Background and objectives: Until now subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) has been the predominant form; however, it can present with pectoralis muscle contraction and animation deformity. To avoid these complications, surgeons have begun placing breast implants in the same anatomic space as the breast tissue that was removed. We report a comparative analysis of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) versus subpectoral breast reconstruction to analyze their differences. Materials and Methods: Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) performed from February 2015 to February 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We then compared the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of the two groups (prepectoral vs. subpectoral) based on the overall incidence of complications, pain scale, and the duration of drainage. Results: A total of 167 patients underwent unilateral DTI, with SBR 114 (68.3%) and PBR 53 (31.7%). Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of seroma, infection (requiring intravenous antibiotics), hematoma, and skin necrosis. Implant loss rates in the SBR 6.1% (n = 7) and PBR 9.4% (n = 5) were also not statistically significant (p = 0.99). The hemovac duration period was significantly longer in the SBR (14.93 ± 5.57 days) group than in the PBR group (11.09 ± 4.82 days) (p < 0.01). However, post-operative pain scores are similar between two groups, although it is not clear whether this was due to the effect of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia. Conclusions: A SBR is a commonly used procedure with various advantages, but there are many problems due to damage to the normal pectoralis major muscle. According to the results of our study, the PBR group had a shorter hemovac duration period compared to the SBR group, although there was no significant difference in complication rate. A PBR is a simple and safe technique allowing early discharge without increasing the incidence of long-term complications.

Background and Objectives: Patients undergoing mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction have significant acute postsurgical pain. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of intercostal nerve blocks (ICNBs) for reducing pain after direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction. Materials and Methods: Between January 2019 and March 2020, patients who underwent immediate DTI breast reconstruction were included in this study. The patients were divided into the ICNB or control group. In the ICNB group, 4 cc of 0.2% ropivacaine was injected intraoperatively to the second, third, fourth, and fifth intercostal spaces just before implant insertion. The daily average and maximum visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were recorded by the patient from operative day to postoperative day (POD) seven. Pain scores were compared between the ICNB and control groups and analyzed according to the insertion plane of implants. Results: A total of 67 patients with a mean age of 47.9 years were included; 31 patients received ICNBs and 36 patients did not receive ICNBs. There were no complications related to ICNBs reported. The ICNB group showed a significantly lower median with an average VAS score on the operative day (4 versus 6, p = 0.047), lower maximum VAS scores on the operative day (5 versus 7.5, p = 0.030), and POD 1 (4 versus 6, p = 0.030) as compared with the control group. Among patients who underwent subpectoral reconstruction, the ICNB group showed a significantly lower median with an average VAS score on the operative day (4 versus 7, p = 0.005), lower maximum VAS scores on the operative day (4.5 versus 8, p = 0.004), and POD 1 (4 versus 6, p = 0.009), whereas no significant differences were observed among those who underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction. Conclusions: Intraoperative ICNBs can effectively reduce immediate postoperative pain in subpectoral DTI breast reconstruction; however, it may not be effective in pre-pectoral DTI reconstruction.

Background and objectives: There is no consensus regarding accurate methods for assessing the size of the implant required for achieving symmetry in direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the ideal implant size could be estimated using 3D breast volume or mastectomy specimen weight, and to compare prediction performances between the two variables. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent immediate DTI breast reconstruction from August 2017 to April 2020 were included in this study. Breast volumes were measured using 3D surface imaging preoperatively and at postoperative three months. Ideal implant size was calculated by correcting the used implant volume by the observed postoperative asymmetry in 3D surface imaging. Prediction models using mastectomy weight or 3D volume were made to predict the ideal implant volume. The prediction performance was compared between the models. Results: A total of 56 patients were included in the analysis. In correlation analysis, the volume of the implant used was significantly correlated with the mastectomy specimen weight (R2 = 0.810) and the healthy breast volume (R2 = 0.880). The mean ideal implant volume was 278 ± 123 cc. The prediction model was developed using the healthy breast volume: Implant volume (cc) = healthy breast volume × 0.78 + 26 cc (R2 = 0.900). The prediction model for the ideal implant size using the 3D volume showed better prediction performance than that of using the mastectomy specimen weight (R2 = 0.900 vs 0.759, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The 3D volume of the healthy breast is a more reliable predictor than mastectomy specimen weight to estimate the ideal implant size. The estimation formula obtained in this study may assist in the selection of the ideal implant size in unilateral DTI breast reconstruction.