Breast reconstruction with mentor anatomical implants and the risk of implant rotation: A retrospective study of 1134 women
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Breast reconstruction with mentor anatomical implants and the risk of implant rotation : A retrospective study of 1134 women. / Kullab, Randa B.; Hemmingsen, Mathilde N.; Norlin, Caroline; Bennedsen, Anne K.; Ørholt, Mathias; Larsen, Andreas; Weltz, Tim K.; Kalstrup, Julie; Bredgaard, Rikke; Hölmich, Lisbet R.; Damsgaard, Tine E.; Vester-Glowinski, Peter; Herly, Mikkel.
I: Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Bind 94, 2024, s. 150-156.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Breast reconstruction with mentor anatomical implants and the risk of implant rotation
T2 - A retrospective study of 1134 women
AU - Kullab, Randa B.
AU - Hemmingsen, Mathilde N.
AU - Norlin, Caroline
AU - Bennedsen, Anne K.
AU - Ørholt, Mathias
AU - Larsen, Andreas
AU - Weltz, Tim K.
AU - Kalstrup, Julie
AU - Bredgaard, Rikke
AU - Hölmich, Lisbet R.
AU - Damsgaard, Tine E.
AU - Vester-Glowinski, Peter
AU - Herly, Mikkel
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2024 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Background: Implant rotation is a known complication to breast reconstruction using anatomical implants. However, there is a lack of large studies investigating the risk of implant rotation and potential predisposing risk factors. Method: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent breast reconstruction with Mentor anatomical implants from 2010 to 2021 at two Danish hospitals. We compared the risk of implant rotation between one- and two-stage breast reconstruction using univariate logistic regression. We analyzed the effect of biological mesh, immediate versus delayed reconstruction, and use of a higher final expander volume than the permanent implant volume on the risk of implant rotation. Finally, we analyzed the success rate of revision surgery for implant rotation. Results: In total, 1134 patients were enrolled. Patients who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction (n = 720) had a significantly higher risk of implant rotation than those who underwent one-stage breast reconstruction (n = 426; 11% vs. 5%, p < 0.01). There was no significant association between implant rotation and the use of biological mesh, immediate breast reconstruction, or use of a higher final expander volume than the permanent implant volume. The success rate of revision surgery after implant rotation was 73% (62/85 rotations). Conclusions: Two-stage breast reconstruction significantly increased the risk of implant rotation compared to one-stage breast reconstruction. The overall risk of implant rotation was low and success rate of revision surgery was high. These findings suggest that anatomical implants are safe to use for breast reconstruction. However, surgeons and patients should be aware of the increased risk of implant rotation after two-stage reconstruction.
AB - Background: Implant rotation is a known complication to breast reconstruction using anatomical implants. However, there is a lack of large studies investigating the risk of implant rotation and potential predisposing risk factors. Method: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent breast reconstruction with Mentor anatomical implants from 2010 to 2021 at two Danish hospitals. We compared the risk of implant rotation between one- and two-stage breast reconstruction using univariate logistic regression. We analyzed the effect of biological mesh, immediate versus delayed reconstruction, and use of a higher final expander volume than the permanent implant volume on the risk of implant rotation. Finally, we analyzed the success rate of revision surgery for implant rotation. Results: In total, 1134 patients were enrolled. Patients who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction (n = 720) had a significantly higher risk of implant rotation than those who underwent one-stage breast reconstruction (n = 426; 11% vs. 5%, p < 0.01). There was no significant association between implant rotation and the use of biological mesh, immediate breast reconstruction, or use of a higher final expander volume than the permanent implant volume. The success rate of revision surgery after implant rotation was 73% (62/85 rotations). Conclusions: Two-stage breast reconstruction significantly increased the risk of implant rotation compared to one-stage breast reconstruction. The overall risk of implant rotation was low and success rate of revision surgery was high. These findings suggest that anatomical implants are safe to use for breast reconstruction. However, surgeons and patients should be aware of the increased risk of implant rotation after two-stage reconstruction.
KW - Acellular dermal matrix
KW - Implant rotation
KW - Implant-based breast reconstruction
KW - Malposition
KW - One-stage breast reconstruction
KW - Two-stage breast reconstruction
U2 - 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.05.018
DO - 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.05.018
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 38781835
AN - SCOPUS:85193736496
VL - 94
SP - 150
EP - 156
JO - Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS
JF - Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS
SN - 1748-6815
ER -
ID: 392979258