Background Perforator artery flaps based on the branches of intercostal arteries and lateral thoracic artery can be used for reconstruction after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Although described more than a decade ago, these have not been adopted widely in clinical practice. We report on short-term and long-term surgical outcomes of partial breast reconstruction using chest wall perforator flaps from a prospective multicenter audit. Methods All patients operated for BCS and partial breast reconstruction using intercostal artery perforator or lateral thoracic artery perforator flaps from January 2015 to October 2018 were included in the analysis. Oncoplastic breast surgeons with appropriate level of training performed all tumor excisions and reconstructions as a single-stage procedure. Patient characteristics, treatment details and surgical outcomes were noted. Specific outcomes recorded were margin re-excision and complication rates. Results One hundred and twelve patients underwent the procedure in the given study period. The median age was 54 years. Median specimen weight was 62.5 g and median volume of excision was 121.4 mL. Fifteen patients (13.39%) underwent a margin re-excision for close or positive margins without additional morbidity. One patient required a completion mastectomy. Eight patients (7.14%) had an early complication. None of the patients required a contralateral symmetrization procedure. The results were comparable across the participating centers. Conclusions Chest wall artery perforator-based flaps are an excellent option for lateral and inferior quadrant partial breast reconstructions. The short and long-term surgical outcomes are comparable across sites and can be performed with minimal morbidity. Patient-reported outcome measures need to be studied.

Wire localization is historically the most common method for guiding excision of non-palpable breast lesions, but there are limitations to the technique. Newer technologies such as magnetic seeds may allow some of these challenges to be overcome. The aim was to compare safety and effectiveness of wire and magnetic seed localization techniques. Women undergoing standard wire or magnetic seed localization for non-palpable lesions between August 2018 and August 2020 were recruited prospectively to this IDEAL stage 2a/2b platform cohort study. The primary outcome was effectiveness defined as accurate localization and removal of the index lesion. Secondary endpoints included safety, specimen weight and reoperation rate for positive margins. Data were accrued from 2300 patients in 35 units; 2116 having unifocal, unilateral breast lesion localization. Identification of the index lesion in magnetic-seed-guided (946 patients) and wire-guided excisions (1170 patients) was 99.8 versus 99.1 per cent (P = 0.048). There was no difference in overall complication rate. For a subset of patients having a single lumpectomy only for lesions less than 50 mm (1746 patients), there was no difference in median closest margin (2 mm versus 2 mm, P = 0.342), re-excision rate (12 versus 13 per cent, P = 0.574) and specimen weight in relation to lesion size (0.15 g/mm² versus 0.138 g/mm², P = 0.453). Magnetic seed localization demonstrated similar safety and effectiveness to those of wire localization. This study has established a robust platform for the comparative evaluation of new localization devices.

Background Single‐stage reconstruction is used widely after mastectomy. Prepectoral implant placement is a relatively new technique. This multicentre audit examined surgical outcomes following prepectoral reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Methods All patients who had a mastectomy with prepectoral breast reconstruction and ADM in the participating centres between January 2015 and December 2017 were included. Demographic and treatment details, and short‐ and long‐term operative outcomes were recorded. Factors affecting complications and implant loss were analysed: age, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, vascular disease, laterality of surgery, previous ipsilateral breast surgery or radiotherapy, indication for surgery (invasive versus in situ carcinoma, or risk reduction), type of mastectomy, axillary clearance, breast volume, implant volume, and neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy. Results A total of 406 reconstructions were performed across 18 centres. Median follow‐up was 9·65 months. Median hospital stay was 1 day. The 90‐day unplanned readmission rate was 15·7 per cent, and the return‐to‐theatre rate 16·7 per cent. Some 15·3 per cent of patients had a major complication, with a 90‐day implant loss rate of 4·9 per cent. A further six patients had delayed implant loss. In multivariable analysis, no factor was significantly associated with complications or implant loss. Conclusion Prepectoral breast reconstruction with ADM has satisfactory surgical outcomes. The duration of follow‐up needs to be extended to examine outcomes in patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy.