Aesthetic Outcomes of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Tissue Expander/Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Novel devices for implant-based breast reconstruction: is the use of meshes to support the lower pole justified in terms of benefits? A review of the evidence

The use of novel devices such as acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) to support the lower pole in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) has been described as one of the most important advances in breast reconstructive surgery following mastectomy. However, the majority of outcomes studies focus primarily on providing evidence for the rates of short-term complications associated with their use, as opposed to their reported benefits. Given the high costs associated with using ADMs, together with an increasing number of alternative, cheaper synthetic products entering the market, it is important to clarify whether their use is actually justified and whether the alternative products offer equivalent or superior outcomes. The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive and updated review of the evidence for the benefits of using different products for lower pole support (LPS) in IBBR compared to reconstructions without. A secondary aim was to determine if there is any evidence to support the use of one product over another.

Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

In modern implant-based immediate breast reconstruction, it has become common to use biological acellular dermal and synthetic matrices in combination with a tissue expander or an implant. The aim of this systematic review was to examine differences in recurrence of cancer, impact on oncological treatment, health related quality of life, complications and aesthetic outcome between matrix and no matrix in immediate breast reconstruction. Systematic searches, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed according to predetermined criteria. Fifty-one studies were eligible and included in the review. The certainty of evidence for overall complication rate and implant loss is low (GRADE ⊕⊕□ □). The certainty of evidence for delay of adjuvant treatment, implant loss, infection, capsular contraction and aesthetic outcome is very low (GRADE ⊕□ □ □). No study reported data on recurrence of cancer or health related quality of life. In conclusion, there is a lack of high quality studies that compare the use of matrix with no matrix in immediate breast reconstruction. Specifically, there are no data on risk of recurrence of cancer, delay of adjuvant treatment and Health related quality of life (HRQoL). In addition, there is a risk of bias in many studies. It is often unclear what complications have been included and how they have been diagnosed, and how and when capsular contracture and aesthetic outcome have been evaluated. Controlled trials that further analyse the impact of radiotherapy, type of matrix and type of procedure (one or two stages) are necessary.

Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Expander/Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Assessment of Risks and Benefits

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrix has gained widespread acceptance in immediate expander/implant reconstruction because of perceived benefits, including improved expansion dynamics and superior aesthetic results. Although previous investigators have evaluated its risks, few studies have assessed the impact of acellular dermal matrix on other outcomes, including patient-reported measures.

METHODS

The Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study used a prospective cohort design to evaluate patients undergoing postmastectomy reconstruction from 10 centers and 58 participating surgeons between 2012 and 2015. The analysis focused on women undergoing immediate tissue expander reconstruction following mastectomies for cancer treatment or prophylaxis. Medical records and patient-reported outcome data, using the BREAST-Q and Numeric Pain Rating Scale instruments, were reviewed. Bivariate analyses and mixed-effects regression models were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 1297 patients were evaluated, including 655 (50.5 percent) with acellular dermal matrix and 642 (49.5 percent) without acellular dermal matrix. Controlling for demographic and clinical covariates, no significant differences were seen between acellular dermal matrix and non-acellular dermal matrix cohorts in overall complications (OR, 1.21; p = 0.263), major complications (OR, 1.43; p = 0.052), wound infections (OR, 1.49; p = 0.118), or reconstructive failures (OR, 1.55; p = 0.089) at 2 years after reconstruction. There were also no significant differences between the cohorts in the time to expander/implant exchange (p = 0.78). No significant differences were observed in patient-reported outcome scores, including satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, physical well-being, and postoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter, prospective analysis, the authors found no significant acellular dermal matrix effects on complications, time to exchange, or patient-reported outcome in immediate expander/implant breast reconstruction. Further studies are needed to develop criteria for more selective use of acellular dermal matrix in these patients.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Axillary Advancement Suture to Minimize Post-Implantation Deformity in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Patients who have undergone implant-based breast reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy often complain about bulging on the upper flank or inferior axillary area. This is most likely because the subcutaneous tissue layer of the upper flank, which is continuous with the breast tissue, tends to show inferolateral drooping once the subcutaneous tissue becomes loose after eliminating the breast parenchyma. In addition, one of the weaknesses of implant surgery is that implants cannot completely replace the tissue removed during skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM). This leads to the formation of a depression and a stepping effect superior and lateral to the implant on both sides. Notably, because the pectoralis major muscle is quite thin, when there is a depression around the superolateral area of the implant, it acts as a band, which then leads to tissue bulging and serious aesthetic problems. Here, we describe a simple advancement suture technique that can be used to resolve these two aesthetic problems in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. The advancement sutures are performed after the implant and drains are inserted following SSM and before closing the incision. First, the surgeon confirms the depression in the superolateral area of the implant insertion site by redraping a skin flap lateral to the margin. If a depression is suspected, the surgeon uses forceps to pull the subcutaneous tissue in the lateral flank pocket over to the lateral border of the pectoralis major muscle, superolateral to the implant. At this point, correction of the lateral flank bulging and depression on the superolateral border is verified. If the result is not satisfactory, the surgeon may attempt advancing the subcutaneous fat from different areas; the more posterior the tissue is advanced, the better it eliminates the lateral bulging and superolateral depression. However, too much advancement may cause extra tension, potentially resulting in tearing of the tissue. A round needle is used to suture two to three stitches, before completing wound closure. By performing this simple advancement suture, we were able to successfully minimize post-implantation deformity-bulging on the lateral flank and depression at the superolateral implant margin. Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Delayed post mastectomy breast reconstructions with allogeneic acellular dermal matrix prepared by a new decellularizationmethod

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a tissue graft of allogeneic origin from post-mortem tissue donors prepared by an innovative decellularization process. The newly developed non-toxic and low cost decellularization process of cadaver origin dermis included ADM in breast reconstruction procedures proved to help coverage of the lower-pole of breast expanders or implants. As the results have shown, it did help to eliminate autologous dermis donor site morbidity along with shortening the operation time by avoiding elevation of additional muscle or fascia during the operation. Main aims of this article include histology evaluation of allogeneic acellular dermal matrix prepared by a new decellularization method and presentation of clinical results of its use. A total of 22 patients underwent 26 ADM based breast reconstructions. The mean patient's follow up was 12.6 months. Average total size of ADM used for one breast was 273 cm². Post-operative complications occurred in 3 patients including one expander infection, one expander extrusion and one expander pocket disfiguration. Microscopic analysis of tissue samples has confirmed incorporation of the acellular dermal matrices into the surrounding connective tissue without any noticeable immune reaction. In a majority of the ADM samples we found pseudocapsullar formation on implant side of samples without acute or chronic inflammatory cells. The use of ADM prepared by new preparation method in expansive post mastectomy breast reconstruction was associated by a relatively low complication rate resulting in good outcomes.

Cost analysis of postmastectomy reconstruction: A comparison of two staged implant reconstruction using tissue expander and acellular dermal matrix with abdominal-based perforator free flaps

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Two staged tissue expander-implant with acellular dermal matrix (TE/I + ADM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap are the most common implant and autologous methods of reconstruction in the U.S. Implant-based techniques are disproportionally more popular, partially due to its presumed cost effectiveness. We performed a comprehensive cost analysis to compare TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap.

METHODS

A comparative cost analysis of TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap was performed. Medicare reimbursement costs for each procedure and their associated complications were calculated. Pooled probabilities of complications including cellulitis, seroma, skin necrosis, implant removal, flap loss, partial flap loss, and fat necrosis, were calculated using published studies from 2010 to 2016.

RESULTS

Average actual cost for successful TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap were $13 304.55 and $10 237.13, respectively. Incorporating pooled complication data from published literature resulted in an increase in cost to $13 963.46 for TE/I + ADM and $12 624.29 for DIEP flap. The expected costs for successful TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap were $9700.35 and $8644.23, which are lower than the actual costs.

CONCLUSIONS

DIEP flap breast reconstruction incurs lower costs compared to TE/I + ADM. These costs are lower at baseline and when additional costs from pooled complications are incorporated.

Subcutaneous implant breast reconstruction: Time to reconsider?

Improvements in breast surgery techniques such as skin and nipple preserving mastectomy and innovative prosthetics (implants, acellular dermal matrices and meshes) is renewing interest in subcutaneous (pre-pectoral) implant reconstruction. The aim of this paper is to review the current literature in an attempt to provide a rationale that may support a return to subcutaneous implant placement, so minimising the pain and functional problems resulting from submuscular breast reconstruction.

Innovative Management of Implant Exposure in ADM/Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy

INTRODUCTION

One-stage implant-based breast reconstruction has been recently improved by the introduction of biological [acellular dermal matrix (ADM)] and synthetic meshes. Advantages of ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction derive from the expansion of the space available for the direct positioning of an implant, but their use could be associated with several complications. Although the majority of complications can be easily managed, mistakes in dealing with the first clinical signs of a potential adverse event can lead to implant loss.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report a case of ADM/implant exposure following NAC-sparing mastectomy and immediate implant-based reconstruction, successfully managed with an innovative staged treatment using negative pressure wound therapy, which allowed a rapid re-positioning of the prosthesis after complete clearance of bacteria from the implant pocket.

DISCUSSION

The safest strategy to manage implant exposure and concomitant bacterial growth is reported to be implant removal and delayed re-positioning after several months, following prolonged targeted antibiotic therapy. Our case shows how a short-time implant re-positioning following implant removal for implant exposure could be successfully pursued thanks to the shrewd use of negative pressure wound therapy with great advantages in terms of patient satisfaction and post-operative quality of life, offering women experiencing this complication the option of not delaying reconstruction for months after resolution of the complication, potentially avoiding major surgical procedures such as autologous tissue reconstructions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The BREASTrial Stage II: ADM Breast Reconstruction Outcomes from Definitive Reconstruction to 3 Months Postoperative

Background:

The Breast Reconstruction Evaluation of Acellular Dermal Matrix as a Sling Trial is a prospective randomized trial comparing outcomes of tissue expander breast reconstruction using either AlloDerm or DermaMatrix. The trial was divided into 3 outcome stages; this study reports stage II outcomes, which are those from the time of definitive reconstruction to 3 months postoperative.

Methods:

A randomized trial was conducted to compare complication rates between AlloDerm and DermaMatrix groups. The impact of matrix type, age, obesity, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and reconstruction type on complications was analyzed with regression models.

Results:

Of the 128 patients (199 breasts) who were randomly assigned into the trial, 111 patients (173 breasts) were available for analysis in stage II. There was no difference in overall rates of complications (15.4% vs 18.3%, P = 0.8) or implant loss (2.2% vs 3.7%, P = 0.5) between the AlloDerm and DermaMatrix groups, respectively. Obesity was the only significant predictor of complications on regression analysis (odds ratio, 4.31, P = 0.007). Matrix type, age, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or reconstruction type had no impact on the incidence/severity of complications.

Conclusions:

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) will likely continue to have a role in breast reconstructive surgery; however, caution should be taken when using ADM because of relatively high complication rates, especially in obese patients. The particular ADM product should be selected based on individual surgeon preference, experience, and success rates. These data and forthcoming long-term outcomes from the Breast Reconstruction Evaluation of Acellular Dermal Matrix as a Sling Trial will enable surgeons to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of ADM use in breast reconstruction.

A Review of the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrices in Postmastectomy Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are now commonly used in postmastectomy implant-based immediate breast reconstruction. In 2-stage reconstructions involving placement of a tissue expander followed by an implant, they can improve the aesthetic outcome and expedite the expansion process. The use of ADMs has also allowed for 1-stage immediate placement of an implant following mastectomy (direct-to-implant reconstruction). However, the use of ADMs is associated with an increased risk of certain types of complications. An understanding of the use of these materials is essential to the postoperative care of patients who undergo ADM-assisted breast reconstruction. In this article, the use of ADMs in postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction is reviewed.

Modified Lower Pole Autologous Dermal Sling for Implant Reconstruction in Women Undergoing Immediate Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy

Background. Autologous dermal sling with wise pattern skin reducing mastectomy allows one-stage implant reconstruction in women with large and ptotic breasts needing mastectomy for cancer or risk reduction. However, this technique is not suitable for women who lack ptosis and also carries risk of T-junction breakdown. Method. We have performed one-stage nipple sparing mastectomies with implant reconstruction in 5 women (8 breasts) by modifying the autologous dermal sling approach. All these women had small to moderate breasts with no ptosis or pseudoptosis. Results. Three women had bilateral procedures, two underwent bilateral mastectomies simultaneously, and one had contralateral risk reduction surgery a year after the cancer side operation. All women underwent direct to implant reconstruction with implant volumes varying from 320 to 375 cc. There were no implant losses and only one required further surgery to excise the nipple for positive nipple shaves. A low complication rate was encountered in this series with good aesthetic outcome. Conclusion. The modified lower pole dermal sling allows direct to implant reconstruction in selected women with small to moderate sized breasts with minimal ptosis. The approach is safe and cost-effective and results in more natural reconstruction with preservation of nipple.

Is Sterile Better Than Aseptic? Comparing the Microbiology of Acellular Dermal Matrices

Introduction:

Postoperative infections are a major complication associated with tissue-expander-based breast reconstruction. The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in this surgery has been identified as a potential reservoir of infection, prompting the development of sterile ADM. Although aseptic and sterile ADMs have been investigated, no study has focused on the occurrence and clinical outcome of bacterial colonization before implantation.

Methods:

Samples of aseptic AlloDerm, sterile Ready-To-Use AlloDerm, and AlloMax were taken before implantation. These samples were incubated in Tryptic soy broth overnight before being streaked on Trypticase soy agar, MacConkey agar, and 5% blood agar plates for culture and incubated for 48 hours. Culture results were cross-referenced with patient outcomes for 1 year postoperatively.

Results:

A total of 92 samples of ADM were collected from 63 patients. There were 15 cases of postoperative surgical site infection (16.3%). Only 1 sample of ADM (AlloMax) showed growth of Escherichia coli, which was likely a result of contamination. That patient did not develop any infectious sequelae. Patient outcomes showed no difference in the incidence of seroma or infection between sterile and aseptic ADMs.

Conclusions:

This study evaluates the microbiology of acellular dermal matrices before use in breast reconstruction. No difference was found in the preoperative bacterial load of either aseptic or sterile ADM. No significant difference was noted in infection or seroma formation. Given these results, we believe aseptic processing used on ADMs is equivalent to sterile processing in our patient cohort in terms of clinical infection and seroma occurrence postoperatively.

Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review

Mesh use in surgical breast reconstruction is becoming increasingly common; however, there is still no consensus on whether synthetic matrices or biological matrices produce the best outcomes. This review analyses these outcomes, namely the differences in aesthetic outcomes, cost, and the rates of the most commonly reported complications.

The results indicate that breast reconstruction with a synthetic matrix produces comparable aesthetic outcomes to a biological matrix, with lower costs and complication rates. The individual results for complication rates show that biological matrixes are associated with lower infection rates and slightly lower capsular contracture, but higher haematoma rates, and slightly higher rates of skin necrosis and explantation—although many had post-op radiotherapy.

The majority of the studies evaluated used biological matrices, and there are no randomised controlled trials directly comparing the two types of meshes; definite conclusions cannot be drawn from the available evidence. The authors suggest that a randomised controlled trial comparing these outcomes in synthetic and biological matrix use is needed.

Single-stage immediate breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: Experience gained and lessons learnt from patient reported outcome measures

INTRODUCTION

Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) assisted breast reconstruction has transformed the single-stage Immediate Breast Reconstruction (IBR) with an impact on the cosmetic outcomes. However, there is limited data available on patient reported outcomes. This study highlights the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), post-operative complications and lessons learnt from ADM assisted single-stage immediate breast reconstruction.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled consecutive patients from Feb 2012 - May 2015 undergoing mastectomy with direct-to-implant ADM assisted breast reconstruction, using Strattice™ (Acelity, San Antonio, TX, USA). Patients were recruited from the beginning of our unit's use of ADMs and completed a post-operative questionnaire at 6 weeks, covering pre-operative, operative and post-operative outcomes. Information on tumour biology and post-operative complications was obtained from the medical notes.

RESULTS

This study included 49 patients undergoing a total of 53 procedures. Following surgery 93.3% of women reported a high level of body confidence when clothed. 6.7% of patients reported severe post-operative pain during the first week. Mean length of hospital stay was 1.7 days, return to light activities was within 2.5 weeks and normal activities in 5.4 weeks. Implant loss at 3 months occurred in 5.7% of procedures, of which two thirds were smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMs for Strattice™ ADM based reconstruction show high levels of satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes, low incidences of severe post-operative pain and a short recovery process. PROMs help us to better describe patients' experience, allowing women to make more informed choices about ADM based breast reconstruction, which reassures and helps to achieve better outcomes.

Updated Evidence of Acellular Dermal Matrix Use for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has increased exponentially, debates regarding its safety are still ongoing. There have been several meta-analyses; however, potential learning curve effects of using ADM might affect their outcomes. The present meta-analysis reappraised the potential benefits and risks of ADM on the outcome of implant-based breast reconstruction using recent publications.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant studies comparing the outcome of ADM use with traditional submuscular technique, which were published from 2011 to 2014. The relative risks of postoperative complications and mean difference of expander dynamics between the two groups were computed.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies representing 6199 cases were analyzed. There was one randomized controlled study and three prospective cohort studies. The use of ADM significantly elevated the risks of infection, seroma, and mastectomy flap necrosis, but did not affect the risks of implant loss, unplanned reoperation, and total complications. The risks of capsular contracture and implant malposition were significantly reduced by the application of ADM. The ADM allows for significantly greater intraoperative expansion and reduced frequency of injection to complete expansion.

CONCLUSIONS

According to this meta-analysis, the increasing risks for serious complication and overall morbidity related to ADM use might not be remarkable, while its benefits for preventing late complications and improving expander dynamics might be appreciable. Although future well-controlled studies would be required, the implant-based breast reconstruction using ADM may be reliable and advantageous.

Current opinions on indications and algorithms for acellular dermal matrix use in primary prosthetic breast reconstruction

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is widely used in primary prosthetic breast reconstruction. Many indications and contraindications to use ADM have been reported in the literature, and their use varies by institution and surgeon. Developing rational, tested algorithms to determine when ADM is appropriate can significantly improve surgical outcomes and reduce costs associated with ADM use. We review the important indications and contraindications, and discuss the algorithms that have been put forth so far. Further research into algorithmic decision-making for ADM use will allow optimized balancing of cost with risk and benefit.

Evolution and update on current devices for prosthetic breast reconstruction

Over the past decade, the leading breast reconstruction modality has shifted from autologous tissue to implants. This trend reversal is multi-factorial but includes increasing bilateral mastectomies and the more widespread acceptance of implants due to stringent quality and safety regulatory surveillance by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Since 2012, the US FDA has approved several new implant styles, shapes and textures, increasing the choices for patients and surgeons. Predictable, superior aesthetic results after prosthetic breast reconstruction are attainable, but require thoughtful planning, precise surgical technique and appropriate device selection based on several different patient and surgeon parameters, such as patient desires, body mass index, breast shape, mastectomy flap quality and tissue based bio-dimensional assessment. This article briefly reviews historic devices used in prosthetic breast reconstruction beginning in the 1960s through the modern generation devices used today. We reflect on the rigorous hurdles endured over the last several decades leading to the approval of silicone gel devices, along with their well-established safety and efficacy. The various implant characteristics can affect feel and performance of the device. The many different styles and features of implants and expanders are described emphasizing surgical indications, advantages and disadvantages of each device.

Implant-based breast reconstruction with meshes and matrices: biological vs synthetic

This article presents an overview of the different acellular dermal matrices and synthetic meshes used in modern-day primary and secondary implant-based breast reconstruction. Case examples are given, along with a description of the senior author's pioneering direct-to-implant reconstruction.

Tissue Reinforcement in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Tissue reinforcement with allogeneic or xenogeneic acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) is increasingly used in single-stage (direct-to-implant) and 2-stage implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy. ADMs allow surgeons to control implant position and obviate the need for submuscular implant placement. Here, we review the benefits and risks of using ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction based on available data.

Methods:

A comprehensive analysis of the literature with focus on recent publications was performed. Additional information regarding the proper use of ADMs was based on our institutional experience.

Results:

ADM use may improve definition of the lateral confines of the breast and lower pole projection. It may facilitate direct-to-implant procedures and improve aesthetic outcomes. The effect of ADMs on complication rates remains controversial. Known patient risk factors such as obesity, smoking, and radiotherapy should be considered during patient selection. For patients with healthy, well-vascularized skin envelopes, ADM-assisted direct-to- implant reconstruction is a safe and cost-effective alternative to 2-stage implant reconstruction, with low complication rates. ADMs may be used to treat capsular contracture, and limited available data further suggest the possibility that ADMs may reduce the risk of capsular contracture. Novel synthetic or biosynthetic tissue reinforcement devices with different physical and ease-of-use properties than ADMs are emerging options for reconstructive surgeons and patients who seek to avoid tissue products from human or mammalian cadavers.

Conclusions:

ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction may improve aesthetic outcomes. However, appropriate patient selection, surgical technique, and postoperative management are critical for its success, including minimizing the risk of complications.