Meta-analysis of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction
10.3760/cma.j.cn114453-20220413-00107
- VernacularTitle:胸肌前与胸肌后乳房再造术疗效与安全性的meta分析
- Author:
Changjin LI
1
;
Haoyu GU
;
Shunxin JIN
;
Wei HU
Author Information
1. 海军军医大学基础医学院，上海 200433
- Keywords:
Breast neoplasms;
Breast implants;
Meta-analysis;
Prepectoral breast implant;
Subpectoral breast implant;
Breast reconstruction
- From:
Chinese Journal of Plastic Surgery
2022;38(6):619-629
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:There is currently no consensus on the ideal plane for implant placement in breast reconstruction. This meta-analysis provides a comparison of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) vs. subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR), with primary outcomes of surgical efficacy and patient safety, to find out the best surgical approach.Methods:PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched from January 1st, 2019, to April 1st, 2022, to retrieve studies that compared PBR with SBR after mastectomies. The main outcomes were surgical complications and satisfaction with breasts domain. The literature was screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data was extracted and the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by 2 reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.Results:A total of 14 comparative studies with 2 355 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed no statistical differences in seroma, implant removal, flap necrosis, capsular contracture, and wound dehiscence between PBR and SBR groups. PBR patients demonstrated lower hematoma, animation deformity rates, and higher BREAST-Q scores compared to SBR groups.Conclusions:Surgical efficacy and patient safety are similar between PBR and SBR groups. PBR patients have lower hematoma, animation deformity rates and are more satisfied with breasts domain. Further well-designed multi-center prospective studies are required to increase the robustness of the findings.
