Discussion: Impact of Prior Unilateral Chest Wall Radiotherapy on Outcomes in Bilateral Breast Reconstruction
H. Sbitany
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002533
2016-10-01
Abstract:www.PRSJournal.com 581e P undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction, with a history of prior radiation therapy, present a challenging clinical scenario. This is because of their well-documented higher complication rates, secondary to deleterious effects of irradiation on the soft-tissue envelope of the remaining breast.1 This nicely designed retrospective review attempts to define the effects of prior unilateral radiation therapy on outcomes in bilateral prosthetic and autologous reconstruction, comparing the irradiated and nonirradiated breasts.2 Not surprisingly, the authors find that prior irradiation resulted in a significantly increased risk of overall complications, specifically, infection, major skin necrosis, and capsular contracture (in prosthetic reconstruction). The authors state that in their cohort of patients undergoing bilateral prosthetic reconstruction, the irradiated breast was associated with similar rates of implant failure and explantation as the nonirradiated breasts. This finding is in direct contrast to large published series by Sbitany et al. and Spear et al., in which a history of prior radiation therapy resulted in a significantly higher explantation/failure rate.1,3 Another study by Reish et al. found an increased incidence of overall complications in previously irradiated breasts relative to nonirradiated breasts.4 Furthermore, they found a significant clinical increase in explantation rates in previously irradiated breasts relative to nonirradiated breasts (4.7 percent versus 1.0 percent; p = 0.095) trending toward statistical significance. Given the reported disparity with previous findings, it would be helpful for the authors of this study to describe their surgical techniques in more detail, as this would affect outcomes. Specifically, did they perform direct expansion of the previously irradiated pectoralis muscle, or did they use a regional flap, such as the latissimus, to facilitate soft-tissue expansion in some cases? Furthermore, the issue of whether the authors’ institution performed skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy would be an interesting clarification point. Nipple-sparing mastectomy allows for less aggressive débridement of threatened skin at the time of immediate reconstruction, and thus poses an additional reconstructive challenge in this population.4,5 In addition, it is interesting that the authors describe equivalent explantation rates among irradiated and nonirradiated breasts, despite their reported significantly higher rate of major skin necrosis and infection in irradiated breasts. Thus, it would also be helpful to know their protocols for managing these occurrences, to minimize overall reconstructive failure and explantation rates. Despite these reported findings, examination of Figure 1 in the article shows that explantation rates were approximately 2-fold higher in irradiated breasts, thus indicating very strong clinical significance. Thus, these findings actually confirm the prevailing belief that a history of prior radiation therapy is associated with a notably higher rate of implant failure. In this current study, it is possible that if a larger cohort of patients had been obtained, these results may have also achieved statistical significance. The authors also note that in irradiated breasts, there was no difference between prosthetic and autologous reconstruction, with regard to overall complications. This highlights the damaging effects of radiation fibrosis on the postmastectomy skin envelope, whether reconstructed with an underlying implant or a vascularized tissue flap. This finding may be surprising to some, as the prevailing belief is that vascularized autologous tissue is superior and safer in this setting,