Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2017, Article ID 6486859, 12 pages
Review Article

One-Stage Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Concise Review

1Department of Medicine and Surgery, Plastic Surgery Division, University of Parma, Parma, Italy
2Cutaneous, Mini-Invasive, Regenerative and Plastic Surgery Unit, Parma University Hospital, Parma, Italy
3Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
4Plastic Surgery Department, IRCCS San Martino University Hospital, National Institute for Cancer Research Genoa, Genoa, Italy

Correspondence should be addressed to Nicolò Bertozzi; moc.oohay@izzotreb.olocin

Received 21 July 2017; Accepted 24 August 2017; Published 2 October 2017

Academic Editor: Subhas Gupta

Copyright © 2017 Nicolò Bertozzi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Background. One-stage direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is performed simultaneously with breast cancer resection. We explored indications, techniques, and outcomes of IBR to determine its feasibility, safety, and effectiveness. Material and Methods. We reviewed the available literature on one-stage direct-to-implant IBR, with or without acellular dermal matrix (ADM), synthetic mesh, or autologous fat grafting. We analyzed the indications, preoperative work-up, surgical technique, postoperative care, outcomes, and complications. Results. IBR is indicated for small-to-medium nonptotic breasts and contraindicated in patients who require or have undergone radiotherapy, due to unacceptably high complications rates. Only patients with thick, well-vascularized mastectomy flaps are IBR candidates. Expandable implants should be used for ptotic breasts, while anatomical shaped implants should be used to reconstruct small-to-medium nonptotic breasts. ADMs can be used to cover the implant during IBR and avoid muscle elevation, thereby minimizing postoperative pain. Flap necrosis, reoperation, and implant loss are more common with IBR than conventional two-staged reconstruction, but IBR has advantages such as lack of secondary surgery, faster recovery, and better quality of life. Conclusions. IBR has good outcomes and patient-satisfaction rates. With ADM use, a shift from conventional reconstruction to IBR has occurred. Drawbacks of IBR can be overcome by careful patient selection.