Frequency of postoperative complications and level of quality of life in breast cancer patients during constructive plastic surgery depending on the type of implant

Background. In recent years, the availability of reconstructive plastic surgery has reached a new level. when performing an oncological operation, the question arises about choosing further reconstruction tactics: through one-stage or through delayed reconstruction. In the vast majority of cases, tissue expanders/implants are used for simultaneous breast reconstruction, but it is still unclear which allograft allows achieving the best aesthetic results of the operation without increasing the incidence of postoperative complications. In this review, we assessed the impact of the type of implant on aesthetic satisfaction with the result of reconstruction and the incidence of postoperative complications in patients with breast cancer.

Aim. To evaluate the impact of the type of implant during reconstruction on the risk of postoperative complications and quality of life in patients with breast cancer.

Materials and methods. A search for relevant sources was carried out in PubMed, MedLine, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Global Health, Cyber Leninka, SpringerLink, e-Library, publications from 2010 to 2022 were studied, with an analysis of the evidence-based experimental and clinical base on the most modern issues breast reconstruction. Results. Having analyzed articles published over the past 15 years, we can clearly conclude that performing reconstructive plastic surgery in patients with breast cancer using various types of implants improves the quality of life and improves the aesthetic result of reconstruction according to the BREAST-Q questionnaire, regardless of the type and type of implant used.

Conclusion. The use of anatomical implants in breast reconstruction compared to round ones reduces the risk of rupture, rippling, and the frequency of symmetrizing operations, but increases the risk of infectious complications and repeated operations to replace/remove the implant. The use of textured implants reduces the incidence of capsular contracture relative to smooth ones. High satisfaction with the aesthetic outcome of reconstruction, as measured by the BREAST-Q questionnaire in patients with silicone implants, is not equivalent to an improvement in general health status (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire 30).

1. Roostaeian J., Yoon A.P., Ordon S. et al. Impact of prior tissue expander/implant on postmastectomy free flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137(4):1083–91. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000481044.61991.6b

2. Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D., Ermoshenkova M.V., Ismagilov A.H., Portnoy S.M. Draft clinical recommendations of the Russian Society of Oncomammologists (ROOM) on reconstructive plastic surgery in patients with breast cancer. In: Clinical recommendations of the ROOM for diagnostic and treatment of breast cancer / Ed. V.F. Semiglazov, R.M. Paltuev. Moscow: ABV-press, 2018:221–6. (In Russ.).

3. Macadam S.A., Ho A.L., Cook E.F. et al. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction: patient-reported outcomes among saline and silicone implant recipients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125(3):761–71. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181cb5cf8

4. Albornoz C.R., Bach P.B., Mehrara B.J. et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;131(1);15–23. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729cde

5. Khavanin N., Clemens M.W., Pusic A.L. et al. Shaped versus round implants in breast reconstruction: a multi-institutional comparison of surgical and patient-reported outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;139(5):1063–70. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003238

6. Bellaire C.P., Sayegh F., Janssen P. et al. Major complications after textured versus non-textured breast implants in direct-toimplant breast reconstruction: a propensity score analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2021;45(5):2077–85. DOI: 10.1007/s00266-021-02377-2

7. Han S.E., Lee K.T., Bang S. Comprehensive comparison between shaped versus round implants for breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthet Surg J 2021;41(1):34–44. DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjaa128

8. Vlasova M.Yu., Zikiryakhodjaev A.D., Reshetov I.V. et al. Prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane-coated implant after skin-sparing mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. Issledovaniya i praktika v meditsine = Research and Practical Medicine Journal 2020;7(3):63–73. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17709/2409-2231-2020-7-3-6

9. Vlasova M.Yu., Zikiryakhodjaev A.D., Reshetov I.V. et al. Complications after simultaneous prepectoral breast reconstruction using polyurethane-coated implants in patients with breast cancer. Opukholi zhenskoi reproduktivnoi sistemy = Tumors of Female Reproductive System 2020;16(4):12–20. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1994-4098-2020-16-4-12-20

10. Khodorovich O.S., Solodkiy V.A., Sarkisyan K.D. et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer. Plasticheskaya khirurgiya i esteticheskaya meditsina = Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine 2022;(1): 32–40. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/plast.hirurgia202201132

11. Bit-Sava E.M., Egorenkov V.V., Damenia A.O. et al. New approaches in breast cancer surgery. Prakticheskaya onkologiya = Practical oncology 2017;18(3): 232–45. (In Russ.). DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.31917/1803232