JD, Barta R, et al. Silicone breast implant rupture: a review. Gland Surg. 2017; 6(2): 163-168. doi: 10.21037/gs.2016.09.12.
34. Logan Ellis H, et al. Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review. World J of Surg Oncol. 2016; 14: 121. doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-0874-9.
35. Vilberto J. Vieira, Armando D. Acampora, et al. Capsular Contracture In Silicone Breast Implants: Insights From Rat Models. An Acad Brac Cienc. 2016; 88(3): 1459-70. doi: 10.1590/0001-3765201620150874.
36. Rebowe RE, Allred LJ, et al. The Evolution from Subcutaneous to Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction. PRS Global Open. 2018; 6(6): 1797. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001797.
37. Phelps AM. A new operation for hernia. N.Y. Med. J. l894; 60: 291.
38. Povarikhina OA. Synthetic explants in abdominal surgery. Farmindex is a practitioner. 2005; 8: 32-35. (In Russ).
39. Casella D, Bernini M, Bencini L, et al. TiLoop® Bra mesh used for immediate breast reconstruction: comparison of retropectoral and subcutaneous implant placement in a prospective single-institution series. Eur J Plast Surg. 2014; 37(11): 599-604. doi: 10.1007/s00238-014-1001-1.
40. Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, Sordi S, Kothari A, Kovacs T, Lo Torto F, Cigna E, Calabrese C, Ribuffo D. Evaluation of Prepectoral Implant Placement and Complete Coverage with TiLoop Bra Mesh for Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study on Long-Term and Patient-Reported BREAST-Q Outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019; 143(1): 1-9. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005078.
41. Zikiryakhodjaev AD, Ermoshenkova MV. The use of titanized mesh implants in reconstructive surgery of breast cancer. Povolzhsky Oncological Bulletin. 2016; 1(23): 42-49. (In Russ).
42. Lo Torto F, Marcasciano M, Kaciulyte J, Redi U, Barellini L, De Luca A, Perra A, Frattaroli JM, Cavalieri E, Di Taranto G, Greco M, Casella D. Prepectoral breast reconstruction with TiLoop® Bra Pocket: a single center prospective study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020; 24(3): 991-999. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202002_20149.
43. Ng EI, Quah GS, Graham S, Kanesalingam K, Meybodi F, Hsu J, Elder E.E., French J. Immediate prepectoral implant reconstruction using TiLOOP Bra Pocket results in improved patient satisfaction over dual plane reconstruction. ANZ J Surg. 2021 Feb 26. doi: 10.1111/ans.16670.
44. Salzberg CA. Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann Plast Surg. 2006; 57(1): 1-5. doi: 10.1097/01.sap.0000214873.13102.9f.
45. Forsberg CG, Kelly DA, Wood BC, et al. Aesthetic outcomes of acellular dermal matrix in tissue expander/implantbased breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2014; 72(6): 116-20. doi: 10.1097/ SAP.0000000000000098.
46. Zikiryakhodzhaev AD, Shirokikh IM, Ablitsova NV, et al. The use of biological and synthetic materials in reconstructive surgery for breast cancer (literature review). Tumors of the female reproductive system. 2018; 14(1): 28-37. (In Russ). doi: 10.17650/1994-4098-2018-14-1-28-37.
47. Tessler O, Reish RG, Maman DY, et al. Beyond biologics: absorbable mesh as a low-cost, low-complication sling for implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014; 133(2): 90-99. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000437253.55457.63.
48. Logan Ellis H, et al. Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2016; 14(1): 121. doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-0874-9.
49. Hunsicker LM, Ashikari AY, Berry C, et al. Short-term complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2017; 78: 35-40. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000742.
50. Zammit D, et al. Meshed acellular dermal matrix: technique and application in implant based breast reconstruction. Plast Aesthetic Res. 2016; 3(7): 254. doi: 10.20517/2347-9264.2015.128.
51. Cottler PS, Olenczak JB, Ning B, et al. Fenestration improves acellular dermal matrix biointegration: an investigation of revascularization with photoacoustic microscopy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019; 143(4): 971-981. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005410.
52. Kasey Leigh Wood, Ilana G Margulies, Paul L Shay, Andrew Y Ashikari, C Andrew Salzberg. Complications after Perforated versus Nonperforated Acellular Dermal Matrix Use in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score Analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Global Ohen. 2020; 8(3): 2890. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002690.
53. Davies BSc (Hons) CF, Macefield R, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Potter S. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Development and Measurement Properties. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021; 28(1): 386-404. doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08736-8.
54. Temple CL, Cook EF, Ross DC, Bettger-Hahn M, MacDermid J. Development of a breast reconstruction satisfaction questionnaire (BRECON): dimensionality and clinical importance of breast symptoms, donor site issues, patient expectations, and relationships. J Surg Oncol. 2010; 101(3): 209-216. doi: 10.1002/jso.21477.
55. Liu LQ, Branford OA, Mehigan S. BREAST-Q measurement of the patient perspective in oncoplastic breast surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018; 6(8): 1904. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001904.
