Comparative analysis of breast cancer-related lymphedema after autologous and implant-based reconstruction: emphasizing differences between prepectoral and subpectoral placement of implant
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v61.46066Keywords:
Breast reconstruction, lymphedema, prepectoral, subpectoral, DIEP flap, implant-based reconstructionAbstract
Background: This study aimed to compare the incidence and long-term progression of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) following autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction, with subgroup analysis based on prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement.
Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of 228 patients who underwent mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction by a single surgeon between 2017 and 2020, using either a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap or a tissue expander. Arm circumference was measured at standardized proximal and distal points. BCRL was diagnosed clinically and confirmed by lymphoscintigraphy demonstrating dermal backflow and/or delayed axillary nodal uptake. Soft-tissue compliance was assessed using ultrasonography to evaluate differences in tissue response with and without compression.
Results: The overall incidence of BCRL showed no significant difference among groups (DIEP 8.9%, prepectoral 14.8%, subpectoral 15.6%). However, during 2-year follow-up, the subpectoral group demonstrated faster progression and greater limb volume increase compared with the DIEP and prepectoral groups. Improvements in soft-tissue compliance were greatest in the DIEP group, followed by the prepectoral group, while the subpectoral group showed the least improvement.
Conclusions: Autologous reconstruction demonstrated the most favorable lymphatic outcomes, supporting prior literature. Among implant-based approaches, prepectoral placement was associated with a milder course of BCRL than subpectoral placement, possibly due to decreased postoperative pain and shoulder restriction. These findings suggest that reconstruction type and implant placement plane may influence BCRL severity and should be considered when planning surgery to reduce complications and optimize long-term outcomes.
Downloads
References
Lang JE, Summers DE, Cui H, et al. Trends in post-mastectomy reconstruction: a SEER database analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2013;108:163–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23365
DiSipio T, Rye S, Newman B, et al. Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:500–515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70076-7
Leung N, Furniss D, Giele H. Modern surgical management of breast cancer therapy-related upper limb and breast lymphoedema. Maturitas. 2015;80:384–390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.01.012
Suami H, Chang DW. Overview of surgical treatments for breast cancer-related lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1853–1863. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f44658
Ciudad P, Manrique OJ, Date S, et al. Advances in microsurgical breast reconstruction: the role of lymphatic surgery in preventing and treating breast cancer-related lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147:865e-878e.
Chang DW, Suami H, Skoracki R. Lymphaticovenular bypass for lymphedema management in breast cancer patients: a prospective study on long-term outcomes. J Surg Oncol. 2020;122:1015–1022.
Ridner SH, Dietrich MS, Stewart BR, et al. Body mass index and breast cancer treatment-related lymphedema. Support Care Cancer. 2011;19:853–857. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1089-9
Togawa K, Ma H, Sullivan-Halley J, et al. Risk factors for self- reported arm lymphedema among female breast cancer survivors: a prospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16:414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-014-0414-x
McLaughlin SA, Wright MJ, Morris KT, et al. Prevalence of lymphedema in women with breast cancer 5 years after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary dissection: objective measurements. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5213–5219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.16.3725
Hayes SC, Janda M, Cornish B, et al. Lymphedema after breast cancer: incidence, risk factors, and effect on upper body function. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3536–3542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4899
Lee KT, Mun GH, Lim SY, et al. The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on post-mastectomy lymphedema in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy. Breast. 2013;22:53–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2012.04.009
Blanchard M, Arrault M, Vignes S. Positive impact of delayed breast reconstruction on breast-cancer treatment-related arm lymphoedema. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65:1060–1063. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2012.03.019
Siotos C, Sebai ME, Wan EL, et al. Breast reconstruction and risk of arm lymphedema development: a meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:807–818. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.01.012
Lee KT, Bang SI, Pyon JK, et al. Method of breast reconstruction and the development of ymphoedema. Br J Surg. 2017;104:230–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10397
Yan A, Avraham T, Zampell JC, et al. Mechanisms of lymphatic regeneration after tissue transfer. PLoS One. 2011;6:e17201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017201
Menezes MM, Bello MA, Millen E, et al. Breast reconstruction and risk of lymphedema after mastectomy: a prospective cohort study with 10 years of follow-up. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:1218–1226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2016.06.001
Crosby MA, Card A, Liu J, et al. Immediate breast reconstruction and lymphedema ncidence. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:789e–795e. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824a2ab1
Basta MN, Fischer JP, Kanchwala SK, et al. A propensity-matched analysis of the nfluence of breast reconstruction on subsequent development of lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:134e–143e. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001417
Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: rationale, indications, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:287–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002950
Copeland-Halperin LR, Yemc L, Emery E, et al. Evaluating postoperative narcotic use in prepectoral versus dual-plane breast reconstruction following mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7:e2082. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002082
Schaeffer CV, Dassoulas KR, Thuman J, et al. Early functional outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction: a case-matched cohort study. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;82:S399–S403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001669
Wormer BA, Valmadrid AC, Ganesh Kumar N, et al. Reducing expansion visits in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: a comparative study of prepectoral and subpectoral expander placement. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144:276–286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005791
Salibian AA, Frey JD, Choi M, et al. Subcutaneous implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix/mesh: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4:e1139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001139
Plachinski SJ, Boehm LM, Adamson KA, et al. Comparative analysis of prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021;9:e3709. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003709
Frederik GH, Diana LD, Camila B, et al. Prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction yield high cosmetic scores: surgeon ratings favor prepectoral placement-secondary results from a randomized controlled trial. JPRAS Open. 2025:48:12–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2025.10.008
Vidya R, Casado-Sanchez C. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a comprehensive review of current trends and outcomes. J Clin Med. 2024;13(1):257.
Anete A, Christopher J, Luia A, et al. Prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gland Surg. 2025;14(11):2238–2257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/gs-2025-309
Lee JH, Shin BW, Jeong HJ, et al. Ultrasonographic evaluation of therapeutic effects of complex decongestive therapy in breast cancer-related lymphedema. Ann Rehabil Med. 2013;37: 683–689. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2013.37.5.683
Jeon HB, Jung JH, Im SH, et al. Association between immediate breast reconstruction and the development of breast cancer-related lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;151:214e–222e. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009831
Card A, Crosby MA, Liu J, et al. Reduced incidence of breast cancer-related ymphedema following mastectomy and breast reconstruction versus mastectomy alone. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:1169–1178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31826d0faa
Lee KT, Kim J, Jeon BJ, et al. Association of the breast reconstruction modality with the development of postmastectomy lymphedema: a long-term follow-up study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2023;49:1177–1183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2023.01.027
Lee JS, Park E, Lee JH, et al. A prospective comparison study of early functional outcomes after implant-based breast reconstruction: subpectoral versus prepectoral echnique. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10:2520–2529. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-1550
Shikhman A, Erz L, Brown M, et al. Prepectoral conversion of subpectoral implants for animation deformity after breast reconstruction: technique and experience. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022;10:e4132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000004132
Lu SR, Hong RB, Chou W, et al. Role of physiotherapy and patient education in ymphedema control following breast cancer surgery. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2015;11:319–327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S77669
Scaffidi M, Vulpiani MC, Vetrano M, et al. Early rehabilitation reduces the onset of complications in the upper limb following breast cancer surgery. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012;48:601–611.
Schmitz KH, Troxel AB, Cheville A, et al. Physical activity and lymphedema (The PAL Trial): assessing the safety of progressive strength training in breast cancer survivors. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30(3):233–245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2009.01.001
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Geun-Young Park, Ahran Kim, Young Jae Choi, Daiwon Jun, Ji Young Ryu, Pill Sun Paik, Jung Ho Lee
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica Society owns the copyright for all material published until Volume 57 (2023) unless otherwise specified. As from 2024 all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY licences, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
