Prepectoral Dual-Port Tissue Expander Placement: Can This Eliminate Suction Drain Use?
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
OBJECTIVES: The most common method of performing breast reconstruction after a mastectomy is using tissue expanders. Significant drainage that can lead to seromas and possible infection is a common sequela after mastectomies, and therefore, closed suction drains are routinely placed during the initial surgery (Vardanian et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:403-410). Drains, however, are associated with increased pain and discomfort for the patient and have been attributed to an increased infection rate by some authors (Degnim et al. Ann Surg. 2013;258:240-247; Saratzis et al. Clin Breast Cancer. 2009;9:243-246). We report on our experience using a dual-chamber tissue expander placed in the prepectoral space without acellular dermal matrix or other supportive material, which allows for drainage of periprosthetic fluid and avoids drain placement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective, single-institution review of patients' records was performed for all patients who underwent prepectoral tissue expander placement between January 2018 and June 2019. Patients who had drains placed or who underwent autologous reconstruction in combination with expander placement were excluded. Thirty-nine patients were selected, with a total of 66 expander placements. Demographics including body mass index, comorbidities, history of smoking or steroid use, perioperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and intraoperative details and indications for surgery were retrospectively collected. Outcomes were separated into minor and major complications. Major complications were defined as complications that required surgical intervention. RESULTS: There were 51 prepectoral reconstructions with a dual-chamber tissue expander and no further surgical drain and 15 reconstructions using a standard expander with an additional closed suction drain. Overall complications for the no-drain cohort were 13.7% compared with 20% in the drain cohort (P = 0.68). Surgical site infection rate is 7.84% in the no-drain cohort compared with 13.3% in the drain cohort (P = 0.61). Mean numeric postoperative pain score at 6 hours was 3.2 in the no-drain cohort compared with 4.3 in the drain cohort (P = 0.03) and 4.17 compared with 5.6 at 12 hours, respectively (P = 0.04). Mean time to exchange of implant in the no-drain cohort was 152 days versus 126 days in the drain cohort (P = 0.38). Median follow-up times were 157 days for the no-drain cohort and 347 days for the drain cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate breast reconstruction using a dual-chamber tissue expander offers a drain-free alternative to the immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. Our infection rate with 7.8% is lower than our own reported rates with subpectoral tissue expander reconstruction using either acellular dermal matrix or poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (17% and 11%). The overall complication rate is similar to historic data associated with breast reconstruction after mastectomy and suggests that dual-chamber expander placement offers a safe alternative possibly decreasing the patient's postoperative pain and discomfort that often is associated with closed suction drains (Saratzis et al. Clin Breast Cancer. 2009;9:243-246).
