Two-Stage Implant Breast Reconstruction



Two-Stage Implant Breast Reconstruction


Eric G. Halvorson





PATIENT HISTORY AND PHYSICAL FINDINGS



  • It may be beneficial for the initial consultation to occur separate from multidisciplinary clinic visits focused on cancer care. Patients presenting to the plastic surgeon after such visits are often overloaded with information and overwhelmed by all the options and information related to reconstruction. It is critical to determine the patient’s goals for reconstruction and to ascertain their preferences with respect to breast size, breast shape, willingness to accept surgical risk, willingness to accept donor site morbidity, operative length, hospital stay, recovery process, postoperative follow-up protocol, secondary surgeries, and longterm complications.


  • Having a clinic nurse well versed in reconstructive options to meet with patients and show them patient photographs is an incredibly helpful prelude to the physician-patient consultation.


  • Physical examination of the breasts is performed to evaluate any masses and whether or not skin involvement or peau d’orange is present. The overall size and degree of ptosis is noted. Patients with significant ptosis will typically require skin excision. If performed as an inverted “T” or Wise pattern, there is significant risk for mastectomy flap necrosis. Alternatively, one can perform a generous horizontal ellipse, vertical ellipse, or two-stage Wise pattern excision with the vertical closure first and a horizontal excision at the inframammary fold (IMF) 3 to 6 months later.


  • The breast width, height, and projection is measured in centimeters. These measurements are used for selecting a tissue expander (as described in the following text).


SURGICAL MANAGEMENT



  • Ideal candidates for two-stage implant reconstruction are thin, nonsmokers undergoing bilateral mastectomy who have not, and will not, receive radiotherapy. Smokers are prone to mastectomy flap necrosis and infection. Radiotherapy increases the risk of infection, implant exposure, and capsular contracture. Previously radiated skin will not expand well.


  • Although obesity increases the risk of complication for any type of reconstruction, heavier patients tend to have better cosmetic results with autologous reconstruction than with implants, as it can be difficult to match the opposite breast after a unilateral mastectomy or give adequate volume/ptosis after a bilateral mastectomy.


  • Patients with very large breasts who require skin removal during mastectomy are at risk for mastectomy flap necrosis and tend to require secondary procedures to address residual excess skin. These patients often have ample donor sites for autologous reconstruction, which may be a better option. Patients with small breasts who want them to be larger can achieve that goal through expansion. Patients who have minimal ptosis and want their breasts to be slightly smaller are candidates for single-stage implant reconstruction.


Preoperative Planning and Implant Selection



  • Good communication with the breast surgeon is important to ensure oncologic goals are maintained and that reconstruction is appropriately staged. Patients with advanced disease, requirement for immediate postoperative adjuvant therapy, unstable social environment, and/or uncertainty regarding goals for reconstruction may be better served by delayed reconstruction.






    FIG 1 • This patient will be used for the majority of photographs in this chapter. She is a woman in her late 20s with genetic predisposition (BRCA gene) undergoing bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and two-stage implant reconstruction. Preoperative markings for the mastectomy are shown, demonstrating the oblique ellipses for incision preferred by the author.


  • Prior to mastectomy, the patient must be marked in the standing position. The IMF is marked on each side and the midline is drawn between the sternal notch and xiphoid process. The overall outline of the breasts is marked. Although a transverse ellipse around the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) is commonly used for the mastectomy incision, the author’s preference is an oblique ellipse parallel to the pectoralis major fibers (FIG 1). This renders the medial scar less visible
    in clothing, allows for better subincisional muscular coverage, and facilitates a stair-step approach during the exchange procedure (as described in the following text).


  • Tissue expanders are selected preoperatively based on the width of the patient’s breast. There are many different tissue expanders to choose from, but most are textured and anatomic, providing lower pole projection. Some are taller than they are wide, some are wider than they are tall, and some are semicircular or crescentic and focus on lower pole expansion. Most have integrated metal ports that are located with magnets, although a remote port is useful when placing the expander under a thick flap (such as a latissimus dorsi flap in an obese patient). In such patients, finding the port with a magnet can be difficult and a long needle is required, placing the expander at risk for rupture.


  • Intraoperatively, a ruler is used to measure the width of the surgically created implant pocket, which ultimately determines the expander to be used. Alternatively, one can create a pocket wide enough to accommodate the desired expander. The author’s preference is to measure the surgically created pocket based on native patient anatomy and choose an expander that is 1 cm narrower in width.


  • Prior to the exchange procedure, the patient is again marked in the standing position. The midline is marked and asymmetries in implant position are noted. The ideal contour for the final implants is marked.


  • Final implants are selected primarily based on volume, although width should be taken into consideration. A full discussion of implant types is beyond the scope of this chapter. The majority of surgeons use smooth, round, high-profile implants for reconstructive purposes, although textured anatomic silicone implants may gain popularity if or when they gain U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Patients with very wide chests may require a moderateprofile implant that will have a larger base diameter for a given volume (although less projection). A comparison of saline versus silicone implants is also beyond the scope of this chapter, but suffice it to say that the issue is controversial. The author’s preference is to offer both types to patients noting the following advantages and disadvantages for each implant type:


  • Saline



    • Advantages: Implant rupture is immediately detected; removal of a ruptured implant is simple and quick.


    • Disadvantages: Reexpansion may be required if implant ruptures and is not replaced expeditiously; firmer than silicone, although this difference is diminished when good soft tissue coverage is present; higher potential for rippling if underfilled.


  • Silicone



    • Advantages: Softer, more “natural” feel


    • Disadvantages: Rupture is often clinically silent until extracapsular rupture and silicone granuloma formation is present, removal of a ruptured implant is a difficult operation that often involves removal of native tissue thus compromising subsequent reconstruction, and monitoring for silent implant rupture using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is not proven and has a definite risk of false positives and unnecessary surgeries.


Positioning



  • Patients are placed in the supine position under a general anesthetic with arms padded circumferentially and abducted at 80 degrees. Following mastectomy, the patient is positioned such that the sternum is parallel to the floor.