Is Unilateral Implant or Autologous Breast Reconstruction Better in Obtaining Breast Symmetry?
Unilateral breast reconstruction poses a special set of challenges to the reconstructive breast surgeon compared to bilateral reconstructions. No studies to date provide an objective comparison between autologous and implant based reconstructions in matching the contralateral breast. This study compares the quantitative postoperative results between unilateral implant and autologous flap reconstructions in matching the native breast in shape, size, and projection using three-dimensional (3D) imaging. Sixty-four patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy with tissue expander (TE)-implant (n = 34) or autologous microvascular free transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous (TRAM; n = 18) or deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP; n = 12) flap (n = 30) reconstruction from 2007 to 2010 were analyzed. Key patient demographics and risk factors were collected. Using 3D scans of patients obtained during pre and postoperative visits including over 1 year follow-ups for both groups, 3D models were constructed and analyzed for total breast volume, anterior-posterior projection from the chest wall, and 3D comparison. No significant differences in mean age, body mass index, or total number of reconstructive surgeries were observed between the two groups (TE-implant: 52.2 ± 10, 23.9 ± 3.7, 3 ± 0.9; autologous: 50.7 ± 9.4, 25.4 ± 3.9, 2.9 ± 1.3; p > 0.05). The total volume difference between the reconstructed and contralateral breasts in the TE-implant group was insignificant: 27.1 ± 22.2 cc, similar to the autologous group: 29.5 ± 24.7 cc, as was the variance of breast volume from the mean. In both groups, the reconstructed breast had a larger volume. A-P projections were similar between the contralateral and the reconstructed breasts in the TE-implant group: 72.5 ± 3.21 mm versus 71.7 ± 3.5 mm (p > 0.05). The autologous reconstructed breast had statistically insignificant but less A-P projection compared to the contralateral breast (81.9 ± 16.1 mm versus 61.5 ± 9.5 mm; p > 0.05). Variance of A-P projection from the mean was additionally insignificant between the contralateral and reconstructed breasts. Both groups produced similar asymmetry scores based on global 3D comparison (TE-implant: 2.24 ± 0.3 mm; autologous: 1.96 ± 0.2 mm; p > 0.05). Lastly, when the autologous group was further subdivided into TRAM and DIEP cohorts, no significant differences in breast volume, A-P projection or symmetry existed. Using 3D imaging, we demonstrate that both TE-implant and autologous reconstruction can achieve symmetrical surgical results with the same number of operations. This study demonstrates that breast symmetry, while an important consideration in the breast reconstruction algorithm, should not be the sole consideration in a patient' decision to proceed with autologous versus TE-implant reconstruction.