Next Article in Journal
The Application Value of Lipoprotein Particle Numbers in the Diagnosis of HBV-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma with BCLC Stage 0-A
Next Article in Special Issue
Breast Reconstruction by Exclusive Lipofilling after Total Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: Description of the Technique and Evaluation of Quality of Life
Previous Article in Journal
Cerebral Folate Deficiency, Folate Receptor Alpha Autoantibodies and Leucovorin (Folinic Acid) Treatment in Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Clinical Significance of Peritumoral Adipose Tissue PET/CT Imaging Features for Predicting Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy with the Use of an Implant and Serratus Anterior Fascia Flap—Initial Clinical Evaluation

1
Department of Surgery “P. Valdoni”, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
2
Breast Unit, Santa Maria Goretti Hospital, Sapienza University, 04100 Latina, Italy
3
Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Catanzaro Hospital, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11(11), 1142; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jpm11111142
Submission received: 9 September 2021 / Revised: 27 October 2021 / Accepted: 1 November 2021 / Published: 3 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Personalized Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer)

Abstract

:
Prosthesis-based techniques are the predominant form of breast reconstruction worldwide. The most performed surgical technique involves the placement of the expander in a partial submuscular plane. The coverage of the implant remains a difficult management problem that can lead to complications and poor outcomes. The use of the serratus fascia flap may be the best choice to create a subpectoral pocket for the placement of a tissue expander, with excellent results in terms of morbidity and cost-effectiveness. A total of 20 breast reconstructions with the inferolateral coverage with the serratus fascia were performed. Patients demonstrated a low overall complication rate (9.5%), such as seroma and infection, with complete resolution during the follow-up and no major complications. The US examination of the soft tissues over the implant reported thickness measurements that demonstrated a good coverage over the inferolateral area. Our study shows that using the serratus fascia flap to create a pocket with the pectoralis major for the placement of the tissue expander is an effective technique during two-stage breast reconstruction. The resulting low rate of morbidity and the US findings collected reveal the safety of this procedure. Its success relies on appropriate patient selection and specific intraoperative technique principles.

1. Introduction

Breast reconstruction is nowadays an integral part of breast cancer treatment. Immediate reconstruction in affected women is accompanied by a lower incidence of postoperative psychological morbidity related to loss of the breast [1]. Conservative approaches in mastectomy allow immediate reconstruction with good aesthetic outcomes.
Immediate reconstruction with autologous tissue is preferred in selected cases while breast implant reconstruction is more widely indicated [2]. Compared with autologous reconstruction, implant reconstruction offers a quicker surgery, reduces donor site morbidity, and shortens post-operative recovery time. Immediate one-stage direct to implant (DTI) breast reconstruction has been recently improved by the introduction of biological and synthetic matrices [3,4]. The two-stage option of expander breast reconstruction followed by permanent implant positioning remain commonly performed following mastectomy [5]. Nowadays, the most common surgical technique for expander positioning is the partial submuscular one, as described by Serra-Renom et al. [6], after abandoning the complete submuscular placement, which leads to an unnatural appearance of the breast due to poor lower breast pole expansion with complete muscular coverage. Partial submuscular expander positioning leaves the inferolateral aspect of the implant coverage to solve. Several techniques have been used to achieve complete coverage and control of the muscular pocket [7,8,9,10,11], including securing the pectoralis muscle to the lower mastectomy skin flap, using de-epithelialized dermal flaps, elevating the adjacent serratus muscle (SM), using pectoralis minor flaps, recruiting rectus and external oblique fascia, and, more recently, using acellular dermal matrices [12,13]. Soft tissue-based methods can be effective, but they may increase postoperative pain or compromise functional outcomes. ADM (acellular dermal matrix)-assisted breast reconstruction remains controversial within the literature due to an increased rate of postoperative complications in several large case series. These include elevated risks of infection, seroma, and reconstructive failure [14,15].
One important technique that is seemingly underused and not well studied involves the elevation of the serratus anterior fascia to control the inferolateral border of a breast prosthesis. The use of the serratus fascia (SF) provides the advantages associated with using natural, vascularized tissue, but potentially without the pain and functional compromise associated with complete muscle dissection [10].
This study evaluates clinical follow up and US findings in a group of patients who underwent mastectomy and immediate expander positioning using SF flap, assessing postoperative outcomes and the ability of serratus fascia to cover and preserve the inferolateral aspect of the implant rating soft tissue thickness over the implant.

2. Materials and Methods

We performed a prospective study in 18 patients treated for breast cancer in the certified breast unit of Latina Hospital between November 2018 and October 2019 with two stage reconstruction. The study was approved by our institutional review board and appropriate informed consent was obtained from all the patients. Skin sparing (SS) mastectomy by a superolateral incision was carried out by a single senior breast surgeon and all patients benefited from immediate tissue expander reconstruction by the plastic surgeon. A tissue expander was placed in a musculofascial pocket which included the pectoralis major, the serratus anterior fascia, and the superficial pectoral fascia inferiorly to completely cover the implant (Figure 1). Closure of the pocket was done by approximating the fascial flap to the lateral and inferior border of the pectoralis major muscle with 3/0 vicryl sutures. The total number of breast mounds reconstructed was 20. Tissue expansion started intraoperatively with 50 mL of saline solution for all reconstructed breasts, then subsequent injections were done in the clinic every 1–3 weeks. Drains were kept until the daily collection became less than 30 mL/day. All these patients were evaluated after at least one expansion with an ultrasound (US) examination and they were subjected to a VAS score pain evaluation the day after and the third day after surgery (Figure 2). Patients’ demographic data were collected, which included patient age, BMI, comorbidity, smoking, breast side, the time of postoperative expansion start, duration of postoperative drain use, carried out neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and development of complications, which include seroma, hematoma, skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, expander loss, capsular contraction, malposition, and any other complications (Table 1). At the time of the US evaluation, sonographic measurements were collected, i.e., skin and soft tissue thickness, echogenicity, and thickness of serratus anterior fascia in the most lateral and inferior aspect of the reconstructed breast mound. Since the pectoralis major muscle appears hypoechoic and the fascia hyperechoic, the thickness was measured inferiorly, and the oblique line was measured superiorly and laterally oriented, corresponding to a sharp shift in echogenicity and thickness over the implant, which probably matches the approximation line between the fascial flap and the inferolateral border of the pectoralis major muscle. In addition, we considered the sonographic evidence of different local complications, such as the presence of periprosthetic fluid, inhomogeneities of soft tissues, liponecrosis, hematoma, seroma, infection, and lymphoceles.

3. Results

We performed 20 expander-based breast reconstructions after mastectomy in 18 patients (2 patients had bilateral reconstruction). In total, 12 patients performed neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 2 patients underwent postoperative RT, and 1 underwent postoperative CHT (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate 5-FU). A total of 6 of them had comorbidities, including obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, and 7 of them were smokers. The mean follow-up period was 17.45 months (12–23). Patient ages ranged between 37–62 (mean 48) and the average BMI was 26 (21–35). The average time of postoperative permanence drain was 15 days. The overall complication rate was 9.5%, including seroma and hematoma.
We did not have any major complication or reconstruction failure and any case of capsular contracture was observed during the follow up-period. The mean time of US examination was 6.8 months (3–15 months).
Thickness measurements over the implant was divided as follows: mean skin and subcutaneous thickness was 9.21 mm, mean serratus fascia thickness was 6.37 mm, and mean skin and soft tissue total implant coverage was 15.59 mm (Table 2).
In most patients, the tissue expander was folded and had an irregular profile; in 10 breasts, the presence of periprosthetic fluid was observed and the widest fluid collection was 30 × 17 mm. Any nodule of liponecrosis or of inflammatory nature was observed during US examination.
Regarding pain management after surgery, the systemic postoperative analgesic regimen was acetaminophen (1 g × 3/day); the mean VAS for the first day after surgery was 4 (moderate), and the mean VAS for the third day after surgery was 2 (mild). (Table 3) (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

Partial subpectoral expander coverage is, by definition, inadequate to cover the lower lateral part of the expander. Several techniques have been described to solve this challenge. Securing the lower edge of the pectoralis major muscle to the lower mastectomy skin flap provides muscle coverage in the upper part and leaves the lower pole free to expand in a subcutaneous plane [16]. Expander displacement can occur and stretching transferred by the expander directly on a thinned mastectomy skin flap can occasionally cause skin necrosis and eventual extrusion. These advantages make this option suitable in selected cases when adequate subcutaneous fat is preserved under the lower skin flap. Elevation of adjacent muscular flaps increases aesthetic outcomes, but is more invasive and improves postoperative pain. Firstly described by Saint-cyr et al. [17], the use of the serratus fascia for inferolateral coverage of tissue expander became more popular among breast reconstructive surgeon techniques in order to get comparable benefits and without higher complication rates of harvesting serratus muscle flap. The advantages of using serratus fascial flap are implant position control avoiding lateralization and definition of the lateral inframammary fold, allowing adequate inferior pole fullness or expansion, and at the same time offloading mechanical stress on the inferior skin envelope, particularly in case of vascular compromise of mastectomy skin flaps. It is an autologous well-vascularized barrier between the implant and the skin, shows better tolerance to postoperative radiation, and in comparison with serratus anterior muscle, results in less post-operative pain, drainage, and loss of mobility [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Although SF elevation shows similar complication rates to SM during the first stage breast reconstruction, Seth et al. [19] reported an absolute increase in postoperative hematomas and seromas in SM elevation, related to a more elaborate dissection of harvesting SM flap. Additionally, they showed greater intraoperative TE fill volumes in SF patients, resulting in fewer postoperative expansions needed to reach the final TE volume. Some limitations make the SF flap unreliable, as iatrogenic injury, anatomical attenuation in patients with low BMI, and patient comorbidities. In our study, the mean BMI was 26, in accordance with Saint-cyr; however, following the study by Bordoni et al. [20], we extended the indication to all patients undergoing two-stage reconstruction with a fascial plane preserved after mastectomy. We report an overall complication rate of 9.5%, comparable to previous studies. In order to evaluate the adequacy of the serratus fascia flap to cover the inferolateral aspect of the expander, standardized measurements of the skin-subcutaneous tissue and of the serratus fascia thickness were performed after at least one expansion. This means that at the time of US evaluation, a capsule had already been formed around the implant. As the serratus fascia is composed of dense connective tissue, such as the fibrous capsule, it is impossible to differentiate them, as they appear as a conjoined echoic line above the implant surface, rather than a stratified line. As reported by Gossner et al. [21], the most specific and objective US finding of capsule contracture is the measurable thickening of the fibrous capsule. Several studies described the thickness of a normal fibrous capsule around 1 mm and considered a thickness of more than 1.5 mm to be pathologic [25,26]. In the present study, we did not observe any case of capsular contracture. We believe that at the time of US evaluation, the rate of fibrous capsule on the conjoined fascia-capsula thickness was similar to a normal fibrous capsule. In addition, it is well known that disinsertion of sterno-costal fibers of PMM in breast surgery tipically bring to muscular atrophy of the lower parts covering the implant [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. Knabben et al. [38] reported a significative decrease in the thickness of the PMM using standardized US periodical measurements. It is reasonable to conclude that the same process occurs detaching costal insertions of serratus muscle, making questionable the advantage of obtaining a major thickness coverage of the implant in the long term using SM. In our series, the US measurements of serratus fascia flap show good quality and thickness of tissue expander coverage in its infero-lateral part. The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) keeps stirring great interest and had become an integral part in implant-based breast reconstruction, but there seems to be no consensus regarding whether ADM use increases infection risk. Moreover, combining ADM with expander two-stage reconstruction is considered to be significantly more expensive than using autologous/tissue expander combinations [39]. Tissue integration of an ADM is related to vascular ingrowth of the matrix, and the CEUS in vivo evaluation by Parvizi et al. reported enhancement in the ADM after a month [40]. Ballesio et al. attested with a US examination partial integration of ADM at six months of follow-up and complete integration at 12 months. They also focused on ultrasonography changes of ADM in IBBR and US characteristics to distinguish benign lesions from tumor recurrence [41,42]. In effect, the intrinsic nature of ADM leads to an inflammatory response, which can lead to the development of inflammatory nodules within the breast and appear as a new palpable mass in patients with a history of breast cancer, sometimes requiring further diagnostic studies or invasive procedures to rule out recurrent disease [43,44]. This study had certain limitations. The lack of US periodical comparisons to establish changes of SF thickness as well as the lack of a control group can be major drawbacks. A randomized control trial, a large number of patients, and a longer follow-up should provide more definitive, high-level evidence to influence patient decision making, though results are complicated by anatomical and surgical variations of the SF after mastectomy.

5. Conclusions

The use of serratus fascial flaps combines the advantages of using muscular flaps with the advantages of using acellular allograft material by providing vascularized autologous tissue without violating adjacent muscles. As serratus fascia flaps are autologous, they do not lead to an inflammatory response, and inflammatory nodules can’t be used for differential diagnosis with suspicious palpable mass of recurrent disease. When present, elevation of SF for inferolateral coverage of TE is a safe, viable, autologous, and cost-effective option in expander-based breast reconstruction. Achieving good outcomes in terms of aesthetics, post-operative complications, and women’s quality of life, we advocate that SF should be the option of choice within the surgeon’s breast reconstruction techniques for selected cases.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T., F.R., A.R.L.M. and D.R.; validation, P.P.; data curation, F.L.R.M.; writing—original draft preparation, P.D. and F.V.; writing—review and editing, F.L.R.M.; supervision, M.G., D.R., S.P. and C.D.M.; project administration, F.L.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, because nothing new or experimental has been done.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Stevens, L.A.; McGrath, M.H.; Druss, R.G.; Kister, S.J.; Gump, F.E.; Forde, K.A. The psychological impact of immediate breast reconstruction for women with early breast cancer. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1984, 73, 627–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Casella, D.; Kaciulyte, J.; Torto, F.L.; Mori, F.L.R.; Barellini, L.; Fausto, A.; Fanelli, B.; Greco, M.; Ribuffo, D.; Marcasciano, M. “To Pre or Not to Pre”: Introduction of a Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Assessment Score to Help Surgeons Solving the Decision-Making Dilemma. Retrospective Results of a Multicenter Experience. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2021, 147, 1278–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Scheflan, M.; Colwell, A.S. Tissue reinforcement in implant- based breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 2014, 2, e192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Onesti, M.G.; Maruccia, M.; Di Taranto, G.; Albano, A.; Soda, G.; Ballesio, L.; Scuderi, N.; Onesti, M.G.; Maruccia, M.; Di Taranto, G.; et al. Clinical, histological, and ultrasound follow-up of breast reconstruction with one-stage muscle-sparing “wrap” technique: A single-center experience. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2017, 70, 1527–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rocco, N.; Rispoli, C.; Moja, L.; Amato, B.; Iannone, L.; Testa, S.; Spano, A.; Catanuto, G.; Accurso, A.; Nava, M.B. Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, CD010895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Serra-Renom, J.M.; Fontdevila, J.; Monner, J.; Benito, J. Mammary reconstruction using tissue expander and partial detachment of the pectoralis major muscle to expand the lower breast quadrants. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2004, 53, 317–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ross, G.L. One stage breast reconstruction following pro- phylactic mastectomy for ptotic breasts: The inferior dermal flap and implant. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2012, 65, 1204–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Salzberg, C.A. Focus on technique: One-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2012, 130, 95S–103S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Holle, J.; Pierini, A. Breast reconstruction with an external oblique abdominis muscle turnover flap and a bipedicled abdominal skin flap. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1984, 73, 469–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Isken, T.; Onyedi, M.; Izmirli, H.; Alagoz, S.; Katz, R. Abdominal fascial flaps for providing total implant coverage in one-stage breast reconstruction: An autologous solution. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2009, 33, 853–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bruant-Rodier, C.; Chiriac, S.; Baratte, A.; Dissaux, C.; Bodin, F. Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap combined with implant in breast reconstruction: The technique of the dorsal bra. Ann. Chir. Plast. Esthet. 2015, 61, 212–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Salzberg, C.A. Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann. Plast. Surg. 2006, 57, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sorkin, M.; Qi, J.; Kim, H.M.; Hamill, J.B.; Kozlow, J.H.; Pusic, A.L.; Wilkins, E.G. Acellular Dermal Matrix in immediate expander/implant breast reconstruction: A multicenter assessment of risks and benefits. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017, 140, 1091–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chun, Y.S.; Verma, K.; Rosen, H.; Lipsitz, S.; Morris, D.; Kenney, P.; Eriksson, E. Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2010, 125, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Liu, A.S.; Kao, H.K.; Reish, R.G.; Hergrueter, C.A.; May, J.W., Jr.; Guo, L. Postoperative complications in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011, 127, 1755–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hultman, C.S.; Daiza, S. Skin sparing mastectomy flap complications after breast reconstruction: Review of incidence, management, and outcome. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2003, 50, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Saint-Cyr, M.; Dauwe, P.; Wong, C.; Thakar, H.; Nagarkar, P.; Rohrich, R.J. Use of the serratus anterior fascia flap for expander coverage in breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2010, 125, 1057–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lee, S.H.; Chun, Y.S.; Park, H.K.; Kim, Y.W.; Cheon, Y.W. Dual Coverage of the Inferior Pole with Conjoined Fascial Flap and Acellular Dermal Matrix for Immediate One-Stage Breast Reconstruction with a Prosthetic Implant. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2018, 42, 1213–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Seth, A.K.; Hirsch, E.M.; Kim, J.Y.S.; Fine, N.A. Outcomes after elevation of serratus anterior fascia during prosthetic breast reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2017, 78, 641–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Bordoni, D.; Cadenelli, P.; Rocco, N.; Tessone, A.; Falco, G.; Magalotti, C. Serratus Anterior Fascia Flap Versus Muscular Flap for Expander Coverage in Two-stage Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy: Early Post-operative Outcomes. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2016, 41, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gossner, J. Sonography in capsular contracture after breast augmentation: Value of established criteria, new techniques and directions for research. J. Ultrasound 2016, 20, 87–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Alani, H.A.; Balalaa, N. Complete tissue expander coverage by musculo-fascial flaps in immediate breast mound reconstruction after mastectomy. J. Plast. Surg. Hand. Surg. 2013, 47, 399–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kim, Y.W.; Kim, Y.J.; Kong, J.S.; Cheon, Y.W. Use of the pectoralis major, serratus anterior, and external oblique fascial flap for immediate one-stage breast reconstruction with implant. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2014, 38, 704–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ventura, O.D.; Marcello, G.A. Anatomic and physiologic advantages of totally subfascial breast implants. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2005, 29, 379–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ganott, M.A.; Harris, K.M.; Ilkhanipour, Z.S.; Costa-Greco, M.A. Augmention mammoplasty: Normal abnormal findings with mammography, U.S. Radiographics 1992, 12, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Zahavi, A.; Sklair, M.L.; Ad-El, D.D. Capsular contracture of the breast: Working towards a better classification system using clinical and radiological assessment. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2006, 57, 248–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ribuffo, D.; Berna, G.; De Vita, R.; Di Benedetto, G.; Cigna, E.; Greco, M.; Valdatta, L.; Onesti, M.G.; Lo Torto, F.; Marcasciano, M.; et al. Dual-Plane Retro-pectoral Versus Pre-pectoral DTI Breast Reconstruction: An Italian Multicenter Experience. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2021, 45, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Casella, D.; Lo Torto, F.; Marcasciano, M.; Barellini, L.; Frattaroli, J.M.; Turriziani, G.; Ribuffo, D. Breast Animation Deformity: A Retrospective Study on Long-Term and Patient-Reported Breast-Q Outcomes. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2021, 86, 512–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Barellini, L.; Marcasciano, M.; Torto, F.L.; Fausto, A.; Ribuffo, D.; Casella, D. Intraoperative Ultrasound and Oncoplastic Combined Approach: An Additional Tool for the Oncoplastic Surgeon to Obtain Tumor-Free Margins in Breast Conservative Surgery-A 2-Year Single-Center Prospective Study. Clin. Breast Cancer 2020, 20, e290–e294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Marcasciano, M.; Frattaroli, J.; Mori, F.L.R.; Torto, F.L.; Fioramonti, P.; Cavalieri, E.; Kaciulyte, J.; Greco, M.; Casella, D.; Ribuffo, D. The New Trend of Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction: An Objective Evaluation of the Quality of Online Information for Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2019, 43, 593–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Marcasciano, M.; Kaciulyte, J.; Marcasciano, F.; Torto, F.L.; Ribuffo, D.; Casella, D. “No Drain, No Gain”: Simultaneous Seroma Drainage and Tissue Expansion in Pre-pectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2019, 43, 1118–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Casella, D.; Di Taranto, G.; Marcasciano, M.; Sordi, S.; Kothari, A.; Kovacs, T.; Torto, F.L.; Cigna, E.; Ribuffo, D.; Calabrese, C. 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. Breast 2018, 39, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Torto, F.L.; Parisi, P.; Casella, D.; Di Taranto, G.; Cigna, E.; Ribuffo, D. Impact of Evolving Radiation Therapy Techniques on Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2018, 141, 182e–183e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Torto, F.L.; Vaia, N.; Casella, D.; Marcasciano, M.; Cigna, E.; Ribuffo, D. Delaying implant-based mammary reconstruction after radiotherapy does not decrease capsular contracture: An in vitro study. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2018, 71, 28–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Torto, F.L.; Cigna, E.; Kaciulyte, J.; Casella, D.; Marcasciano, M.; Ribuffo, D. National Breast Reconstruction Utilization in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2017, 33, e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Ribuffo, D.; Torto, F.L.; Atzeni, M.; Serratore, F. The effects of postmastectomy adjuvant radiotherapy on immediate two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction: A systematic review. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2015, 135, 445e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tarallo, M.; Cigna, E.; Fino, P.; Torto, F.L.; Scuderi, N. La terapia chirurgica della gigantomastia [Macromastia surgical therapy]. Ann Ital Chir. 2011, 82, 191–195. [Google Scholar]
  38. De Haan, A.; Toor, A.; Hage, J.J.; Veeger, H.E.; Woerdeman, L.A. Function of the pectoralis major muscle after combined skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction by subpectoral implantation of a prosthesis. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2007, 59, 605–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Losken, A. Early result using sterilized acellular human dermis (newform) in postmastectomy tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009, 123, 1654–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Knabben, L.; Kanagalingam, G.; Imboden, S.; Günthert, A.R. Acellular Dermal Matrix (Permacol®) for Heterologous Immediate Breast Reconstruction after Skin-Sparing Mastectomy in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience and a Review of the Literature. Front. Med. 2017, 5, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Parvizi, D.; Haas, F.; Peintinger, F.; Hubmer, M.; Rappl, T.; Koch, H.; Schintler, M.; Spendel, S.; Kamolz, L.-P.; Wurzer, P.; et al. First Experience Using Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound to Evaluate Vascularisation of Acellular Dermal Matrices after Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction. Breast J. 2014, 20, 461–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ballesio, L.; Casinelli, A.; Gigli, S.; Boldrini, C.; Giuseppe, D.T.; Albano, A.; Onesti, M.G.; Di Taranto, G.; Laura, B.; Alice, C.; et al. Postsurgical Ultrasound Evaluation of Patients with Prosthesis in Acellular Dermal Matrix: Results from Monocentric Experience. Int. J. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 2019, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Buck, D.W.; Heyer, K.; Wayne, J.D.; Yeldandi, A.; Kim, J.Y.S. Diagnostic Dilemma: Acellular Dermis Mimicking a Breast Mass after Immediate Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009, 124, 174e–176e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kim, Y.S. Ultrasonography findings of alloderm® used in postmastectomy alloplastic breast reconstruction: A case report and literature review. Iran J. Radiol. 2016, 13, e38252. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Serratus Fascia flap.
Figure 1. Serratus Fascia flap.
Jpm 11 01142 g001
Figure 2. Example of US after breast reconstruction with a tissue expander using a muscolofascial pocket. (a) Thickness of the skin and subcutaneous tissue. (b) Total coverage thickness of the implant.
Figure 2. Example of US after breast reconstruction with a tissue expander using a muscolofascial pocket. (a) Thickness of the skin and subcutaneous tissue. (b) Total coverage thickness of the implant.
Jpm 11 01142 g002
Figure 3. Six months post-op. Patient undergoing mastectomy and breast reconstruction with breast expander.
Figure 3. Six months post-op. Patient undergoing mastectomy and breast reconstruction with breast expander.
Jpm 11 01142 g003
Table 1. Patient demographics. BMI: body max index, SSM: skin sparing mastectomy, NSM: Nipple-sparing mastectomy, CHT: chemotherapy, NEO: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, RT: radiotherapy.
Table 1. Patient demographics. BMI: body max index, SSM: skin sparing mastectomy, NSM: Nipple-sparing mastectomy, CHT: chemotherapy, NEO: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, RT: radiotherapy.
Patients Demographics
No.AgeBMISmokingMastectomyCHT and RTDrains TimeFollow-UpComplications
15728-SSM/1815-
24126.5-SSM/1215-
33823-SSMCHT1115-
44423.51-SSMNEO + RT1715-
54524-NSMNEO1916-
64328-SSMNEO2515seroma
75625-SSMNEO1522-
85339-SSM/3015seroma
94924+SSM/915-
106225-SSMNEO1422hematoma
115918.75+SSMNEO1112-
125919+SSMNEO1512-
134239-SSMNEO + RT2221-
143723+SSMNEO1620-
153721-NSMNEO1019-
164420+SSM/912-
175027.55+SSMNEO1321-
SSM 11 -
185217.48+SSMNEO1523-
SSM 13 -
Table 2. US measurements, T-US: time from surgery to US examination, PPF: periprosthetic fluid, skin + sc: skin + subcutaneous thickness, SF: serratus fascia, TOT: Total thickness over the expander.
Table 2. US measurements, T-US: time from surgery to US examination, PPF: periprosthetic fluid, skin + sc: skin + subcutaneous thickness, SF: serratus fascia, TOT: Total thickness over the expander.
US Measurements
No.T-US (Months)Skin + sc (mm)SF + Capsule (mm)TOTUS Evidences
146.8713.8PPF 20 × 11 mm
249615PPF 37 × 4 mm
348.56.515PPF 11 × 3 mm
447.710.318PPF 27 × 4 mm
5511.64.416PPF 17 × 3 mm
6413922PPF 4 mm
71110.55.516-
8410313PPF 1 mm
968.16.915PPF 28 × 13 mm
10146.610.417PPF 19 × 0.5 mm
1118.56.515-
1246.65.412-
131020424-
1486.13.910-
15118.35.714-
1648.811.220-
171012.23.816-
181012.53.516-
19155712PPF 18 × 5 mm
20154.57.512PPF 30 × 17 mm
Table 3. VAS pain measurement: values of VAS the first and the third day after surgery.
Table 3. VAS pain measurement: values of VAS the first and the third day after surgery.
Pain Intensity after Surgery on the VAS Scale
No.VAS I Day VAS III Day
152
263
331
421
552
623
742
841
961
1052
1142
1222
1341
1433
1564
1652
1733
1831
MEAN42
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tarallo, M.; Lo Torto, F.; Ricci, F.; Dicorato, P.; Mori, F.L.R.; Vinci, F.; Parisi, P.; Greco, M.; De Masi, C.; La Manna, A.R.; et al. Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy with the Use of an Implant and Serratus Anterior Fascia Flap—Initial Clinical Evaluation. J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11, 1142. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jpm11111142

AMA Style

Tarallo M, Lo Torto F, Ricci F, Dicorato P, Mori FLR, Vinci F, Parisi P, Greco M, De Masi C, La Manna AR, et al. Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy with the Use of an Implant and Serratus Anterior Fascia Flap—Initial Clinical Evaluation. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2021; 11(11):1142. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jpm11111142

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tarallo, Mauro, Federico Lo Torto, Fabio Ricci, Paolo Dicorato, Francesco Luca Rocco Mori, Federica Vinci, Paola Parisi, Manfredi Greco, Carlo De Masi, Alessandra Rita La Manna, and et al. 2021. "Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy with the Use of an Implant and Serratus Anterior Fascia Flap—Initial Clinical Evaluation" Journal of Personalized Medicine 11, no. 11: 1142. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jpm11111142

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop