Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Expander-Implant Breast Reconstruction

  • Author: Jorge I de la Torre, MD, FACS; Chief Editor: James Neal Long, MD, FACS  more...
 
Updated: Feb 18, 2016
 

Background

The goal of breast reconstruction is to recreate symmetric natural-appearing breasts while preserving patient safety and quality of life. Many techniques exist for breast reconstruction, but rarely do they produce true symmetry with the contralateral breast.

The safety of the patient is essential and always should remain the primary concern in reconstructive procedures. These procedures should be tailored to the individual patient, taking into account the ultimate aesthetic outcome and the impact the reconstruction may have on the patient's lifestyle.[1, 2]

Next

History of the Procedure

Silicone breast implants were introduced in the 1960s and offered the first opportunity to provide reconstruction of the breast following mastectomy. During those times, extirpative surgery resulted in significant breast deformities due to the more radical approaches used, and the breast implant allowed for really nothing more that the recreation of a breast mound. In the late 1970s, the latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap was re-introduced and combined with implant placement to provide notably improved results in breast reconstruction.[3] Rather than simply placing an implant beneath thin skin flaps, the latissimus muscle served to replace or even augment the pectoralis muscle to provide coverage of the implant.

Radovan's subsequent introduction of tissue expanders allowed the implant to be placed beneath the residual skin and muscle while uninflated.[4] Once the skin and muscle flaps recovered from the trauma of surgery and could tolerate the stress, the implants were inflated. This spared additional injury to the chest wall tissues and permitted overinflation of the expander. More volume was placed in the expander than was needed by the permanent implant, which helped to create a degree of breast ptosis, resulting in a more natural-appearing breast mound. (For more information, see Uses of the Postoperatively Adjustable Implant in Aesthetic Breast Surgery.) Until recently, permanent saline expander-implants or saline expanders replaced by permanent saline implants had been used because of the difficulty in obtaining silicone implants.

In November 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reversed the moratorium on the use of silicone gel-filled implants.[5, 6] Objective and medically grounded information has confirmed the safety of using both silicone gel-filled and saline filled implants for breast reconstruction and aesthetic breast surgery.[7, 8, 9] (For more information, see Breast Implants, Safety and Efficacy of Silicone.) Most of the concern regarding the use of breast implants has focused on claims of a link between silicone and autoimmune diseases, a supposition now known to have no scientific foundation. Despite the data supporting the safety of breast implants, careful informed patient consent concerning these issues as well as other potential complications (see Complications) is essential prior to any procedure involving implants or expanders.

Previous
Next

Problem

The use of expander-implants can lead to unsatisfactory outcomes if proper coverage of the implant is not obtained. Often, the only available coverage is a thin layer of skin and subcutaneous tissue. This predisposes to the formation of capsular contracture, producing an unnatural round breast mound. By ensuring that sufficient vascularized soft tissue is provided to cover the implant, capsular contracture is less likely and, ideally, the excess skin and muscle redrapes in a shape that simulates the normal ptotic breast.

Options to improve coverage of the implant include the use of the latissimus dorsi muscle, which reduces capsular contracture and improves outcomes.[10] The development of suitable biologic materials such as decellularized dermal matrices has given surgeons the means to provide coverage of implants and expanders.[11]

Previous
Next

Epidemiology

Frequency

In 2008, more than 79,000 breast reconstructions were performed in the United States.[12] Some of these reconstructions were performed at the time of mastectomy, and some were performed on a delayed or elective basis. Delayed cases usually present with a distinct set of problems when determining options for reconstruction.

Since the introduction of breast implants in 1962, approximately 1.5-2 million women in the United States have undergone procedures to place breast prostheses filled with either silicone gel or saline. Of these, approximately 20% were placed for reconstructive procedures, while the remaining 80% were used in purely cosmetic cases.

Previous
Next

Pathophysiology

Three concepts are essential to considering the problems that must be addressed to create symmetry in the reconstructed breast: the inframammary fold, ptosis, and projection.[13] The inframammary fold is an important landmark that frequently is disrupted or destroyed by modified radical mastectomy. Ptosis is the natural teardrop shape of the breast that occurs with the effect of gravity on the normal breast tissue and usually is lost when a noncompressible saline implant is placed beneath the skin. Projection is the anteroposterior fullness of the breast; projection also can be diminished when expander-implants are used. Achieving an aesthetic outcome requires that each of these elements is visually similar to the contralateral breast mound.

Previous
Next

Indications

Factors that can help determine whether expander-implant reconstruction is appropriate include the quality of the overlying skin, the condition of the pectoralis and serratus muscles, and available donor tissue for autologous reconstruction. Patients with inadequate in-situ donor tissue who cannot tolerate the increased length of surgery required for either pedicled or free-tissue transfer reconstruction may be candidates for expander-implant procedures.[14]

In addition, patients who are undergoing bilateral reconstruction but are otherwise candidates for transverse rectus abdominus muscle (TRAM) reconstruction may be considered for implant-expander reconstruction to avoid the morbidity of using both rectus muscles. Patients who are undergoing delayed reconstruction may require prolonged expansion to create a sufficient skin envelope for placement of the implant unless a latissimus dorsi flap with overlying skin is used to cover the implant.

Previous
Next

Relevant Anatomy

The anatomic borders of the breast mound are the level of the second rib superiorly, the inframammary fold at the seventh rib inferiorly, the lateral border of the sternum medially, and the midaxillary line laterally. The breast parenchyma is within the superficial fascia of the chest wall superficial to the pectoralis major, serratus anterior, and superior portion of the rectus sheath.

The arterial supply includes the internal mammary artery, posterior intercostal arteries, and lateral thoracic and thoracoacromial arteries. Venous return is primarily via the axilla and secondarily via the internal thoracic and posterior intercostal perforating branches. Most lymphatic drainage is to the axillary nodes.

Sensory innervation of the breast is supplied by cutaneous branches of the second through sixth intercostal nerves.

For a detailed discussion, see Breast Anatomy.

Previous
Next

Contraindications

Because any patient who is undergoing immediate reconstruction following mastectomy is already a surgical candidate, contraindications to expander-implant reconstruction are few.[15] Implant reconstruction is contraindicated in patients who have insufficient skin, soft tissue, and muscle to cover the prosthesis. This population is better suited for an implant covered by a latissimus dorsi flap. If muscle coverage is sufficient but skin coverage is limited, an expander can be placed and inflated over time to create a proper skin envelope. An additional relative contraindication is significant ptosis of the contralateral breast. Implants are unable to achieve a natural ptotic appearance; in these patients, autologous tissue reconstruction or a contralateral symmetry procedure is indicated.

Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Jorge I de la Torre, MD, FACS Professor of Surgery and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chief, Division of Plastic Surgery, Residency Program Director, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine; Director, Center for Advanced Surgical Aesthetics

Jorge I de la Torre, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American Burn Association, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery, Association for Academic Surgery, Medical Association of the State of Alabama

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Luis O Vasconez, MD 

Luis O Vasconez, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Head and Neck Society, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Burn Association, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery, American Surgical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Chief Editor

James Neal Long, MD, FACS Founder of Magnolia Plastic Surgery; Former Associate Professor of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Children's Hospital and Kirklin Clinics, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine; Section Chief of Plastic, Reconstructive, Hand, and Microsurgery, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center

James Neal Long, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Plastic Surgery Research Council, Sigma Xi, Southeastern Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, Southeastern Surgical Congress

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Pankaj Tiwari, MD Assistant Professor, Division of Plastic Surgery, Ohio State University College of Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References
  1. Ramon Y, Ullmann Y, Moscona R. Aesthetic results and patient satisfaction with immediate breast reconstruction using tissue expansion: a follow-up study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Mar. 99(3):686-91. [Medline].

  2. Gui GP, Kadayaprath G, Tan SM, Faliakou EC, Choy C, Ward A, et al. Long-term quality-of-life assessment following one-stage immediate breast reconstruction using biodimensional expander implants: the patient's perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Jan. 121(1):17-24. [Medline].

  3. Bostwick J 3rd, Vasconez LO, Jurkiewicz MJ. Breast reconstruction after a radical mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1978 May. 61(5):682-93. [Medline].

  4. Radovan C. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy using the temporary expander. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982 Feb. 69(2):195-208. [Medline].

  5. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Silicone Breast Implants. www.plasticsurgery.org. Available at http://www.plasticsurgery.org/media/Press_Kits/Silicone-Breast-Implants.cfm. Accessed: 6/23/08.

  6. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA approves silicone gel-filled breast implants after in-depth evaluation. FDA Web site. Available at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01512.html. Accessed: October 5, 2009.

  7. Spear SL, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS. Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Dec. 120(7 Suppl 1):8S-16S; discussion 17S-18S. [Medline].

  8. Cunningham B. The Mentor Study on Contour Profile Gel Silicone MemoryGel Breast Implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Dec. 120(7 Suppl 1):33S-39S. [Medline].

  9. McLaughlin JK, Lipworth L, Murphy DK, Walker PS. The safety of silicone gel-filled breast implants: a review of the epidemiologic evidence. Ann Plast Surg. 2007 Nov. 59(5):569-80. [Medline].

  10. de la Torre JI, Fix RJ, Gardner PM, Vasconez LO. Reconstruction with the latissimus dorsi flap after skin-sparing mastectomy. Ann Plast Surg. 2001 Mar. 46(3):229-33. [Medline].

  11. Parikh PM, Spear SL, Menon N. 20: immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expanders and alloderm. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Sep 15. 118(4 Suppl):18. [Medline].

  12. American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). 2000/2007/2008 National Plastic Surgery Statistics. ASPS Web site. Available at http://www.plasticsurgery.org/Media/stats/2008-cosmetic-reconstructive-plastic-surgery-minimally-invasive-statistics.pdf. Accessed: October 5, 2009.

  13. Fix RJ, de la Torre JI, Vasconez LO. Breast reconstruction with implants. In: Cohen M, ed. The Unfavorable Result in Plastic Surgery: Avoidance and Treatment. 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2001.

  14. al-Hakeem MS, Fix RJ, De Cordier BC, Vasconez LO. Breast reconstruction. Curr Probl Surg. 2000 Sep. 37(9):585-630. [Medline].

  15. Losken A, Carlson GW, Schoemann MB, et al. Factors that influence the completion of breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2004 Mar. 52(3):258-61; discussion 262. [Medline].

  16. Pennisi VR. Making a definite inframammary fold under a reconstructed breast. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977 Oct. 60(4):523-5. [Medline].

  17. Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, Menon NG. Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008 May. 32(3):418-25. [Medline].

  18. Kim JY, Davila AA, Persing S, Connor CM, Jovanovic B, Khan SA, et al. A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Jan. 129(1):28-41. [Medline].

  19. Di Benedetto G, Aquinati A, Santoli M, Bertani A. Which is the best position for the remote injection dome using the adjustable expander/prosthesis in breast reconstruction? A comparative study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 May. 113(6):1629-33. [Medline].

  20. Slavin SA, Colen SR. Sixty consecutive breast reconstructions with the inflatable expander: a critical appraisal. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990 Nov. 86(5):910-9. [Medline].

  21. McCarthy CM, Pusic AL, Sclafani L, Buchanan C, Fey JV, Disa JJ, et al. Breast cancer recurrence following prosthetic, postmastectomy reconstruction: incidence, detection, and treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Feb. 121(2):381-8. [Medline].

  22. Cordeiro PG, Snell L, Heerdt A, McCarthy C. Immediate Tissue Expander/Implast Breast Reconstruction after Salvage Mastectomy for Cancer Recurrence following Lumpectomy/Irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Feb. 129(2):341-50. [Medline].

  23. Fajardo LL, Roberts CC, Hunt KR. Mammographic surveillance of breast cancer patients: should the mastectomy site be imaged?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993 Nov. 161(5):953-5. [Medline].

  24. Hou MF, Ou-Yang F, Chuang CH. Comparison between sonography and mammography for breast cancer diagnosis in oriental women after augmentation mammaplasty. Ann Plast Surg. 2002 Aug. 49(2):120-6. [Medline].

  25. Handel N. The effect of silicone implants on the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Dec. 120(7 Suppl 1):81S-93S. [Medline].

  26. Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL, Disa JJ, et al. Irradiation after immediate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: outcomes, complications, aesthetic results, and satisfaction among 156 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Mar. 113(3):877-81. [Medline].

  27. Disa JJ, McCarthy CM, Mehrara BJ, Pusic AL, Cordeiro PG. Immediate latissimus dorsi/prosthetic breast reconstruction following salvage mastectomy after failed lumpectomy/irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Apr. 121(4):159e-64e. [Medline].

  28. Woo KJ, Paik JM, Mun GH, Pyon JK, Bang SI. Risk Factors for Complications in Immediate Expander-Implant Breast Reconstruction for Non-obese Patients: Impact of Breast Size on Complications. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016 Feb. 40 (1):71-8. [Medline].

  29. Chen TA, Momeni A, Lee GK. Clinical outcomes in breast cancer expander-implant reconstructive patients with radiation therapy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016 Jan. 69 (1):14-22. [Medline].

  30. Leibman AJ, Styblo TM, Bostwick J 3rd. Mammography of the postreconstruction breast. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Mar. 99(3):698-704. [Medline].

  31. Wickman M, Jurell G. Low capsular contraction rate after primary and secondary breast reconstruction with a textured expander prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Mar. 99(3):692-7. [Medline].

  32. Gamboa-Bobadilla GM. Implant breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg. 2006 Jan. 56(1):22-5. [Medline].

  33. Breuing KH, Colwell AS. Inferolateral AlloDerm hammock for implant coverage in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2007 Sep. 59(3):250-5. [Medline].

  34. Hirsch EM, Seth AK, Dumanian GA, Kim JY, Mustoe TA, Galiano RD, et al. Outcomes of tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction in the setting of prereconstruction radiation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Feb. 129(2):354-61. [Medline].

  35. Krueger EA, Wilkins EG, Strawderman M, Cederna P, Goldfarb S, Vicini FA, et al. Complications and patient satisfaction following expander/implant breast reconstruction with and without radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Mar 1. 49(3):713-21. [Medline].

  36. Ho AL, Bovill ES, Macadam SA, et al. Postmastectomy radiation therapy after immediate two-stage tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: a University of British Columbia perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jul. 134(1):1e-10e. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
Expander-implant breast reconstruction. Intraoperative photograph following bilateral skin-sparing mastectomy.
Expander-implant breast reconstruction. Intraoperative view of site ready for implant.
Expander-implant breast reconstruction. Intraoperative view of implant in place and wound closed.
Expander-implant breast reconstruction. Textured saline expandable implant with built-in port.
Expander-implant breast reconstruction. Anterior view 6 weeks after removal of expanders and replacement with implants covered by latissimus dorsi muscle flaps.
Expander-implant breast reconstruction. Lateral view 6 weeks after removal of expanders and replacement with implants covered by latissimus dorsi muscle flaps.
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.