Systematic review and critical appraisal of the impact of acellular dermal matrix use on the outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction

Artificial Intelligence Modeling to Predict Periprosthetic Infection and Explantation following Implant-Based Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in prosthesis design and surgical techniques, periprosthetic infection and explantation rates following implant-based reconstruction (IBR) remain relatively high. Artificial intelligence is an extremely powerful predictive tool that involves machine learning (ML) algorithms. We sought to develop, validate, and evaluate the use of ML algorithms to predict complications of IBR.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of patients who underwent IBR from January of 2018 to December of 2019 was conducted. Nine supervised ML algorithms were developed to predict periprosthetic infection and explantation. Patient data were randomly divided into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets.

RESULTS

The authors identified 481 patients (694 reconstructions) with a mean ± SD age of 50.0 ± 11.5 years, mean ± SD body mass index of 26.7 ± 4.8 kg/m 2 , and median follow-up time of 16.1 months (range, 11.9 to 3.2 months). Periprosthetic infection developed in 113 of the reconstructions (16.3%), and explantation was required with 82 (11.8%) of them. ML demonstrated good discriminatory performance in predicting periprosthetic infection and explantation (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.73 and 0.78, respectively), and identified nine and 12 significant predictors of periprosthetic infection and explantation, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ML algorithms trained using readily available perioperative clinical data accurately predict periprosthetic infection and explantation following IBR. The authors' findings support incorporating ML models into perioperative assessment of patients undergoing IBR to provide data-driven, patient-specific risk assessment to aid individualized patient counseling, shared decision-making, and presurgical optimization.

Autologous Skin Grafts, versus Tissue-engineered Skin Constructs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

For over 100 years, autologous skin grafts have remained the gold standard for the reconstruction of wounds but are limited in availability. Acellular tissue-engineered skin constructs (acellular TCs) and cellular tissue-engineered skin constructs (cellular TCs) may address these limitations. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare outcomes between them.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines, querying MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane to assess graft incorporation, failure, and wound healing. Case reports/series, reviews, in vitro/in vivo work, non-English articles or articles without full text were excluded.

Results

Sixty-six articles encompassing 4076 patients were included. No significant differences were found between graft failure rates (P = 0.07) and mean difference of percent reepithelialization (p = 0.92) when split-thickness skin grafts were applied alone versus co-grafted with acellular TCs. Similar mean Vancouver Scar Scale was found for these two groups (p = 0.09). Twenty-one studies used at least one cellular TC. Weighted averages from pooled results did not reveal statistically significant differences in mean reepithelialization or failure rates for epidermal cellular TCs compared with split-thickness skin grafts (p = 0.55).

Conclusions

This systematic review is the first to illustrate comparable functional and wound healing outcomes between split-thickness skin grafts alone and those co-grafted with acellular TCs. The use of cellular TCs seems promising from preliminary findings. However, these results are limited in clinical applicability due to the heterogeneity of study data, and further level 1 evidence is required to determine the safety and efficacy of these constructs.

Ptotic versus Nonptotic Breasts in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

In recent years, nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity due to improved cosmetic and psychological benefits. However, patients with ptotic breasts remain the main challenge for surgeons, owing to the potential risk of postoperative complications.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy and prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction between March 2017 and November 2021. Patient demographics, incidence of complications, and quality of life assessed using the BREAST-Q questionnaire were compared between the two different incisions [inverted-T for ptotic versus inframammary fold (IMF) for nonptotic breasts].

Results

A total of 98 patients were examined: 62 in the IMF cohort and 36 in the inverted-T cohort. The results demonstrated equivalence in the safety metrics between the two groups, including hematoma (p=0.367), seroma (p=0.552), infection (P = 1.00), skin necrosis (P = 1.00), local recurrence (P = 1.00), implant loss (P = 0.139), capsular contracture (P = 1.00), and nipple-areolar complex necrosis (P = 0.139). The BREAST-Q scores were equally high in both groups.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that inverted-T incision for ptotic breasts is a safe modality with similar complication rates and high aesthetic results compared with IMF incision for nonptotic breasts. A higher rate of nipple-areolar complex necrosis in the inverted-T group, although not significant, should be considered during careful preoperative planning and patient selection.

Should Acellular Dermal Matrices Be Used for Implant-based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy? Clinical Recommendation Based on the GRADE Approach

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) entered the market in the early 2000s and their use has increased thereafter. Several retrospective cohort studies and single surgeon series reported benefits with the use of ADMs. However, robust evidence supporting these advantages is lacking. There is the need to define the role for ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) after mastectomy.

Methods

A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints, and establish recommendation for the use of ADMs for subpectoral one-/two-stage IBBR (compared with no ADM use) for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: the panel members suggest subpectoral one- or two-stage IBBR either with ADMs or without ADMs for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction (with very low certainty of evidence).

Conclusions

The systematic review has revealed a very low certainty of evidence for most of the important outcomes in ADM-assisted IBBR and the absence of standard tools for evaluating clinical outcomes. Forty-five percent of panel members expressed a conditional recommendation either in favor of or against the use of ADMs in subpectoral one- or two-stages IBBR for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. Future subgroup analyses could help identify relevant clinical and pathological factors to select patients for whom one technique could be preferable to another.

[The Value of Synthetic and Biologic Meshes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction]

Implant based breast reconstruction (IBBR) keeps evolving and has been influenced heavily by the use of synthetic and biologic meshes in the last years. In both, subpectoral as well as prepectoral approaches the use of synthetic and biologic meshes has made it possible to place implants precisely according to the breast's footprint and strengthen soft-tissue coverage, particularly in the lower pole of the breast with lower complication rates and better cosmesis. Various mesh options that differ in material, processing, size and cost are currently in clinical use. This review aims to define the role of biologic and synthetic meshes in IBBR regarding the advantages and disadvantages of their use.

Risk of major postoperative complications in breast reconstructive surgery with and without an acellular dermal matrix; Development of a prognostic prediction model

Introduction

Acellular dermal matrices (ADM) have been suggested to allow for different approaches and reduce the risk of postoperative complications in implant-based breast surgery. Surgeons seem to embrace ADMs around the world, although a lack of consistent evidence regarding the factors that increase the risk of major postoperative complications remains.

Purpose

To develop and internally validate a model to predict the risk of a major postoperative complication in breast reconstructive surgery with and without an ADM.

Methodology

The DBIR is an opt-out registry that holds characteristics of all breast implant surgeries in the Netherlands since 2015. Using a literature-driven preselection of predictors, multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression modelling was used to develop the prediction model.

Results

A total of 2939 breasts were eligible, of which 11% underwent an ADM-assisted procedure (single-stage or two-stage). However, 31% underwent a two-stage procedure (with or without the use of ADM). Of all breasts, 10.2% developed a major postoperative complication. Age (OR 1.01), delayed timing (OR 0.71), and two-stage technique (OR 4.46) were associated with the outcome.

Conclusion

The data suggest that ADM use was not associated with a major postoperative complication, while two-stage reconstructions were strongly associated with an increased risk of major complications. Despite these findings, ADMs are not as popular in the Netherlands as in the USA. The predictive capabilities of the developed model are mediocre to poor, but because of the above findings, we believe that the role of the two-stage technique as a golden standard should be put up for debate.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications Following Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Biological Matrix-Assisted Direct-to-Implant and Latissimus Dorsi Flap

Background

Implant-based breast reconstruction is increasingly becoming the most common method of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in use today. As the traditional autologous reconstruction technique, latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) is employed by surgeons for reconstruction after breast cancer surgery, including partial mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, and others. The authors aim to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications between the SIS matrix-assisted direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction and the autologous LDF breast reconstruction.

Methods

Patients undergoing the SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction or mastectomy with LDF reconstruction or partial mastectomy with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) reconstruction were enrolled in a single institution from August 2010 to April 2019. Patients were included for analysis and divided into three groups: those who underwent LDF reconstruction, those who underwent MLDF reconstruction, and patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted DTI breast reconstruction. PROs (using the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire) and complications were evaluated.

Results

A total of 135 patients met the inclusion criteria: 79 patients (58.5%) underwent SIS matrix-assisted DTI, 29 patients (21.5%) underwent LDF breast reconstruction, and 27 patients (20%) underwent MLDF breast reconstruction. PROs and complication rates between LDF reconstruction group and MLDF reconstruction group showed no statistically significant differences. Furthermore, BREAST-Q responses found that patients in the whole autologous LDF reconstruction group had better psychosocial well-being, showing a mean score of 84.31 ± 17.28 compared with SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction, with a mean score of 73.52 ± 19.96 (p = 0.005), and expressed higher sexual well-being (69.65 ± 24.64 vs. 50.95 ± 26.47; p = 0.016). But there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for postoperative complications.

Conclusion

This retrospective study showed no statistically significant differences between LDF breast reconstruction and MLDF breast reconstruction. However, patients in the whole autologous LDF reconstruction group yielded superior PROs than patients in the SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction group in the psychosocial well-being and sexual well-being domains.

Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction has recently experienced a resurgence in popularity because of its lower levels of postoperative pain and animation deformity. BREAST-Q, a well-validated patient-reported outcomes tool, was used to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life. The goal of this study was to assess patient-reported outcomes at 6-month and 1-year follow-up after direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Sixty-nine consented adult patients undergoing a total of 110 direct-to-implant, prepectoral, postmastectomy breast reconstructions completed BREAST-Q questionnaires immediately preoperatively, and at 6 and 12 months thereafter.

RESULTS

Mean breast satisfaction decreased nonsignificantly from 61.3 preoperatively to 58.6 at 12 months after reconstruction (p = 0.32). Psychosocial well-being improved nonsignificantly from 67.1 preoperatively to 71.1 at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.26). Physical well-being of the chest was insignificantly different, from 74.4 to 73.3 at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.62). Finally, sexual well-being similarly remained nonsignificantly changed from 60.2 preoperatively, to 59.1 at 12 months (p = 0.80). The use of acellular dermal matrix and postmastectomy radiotherapy did not have any significant effects on patient-reported outcomes. Through regression analysis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, increased age, and incidence of rippling were found to negatively influence BREAST-Q results.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction demonstrated an overall satisfaction with their outcomes. As prepectoral breast reconstruction continues to advance and grow in popularity, patient-reported outcomes such as those presented in this study become of paramount importance in practice.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Effect of Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy With and Without Acellular Dermal Matrix Among Women With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) is established practice. Existing evidence validating ADMs proposed advantages, including improved cosmetics and more single-stage IBBRs, is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether IBBR with ADM results in fewer reoperations and increased health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared with conventional IBBR without ADM.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was an open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of women with primary breast cancer who planned for mastectomy and immediate IBBR, with a 2-year follow-up for all participants. Participants were enrolled at 5 breast cancer units in Sweden and the United Kingdom between 2014 and May 2017. Exclusion criteria included previous radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Data were analyzed until August 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were allocated to immediate IBBR with or without ADM.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary trial end point was number of reoperations at 2 years. HRQoL, a secondary end point, was measured as patient-reported outcome measures using 3 instruments from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

From start of enrollment on April 24, 2014, to close of trial on May 10, 2017, a total of 135 women were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 50.4 [9.5] years); 64 were assigned to have an IBBR procedure with ADM and 65 to the control group who had IBBR without ADM. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the primary outcome. Of 129 patients analyzed at 2-year follow-up, 44 of 64 (69%) had at least 1 surgical event in the ADM group vs 43 of 65 (66%) in the control group. In the ADM group, 31 patients (48%) had at least 1 reoperation on the ipsilateral side vs 35 (54%) in the control group. The overall number of reoperations on the ipsilateral side were 42 and 43 respectively. Within the follow-up time of 24 months, 9 patients (14%) in the ADM group had the implant removed compared with 7 (11%) in the control group. We found no significant mean differences in postoperative patient-reported HRQoL domains, including perception of body image (mean difference, 3; 99% CI, -11 to 17; P = .57) and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome (mean difference, 8; 99% CI, -6 to 20; P = .11).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Immediate IBBR with ADM did not yield fewer reoperations compared with conventional IBBR without ADM, nor was IBBR with ADM superior in terms of HRQoL or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes. Patients treated for breast cancer contemplating ADM-supported IBBR should be informed about the lack of evidence validating ADM's suggested benefits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061527.

Biological and synthetic mesh assisted breast reconstruction procedures: Joint guidelines from the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons

These guidelines have been produced with the involvement of the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Recommendations have been derived after a review of published data regarding the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), biological and synthetic mesh in breast reconstruction. The guidelines represent a consensus opinion on the optimal management of patients having biological or synthetic mesh assisted breast reconstruction informed by peer-review publications. The Guidelines should be used to inform clinical decision making. Ultimately, members of the MDT remain responsible for the treatment of patients under their care.

Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh

BACKGROUND

Biological and synthetic meshes may improve the outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) by facilitating single-stage procedures and improving cosmesis. Supporting evidence is, however, limited. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of biological and synthetic mesh on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of IBBR 18 months after surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive women undergoing immediate IBBR between February 2014 and June 2016 were recruited to the study. Demographic, operative, oncological and 3-month complication data were collected, and patients received validated BREAST-Q questionnaires at 18 months. The impact of different IBBR techniques on PROs were explored using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for clinically relevant confounders, and including a random effect to account for clustering by centre.

RESULTS

A total of 1470 participants consented to receive the questionnaire and 891 completed it. Of these, 67 women underwent two-stage submuscular reconstructions. Some 764 patients had a submuscular reconstruction with biological mesh (495 women), synthetic mesh (95) or dermal sling (174). Fourteen patients had a prepectoral reconstruction. Compared with two-stage submuscular reconstructions, no significant differences in PROs were seen in biological or synthetic mesh-assisted or dermal sling procedures. However, patients undergoing prepectoral IBBR reported better satisfaction with breasts (adjusted mean difference +6.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.65 to11.61; P = 0.009). PROs were similar to those in the National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit 2008-2009 cohort, which included two-stage submuscular procedures only.

CONCLUSION

This study found no difference in PROs of subpectoral IBBR with or without biological or synthetic mesh, but provides early data to suggest improved satisfaction with breasts following prepectoral reconstruction. Robust evaluation is required before this approach can be adopted as standard practice.

Biologic Mesh in Surgery: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis of Selected Outcomes in 51 Studies and 6079 Patients

BACKGROUND

In recent decades, biologic mesh (BM) has become an important adjunct to surgical practice. Recent evidence-based clinical applications of BM include but are not limited to: reconstruction of abdominal wall defects; breast reconstruction; face, head and neck surgery; periodontal surgery; other hernia repairs (diaphragmatic, hiatal/paraesophageal, inguinal and perineal); hand surgery; and shoulder arthroplasty. Prior systematic reviews of BM in complex abdominal wall hernia repair had several shortcomings that our comprehensive review seeks to address, including exclusion of laparoscopic repair, assessment of risk of bias, use of an acceptable meta-analytic method and review of risk factors identified in multivariable regression analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We sought articles of BM for open ventral hernia repair reporting on early complications, late complications or recurrences and included minimum of 50. We used the quality in prognostic studies risk of bias assessment tool. Random effects meta-analysis was applied.

RESULTS

This comprehensive review selected 62 articles from 51 studies that included 6,079 patients. Meta-analytic pooling found that early complications are present in about 50%, surgical site occurrences (SSOs) in 37%, surgical site infections (SSIs) in 18%, reoperation in 7%, readmission in 20% and mortality in 3%. Meta-analytic estimates of late outcomes included overall complications (42%), SSOs (40%) and SSIs (22%). Specific SSOs included seroma (14%), hematoma (4%), abscess (10%), necrosis (5%), dehiscence (8%) and fistula formation (5%). Reoperation occurred in about 17%, mesh explantation in 9% and recurrence in 36%.

CONCLUSION

Estimates of nearly all outcomes from individual studies were highly heterogeneous and sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions generally failed to explain this heterogeneity. Recurrence is the only outcome for which there are consistent findings for risk factors. Bridge placement of BM is associated with higher risk of recurrence. Prior hernia repair, history of reintervention and history of mesh removal were also risk factors for increased recurrence.

The Costs of Breast Reconstruction and Implications for Episode-Based Bundled Payment Models

BACKGROUND

Implementation of payment reform for breast reconstruction following mastectomy demands a comprehensive understanding of costs related to the complex process of reconstruction. Bundled payments for services to women with breast cancer may profoundly impact reimbursement and access to breast reconstruction. The authors' objectives were to determine the contribution of cancer therapies, comorbidities, revisions, and complications to costs following immediate reconstruction and the optimal duration of episodes to incentivize cost containment for bundled payment models.

METHODS

The cohort was composed of women who underwent immediate breast reconstruction between 2009 and 2016 from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database. Continuous enrollment for 3 months before and 24 months after reconstruction was required. Total costs were calculated within predefined episodes (30 days, 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years). Multivariable models assessed predictors of costs.

RESULTS

Among 15,377 women in the analytic cohort, 11,592 (75 percent) underwent tissue expander, 1279 (8 percent) underwent direct-to-implant, and 2506 (16 percent) underwent autologous reconstruction. Adjuvant therapies increased costs at 1 year [tissue expander, $39,978 (p < 0.001); direct-to-implant, $34,365 (p < 0.001); and autologous, $29,226 (p < 0.001)]. At 1 year, most patients had undergone tissue expander exchange (76 percent) and revisions (81 percent), and a majority of complications had occurred (87 percent). Comorbidities, revisions, and complications increased costs for all episode scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Episode-based bundling should consider separate bundles for medical and surgical care with adjustment for procedure type, cancer therapies, and comorbidities to limit the adverse impact on access to reconstruction. The authors' findings suggest that a 1-year time horizon may optimally capture reconstruction events and complications.

Development of an evidence-based approach to the use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander-implant-based breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Although acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is widely used in expander-implant-based breast reconstructions, previous analyses have been unable to demonstrate improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with this approach over non-ADM procedures. This study aims to develop a more selective, evidence-based approach to the use of ADM in expander-implant-based breast reconstruction by identifying patient subgroups in which ADM improved clinical outcomes and PROs.

STUDY DESIGN

The Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study prospectively evaluated immediate expander-implant reconstructions at 11 centers from 2012 to 2015. Complications (any/overall and major), and PROs (satisfaction, physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being) were assessed two years postoperatively using medical records and the BREAST-Q, respectively. Using mixed-models accounting for centers and with interaction terms, we analyzed for differential ADM effects across various clinical subgroups, including age, body mass index, radiation timing, and chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Expander-implant-based breast reconstruction was performed in 1451 patients, 738 with and 713 without ADM. Major complication risk was higher in ADM users vs. nonusers (22.9% vs. 16.4% and p = 0.04). Major complication risk with ADM increased with higher BMI (BMI=30, OR=1.70; BMI=35, OR=2.29, interaction p = 0.02). No significant ADM effects were observed for breast satisfaction, psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being within any subgroups.

CONCLUSION

In immediate expander-implant-based breast reconstruction, ADM was associated with a greater risk of major complications, particularly in high-BMI patients. We were unable to identify patient subgroups where ADM was associated with significant improvements in PROs. Given these findings and the financial costs of ADM, a more critical approach to the use of ADM in expander-implant reconstruction may be warranted.

A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

Background and objectives: Until now subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) has been the predominant form; however, it can present with pectoralis muscle contraction and animation deformity. To avoid these complications, surgeons have begun placing breast implants in the same anatomic space as the breast tissue that was removed. We report a comparative analysis of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) versus subpectoral breast reconstruction to analyze their differences. Materials and Methods: Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) performed from February 2015 to February 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We then compared the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of the two groups (prepectoral vs. subpectoral) based on the overall incidence of complications, pain scale, and the duration of drainage. Results: A total of 167 patients underwent unilateral DTI, with SBR 114 (68.3%) and PBR 53 (31.7%). Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of seroma, infection (requiring intravenous antibiotics), hematoma, and skin necrosis. Implant loss rates in the SBR 6.1% (n = 7) and PBR 9.4% (n = 5) were also not statistically significant (p = 0.99). The hemovac duration period was significantly longer in the SBR (14.93 ± 5.57 days) group than in the PBR group (11.09 ± 4.82 days) (p < 0.01). However, post-operative pain scores are similar between two groups, although it is not clear whether this was due to the effect of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia. Conclusions: A SBR is a commonly used procedure with various advantages, but there are many problems due to damage to the normal pectoralis major muscle. According to the results of our study, the PBR group had a shorter hemovac duration period compared to the SBR group, although there was no significant difference in complication rate. A PBR is a simple and safe technique allowing early discharge without increasing the incidence of long-term complications.

Acellular dermal matrix reconstruction of a nail bed avulsion in a 13-year-old child

Nail bed avulsion injuries often require reconstruction, particularly in cases where the avulsed fragment is lost. We describe a simple way to reconstruct a large nail bed defect, with no donor site. A 13-year-old boy with a hypoplastic left heart and autism accidentally sustained a left little distal phalanx injury with an avulsion of 60% of the nail bed, exposing the distal phalanx. This boy had a history of poor compliance, qualifying the need to find a technique that would minimise operative time and dressing changes. As such, it was elected to use an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) (Matriderm) as a one-step reconstruction. Signs of vascularisation of the ADM were noted at 2 weeks, and 3-month follow-up demonstrated integration, with normal nail growth. We found that Matriderm was able to support the regeneration of a full thickness wound in a simple one-step procedure.

A comparison of patient-reported outcomes between Alloderm and Dermacell in immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction: A randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Alloderm and Dermacell are the two leading human acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Despite differences in sterility, consistency, thickness and cost, there are no comparative trials to date to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) between the two products. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a difference in patient-reported outcomes (as measured by the BREAST-Q) between patients reconstructed with Alloderm and Dermacell.

METHODS

A single center, open-label, randomized control trial of patients undergoing IBR with an implant for breast cancer or breast cancer prophylaxis was performed. Patients were randomized to either Alloderm or Dermacell. Baseline demographic data were compared, and linear mixed models were used to identify associations with BREAST-Q over time.

RESULTS

Between June 2016 and October 2018, 62 patients were randomized into two groups, 31(50%) Alloderm and 31(50%) Dermacell. Of these, 23(74%) patients in the Alloderm group and 27(87%) patients of the Dermacell group filled out BREAST-Q questionnaires. Baseline BREAST-Q scores with respect to satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and physical well-being were similar between groups (p>0.05). At 3 months postoperatively, the Alloderm group had a statistically significant improvement with respect to satisfaction with breasts (67 vs 53, p = 0.03), satisfaction with overall results (85 vs 61, p = 0.003), satisfaction with the surgeon (89 vs 67, p = 0.01), and satisfaction with information provided (74 vs 59, p = 0.02). At 12 months postoperatively, there were no statistically significant differences in PROM between groups (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

We report the first randomized controlled trial to date comparing patient-reported outcomes of the two most commonly used ADMs in IBR in Canada. Although a short-term analysis favors the use of Alloderm, there does not appear to be any difference in outcomes between the two products in the longer term.

Quality of life and patient satisfaction after implant-based breast reconstruction with or without acellular dermal matrix: randomized clinical trial

Background

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant‐based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) aims to improve cosmetic outcomes. Six‐month data are presented from a randomized trial evaluating whether IBBR with ADM provides higher health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient‐reported cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional IBBR without ADM.

Methods

In this multicentre open‐label RCT, women with breast cancer planned for mastectomy with immediate IBBR in four centres in Sweden and one in the UK were allocated randomly (1 : 1) to IBBR with or without ADM. HRQoL, a secondary endpoint, was measured as patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) using three validated instruments (EORTC‐QLQC30, QLQ‐BR23, QLQ‐BRR26) at baseline and 6 months.

Results

Between 24 April 2014 and 10 May 2017, 135 women were enrolled, of whom 64 with and 65 without ADM were included in the final analysis. At 6 months after surgery, patient‐reported HRQoL, measured with generic QLQ‐C30 or breast cancer‐specific QLQ‐BR23, was similar between the groups. For patient‐reported cosmetic outcomes, two subscale items, cosmetic outcome (8·66, 95 per cent c.i. 0·46 to 16·86; P = 0·041) and problems finding a well‐fitting bra (−13·21, −25·54 to −0·89; P = 0·038), yielded higher scores in favour of ADM, corresponding to a small to moderate clinical difference. None of the other 27 domains measured showed any significant differences between the groups.

Conclusion

IBBR with ADM was not superior in terms of higher levels of HRQoL compared with IBBR without ADM. Although two subscale items of patient‐reported cosmetic outcomes favoured ADM, the majority of cosmetic items showed no significant difference between treatments at 6 months. Registration number: NCT02061527 ( www.clinicaltrials.gov).

The Prepectoral, Hybrid Breast Reconstruction: The Synergy of Lipofilling and Breast Implants

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Breast reconstruction modalities are based on autologous tissue transfer, implants, or a combination of both. The aim of an allogeneic breast reconstruction is to minimize the impact of the implant on surrounding tissues to achieve an aesthetically pleasing result. Accurate tissue coverage, proper implant selection, and implant location are the absolute concerns in planning an implant-based reconstruction.

Complication rates of acellular dermal matrix in immediate breast reconstruction with radiation: A single-institution retrospective comparison study

BACKGROUND

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) continues to rise despite ongoing concerns with respect to increased complication rates. While the indications for radiation continue to broaden, it is essential to critically evaluate ADM's performance in its context. The purpose of this study was to review complication rates between patients reconstructed with and without ADM, who underwent IBR and radiation.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for patients undergoing IBR and radiation from 2010 to 2019. Postoperative outcomes were compared between patients with and without ADM.

RESULTS

Over a 9-year period, 130 patients underwent IBR and radiation (42% preoperatively and 59% postoperatively). For patients with preoperative radiation (36 ADM and 18 non-ADM), the average follow-up was 312 and 296 days, respectively. In this group, there was no difference in minor complications (25% ADM, 22% non-ADM, and p = 1.00) or major complications (31% ADM, 22% Non-ADM, and p = 0.52). For patients with postoperative radiation (53 ADM and 23 non-ADM), the average follow-up was 544 and 748 days, respectively. There was no difference in minor complications (21% ADM, 26% non-ADM, and p = 0.11) or major complications (21% ADM, 26% non-ADM, and p = 0.61). Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed no difference between ADM and non-ADM groups (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.22-3.08, and p = 0.78).

CONCLUSION

Despite increasing literature supporting the use of ADM in breast reconstruction, postoperative outcomes following radiation remain poorly understood. In the present study, we report no difference in overall complication rates between breasts reconstructed with and without ADM in an irradiated field. Nevertheless, the complication rate remains high, and future studies will be required to determine whether ADM-associated complications in an irradiated field outweigh the purported benefits.

[New surgical strategy in breast reconstruction with implants for bilateral prophylactic mastectomies with BRCA gene mutation]

BACKGROUND

For the past decades, number of prophylactic bilateral mastectomies using reconstruction with implants increases. We describe a new surgical strategy and analyse its safety and feasability.

METHOD

It is a retrospective, descriptive and monocentric study. The first step of surgery consisted in obteining a peri-prosthetic capsule with implants and if there was a mammary hypertrophy and/or ptosis, it was corrected at the same time. The second step of surgery was the nipple-sparing mastectomy with change of implants for bigger ones. Third step consisted in a lipofilling.

RESULTS

Seven patients were included. 6 women had a BRCA1 gene mutation. Mean age was 35.6 year-old [29.6; 41.6], mean BMI was 23.8kg/m² [20.6; 27], mean chest circumference was 93.7cm [87.4; 100], mean cup was C- [B-; D-]. 4 women had mammary hypertrophy and/or ptosis. Mean number of procedure per woman was 3.6 [2.5; 4.7]. Mean volume of implants used at the first step was 248.6ml [211.3; 285.9]. The second step was performed mean 33.9 weeks [22.3; 45.5] later. Mean increase of implants volume was 120ml [80.4; 159.6]. 4 patients had complications including 1 who had implant exposure. Six patients had lipofilling of mean volume per breast of 175ml [116; 234].

CONCLUSION

This new strategy could decrease complication rate, improve aesthetic outcome and decrease psychological impact of surgery.

In Vitro Characterization of a Novel Human Acellular Dermal Matrix (BellaCell HD) for Breast Reconstruction

In the past, acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used in implant-based breast reconstruction. Various factors affect the clinical performance of ADMs since there is a lack of systematic characterization of ADM tissues. This study used BellaCell HD and compared it to two commercially available ADMs—AlloDerm Ready to Use (RTU) and DermACELL—under in vitro settings. Every ADM was characterized to examine compatibility through cell cytotoxicity, proliferation, and physical features like tensile strength, stiffness, and the suture tensile strength. The BellaCell HD displayed complete decellularization in comparison with the other two ADMs. Several fibroblasts grew in the BellaCell HD with no cytotoxicity. The proliferation level of fibroblasts in the BellaCell HD was higher, compared to the AlloDerm RTU and DermACELL, after 7 and 14 days. The BellaCell HD had a load value of 444.94 N, 22.44 tensile strength, and 118.41% elongation ratio, and they were higher than in the other two ADMs. There was no significant discrepancy in the findings of stiffness evaluation and suture retention strength test. The study had some limitations because there were many other more factors useful in ADM’s testing. In the study, BellaCell HD showed complete decellularization, high biocompatibility, low cytotoxicity, high tensile strength, high elongation, and high suture retention strengths. These characteristics make BellaCell HD a suitable tissue for adequate and safe use in implant-based breast reconstruction in humans.

Perceived barriers to randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction: obstacle to trial initiation or opportunity to resolve? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed breast reconstruction technique worldwide but the technique is evolving rapidly. High-quality evidence is needed to support practice. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence but can be challenging to conduct. iBRA is a four-phased study which aimed to inform the feasibility, design and conduct of an RCT in IBBR. In phase 3, the randomisation acceptability study, an electronic survey and qualitative interviews were conducted to explore professionals' perceptions of future trials in IBBR. Findings from the interviews are presented here.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 31 health professionals (HPs) who completed the survey to explore their attitudes to the feasibility of potential RCTs in more detail. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently until data saturation was achieved.

RESULTS

Almost all HPs acknowledged the need for better evidence to support the practice of IBBR and most identified RCTs as generating the highest-quality evidence. Despite highlighting potential challenges, most participants supported the need for an RCT in IBBR. A minority, however, were strongly opposed to a future trial. The opposition and challenges identified centred around three key themes; (i) limited understanding of pragmatic study design and the value of randomisation in minimising bias; (ii) clinician and patient equipoise and (iii) aspects of surgical culture and training that were not supportive of RCTs.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for well-designed, large-scale RCTs to support the current practice of IBBR but barriers to their acceptability are evident. The perceived barriers to RCTs in breast reconstruction identified in this study are not insurmountable and have previously been overcome in other similar surgical trials. This may represent an opportunity, not only to establish the evidence base for IBBR, but also to improve engagement in RCTs in breast surgery in general to ultimately improve outcomes for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN37664281.

The Pre-BRA (pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction EvAluation) feasibility study: protocol for a mixed-methods IDEAL 2a/2b prospective cohort study to determine the safety and effectiveness of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most commonly performed reconstructive technique worldwide. Subpectoral reconstruction with mesh is the current standard of care but new prepectoral techniques have recently been introduced. Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) may improve outcomes for patients but robust evaluation is required. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are ideally needed but the short-term safety of PPBR is yet to be established; the technique and its indications are evolving and it has yet to be adopted by a sufficient number of surgeons for an RCT to be feasible.The Pre-BRA study aims to determine the feasibility of using mixed-methods within an IDEAL 2a/2b (IDEAL, Idea-Development-Exploration-Assessment-Long-term) study to explore the short-term safety of PPBR and determine when the technique is sufficiently stable for evaluation in a pragmatic RCT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b prospective multicentre cohort study with embedded qualitative research.Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating centres will be invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology and complication data will be collected and patient-reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3 and 18 months postoperatively. The primary safety endpoint will be implant loss at 3 months.Surgeons performing PPBR will be asked to complete questionnaires regarding their practice and report any modifications made to the procedure or learning arising from complications via free-text response fields on electronic case-report forms. Semistructured will explore surgeons' experiences in detail to identify emerging best practice. This will be fed back to participating surgeons to promote shared learning.The Pre-BRA study will aim to recruit 341 patients from 30 to 40 UK centres over a 12-month period. Recruitment will commence Spring 2019.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has full ethical approval from OXFORD-B South Central Committee Ref:19/SC/0129. Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11898000; Pre-results.

Comparison between ultrasound-guided aspiration performed using an intravenous cannula or a conventional needle in patients with peri-prosthetic seroma

BACKGROUND

Peri-prosthetic seroma after implant insertion for breast reconstruction is a common but difficult-to-manage complication. This study aimed to compare peri-prosthetic seroma duration and the number of aspirations associated with intravenous cannula with those associated with conventional needle.

METHODS

Seventy-one patients who underwent skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy and implant insertion were treated for peri-prosthetic seroma. When peri-prosthetic seroma was detected, ultrasound-guided aspiration was performed either by using an intravenous cannula (n = 35) or a conventional needle (n = 36); however, the method adopted was randomly selected. We analyzed the participants' clinicopathologic factors after medical record review.

RESULTS

There were no significant intergroup differences in mean age (P = .052), mean body mass index (P = .601), total clinical tumor size (P = .107), pathologic tumor size (P = .269), specimen weight (P = .147), implant size (P = .313), or operation time (P = .595). However, the mean total peri-prosthetic seroma volume was significantly higher (105.80 vs 88.58, P = .015) but the number of aspirations was lower (4.48 vs 5.80, P = .043) in the intravenous cannula group than in the conventional needle group. Mean peri-prosthetic seroma volume per aspiration was nonsignificantly higher in the intravenous cannula group (26.92 vs 19.14, P = .291).

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound-guided aspiration performed using an intravenous cannula was comparable to the procedure performed using a conventional needle. Furthermore, the former method can be safer and effective alternative to manage peri-prosthetic seroma.

Acellular dermal matrices as an adjunct to implant breast reconstruction: Analysis of outcomes and complications

PURPOSE

Acellular dermal matrices (ADM) are increasingly used in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). Uncertainty remains with regard to their efficacy and complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and complication rates associated with the use of ADMs in IBR.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing ADM-assisted IBR between 2008 and 2013. Cases were identified from a prospectively collected database. Simple descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients (175 mastectomies) were included in the analysis. The median age was 46 (19-75) years and the median BMI was 22.2 (16.2-41.5). Seventy nine mastectomies were performed for therapeutic purposes. The median mastectomy weight was 244 (185-335) gr. The majority of reconstructions were performed with fixed volume (n = 115, 66%) or permanent expandable implants (n = 53, 30%) as one-stage procedures. Forty mastectomies were associated with at least one complication. The infection rate was 2.3% (n = 4). Post-operative haematoma developed in 5 cases (2.9%), but only 2 required surgical interventions. Three mastectomies were complicated by nipple necrosis (3.6%), 3 with skin necrosis (1.7%) and 9 with wound dehiscence (5.1%). The capsule formation rate was 2.3% (n = 4). Reconstruction failure with implant loss occurred in 3 cases (1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The complication rates following ADM-assisted IBR can be very low with appropriate patient selection and meticulous surgical technique. This supports the safety of using ADM in carefully selected patients. Further research is warranted to assess the health economics of ADM use in IBR.

Current practice and barriers of mesh-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction in China: A nationwide cross-sectional survey of 110 hospitals

BACKGROUND

The current National Practice Questionnaire of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) (NPQi) was to assess the clinical practice of mesh-assisted IBBR in China.

METHODS

A questionnaire was mailed to 110 hospitals in China, which have more than 200 breast cancer operations performed in 2017. The survey mainly included questions on the type and timing of IBBR, questions about the use of TiLOOP® Bra and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and the complications of IBBR.

RESULTS

IBBR was routinely carried out in 86.36% (95/110) hospitals. IBBR was the most frequently-used (65.7%, 4,296/6,534) BR after mastectomy with a median of 24 cases (IQR 7.5-65) in each hospital. TiLOOP® Bra and ADM were available in 49.5% and 33.7% hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with ADM offered were more likely to located in economically developed regions (65.6%), when compared with hospitals without any mesh offered (14/35, 40.0%, P = 0.036) and with only TiLOOP® Bra offered (16/28, 57.1%, P = 0.032). The surgery volume was largely variated from hospitals without any mesh offered (median 380 cases, IQR 304-550), with only TiLOOP® Bra offered (median 790 cases, IQR 439-1096, P = 0.001) and with ADM offered (median 797 cases, IQR 497-1528, P < 0.001). Higher proportion of one-stage mesh-augmented direct-to-implant BR and lower proportion of autologous BR were observed in hospitals with mesh offered. The reported major complications were similar between hospitals with or without mesh offered.

CONCLUSIONS

The NPQi has provided a valuable insight into the current practice of IBBR and mesh used in China. The introduction of mesh-assisted techniques has revolutionized the clinical practice.

Short-term cost-effectiveness of one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage expander-implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

Background

Implant‐based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure and its economic impact is significant. This study aimed to analyse whether a direct one‐stage IBBR with use of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is more cost‐effective than two‐stage (expander‐implant) breast reconstruction.

Methods

The BRIOS (Breast Reconstruction In One Stage) study was an open‐label multicentre RCT in which women scheduled for skin‐sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR were randomized between one‐stage IBBR with ADM or two‐stage IBBR. Duration of surgery and hospital stay, and visits for the primary surgery, unplanned and cosmetic procedures were recorded. Costs were estimated at an institutional level. Health status was assessed by means of the EuroQol Five Dimensions 5L questionnaire.

Results

Fifty‐nine patients (91 breasts) underwent one‐stage IBBR with ADM and 62 patients (92 breasts) two‐stage IBBR. The mean(s.d.) duration of surgery in the one‐stage group was significantly longer than that for two‐stage IBBR for unilateral (2·52(0·55) versus 2·02(0·35) h; P < 0·001) and bilateral (4·03(1·00) versus 3·25(0·58) h; P = 0·017) reconstructions. Costs were higher for one‐stage compared with two‐stage IBBR for both unilateral (€12 448 (95 per cent c.i. 10 722 to 14 387) versus €9871 (9373 to 10 445) respectively; P = 0·025) and bilateral (€16 939 (14 887 to 19 360) versus €13 383 (12 414 to 14 669); P = 0·002) reconstructions. This was partly related to the use of relatively expensive ADM. There was no difference in postoperative health status between the groups.

Conclusion

One‐stage IBBR with ADM was associated with higher costs, but similar health status, compared with conventional two‐stage IBBR. Registration number: NTR5446 ( http://www.trialregister.nl).

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Use of biological or synthetic mesh might improve outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-breast reconstruction with implants or expanders at the time of mastectomy-but there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the safety or effectiveness of the technique. We aimed to establish the short-term safety of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction performed with and without mesh, to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future randomised clinical trial comparing different breast reconstruction techniques.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we consecutively recruited women aged 16 years or older who had any type of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction for malignancy or risk reduction, with any technique, at 81 participating breast and plastic surgical units in the UK. Data about patient demographics and operative, oncological, and complication details were collected before and after surgery. Outcomes of interest were implant loss (defined as unplanned removal of the expander or implant), infection requiring treatment with antibiotics or surgery, unplanned return to theatre, and unplanned re-admission to hospital for complications of reconstructive surgery, up to 3 months after reconstruction and assessed by clinical review or patient self-report. Follow-up is complete. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN37664281.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, 2108 patients had 2655 mastectomies with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction at 81 units across the UK. 1650 (78%) patients had planned single-stage reconstructions (including 12 patients who had a different technique per breast). 1376 (65%) patients had reconstruction with biological (1133 [54%]) or synthetic (243 [12%]) mesh, 181 (9%) had non-mesh submuscular or subfascial implants, 440 (21%) had dermal sling implants, 42 (2%) had pre-pectoral implants, and 79 (4%) had other or a combination of implants. 3-month outcome data were available for 2081 (99%) patients. Of these patients, 182 (9%, 95% CI 8-10) experienced implant loss, 372 (18%, 16-20) required re-admission to hospital, and 370 (18%, 16-20) required return to theatre for complications within 3 months of their initial surgery. 522 (25%, 95% CI 23-27) patients required treatment for an infection. The rates of all of these complications are higher than those in the National Quality Standards (<5% for re-operation, re-admission, and implant loss, and <10% for infection).

INTERPRETATION

Complications after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction are higher than recommended by national standards. A randomised clinical trial is needed to establish the optimal approach to immediate implant-based breast reconstruction.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research, Association of Breast Surgery, and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

A Prospective Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes of Subpectoral and Prepectoral Strattice-Based Immediate Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral acellular dermal matrix-assisted immediate implant-based breast reconstruction is gaining popularity, involving complete implant coverage with acellular dermal matrix. The authors aimed to compare pain, patient-reported outcome measures (including implant rippling), and safety of prepectoral and subpectoral Strattice-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Consecutive patients were recruited prospectively, having either therapeutic or risk-reducing mastectomy. Patients scored their pain three times per day for the first 7 postoperative days on a Likert scale, and completed the BREAST-Q reconstruction module 3 months postoperatively. Clinical records and the authors' prospective complications database were used to compare the early morbidity of the two procedures.

RESULTS

Forty patients were recruited into the study. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the prepectoral group (mean, 1.5) and the subpectoral cohort (mean, 1.5; p = 0.45) during the first 7 days. Thirty-one BREAST-Q questionnaires were returned; mean Q scores were similar for both prepectoral and subpectoral (72 and 71, respectively; p = 0.81) groups. Patients reported significantly more visible implant rippling in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (seven of 13 versus two of 17; p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in length of stay or early morbidity, with implant loss being 4.7 percent in the prepectoral group compared with 0 percent in the subpectoral group.

CONCLUSIONS

Early postoperative pain and quality of life at 3 months are equivalent between groups. Early experience of prepectoral implant placement with complete acellular dermal matrix coverage suggests this is safe and provides good quality of life for patients. Further studies are required to compare short- and long-term outcomes with the current standard forms of reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Quality of life and patient satisfaction after one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage breast reconstruction (BRIOS): primary outcome of a randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Suggested advantages are that ADMs facilitate one-stage IBBR and improve aesthetic outcomes. We compared immediate one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR with two-stage IBBR (current standard of care). Our previously reported secondary endpoint showed that one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR was associated with significantly more adverse outcomes. Here, we present the primary endpoint results aiming to assess whether one-stage IBBR with ADM provides higher patient-reported quality of life (QOL) compared with two-stage IBBR.

METHODS

This multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (BRIOS study) was done in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. We recruited women aged older than 18 years with breast carcinoma or a genetic predisposition who intended to undergo skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo one-stage IBBR with ADM (Strattice, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ, USA) or two-stage IBBR. Randomisation was stratified by centre and indication for surgery (oncological or prophylactic) in blocks of ten participants. The primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL, as measured with the BREAST-Q (ie, health-related QOL scales and satisfaction scales), in the modified intention-to-treat population. The study follow-up is complete. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR5446.

FINDINGS

Between April 14, 2013, and May 29, 2015, we enrolled 142 women, of whom 69 were randomly assigned to receive one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR and 73 to receive two-stage IBBR. After exclusions, the modified intention-to-treat population comprised 60 patients in the one-stage group and 61 patients in the two-stage group. Of these, 48 women (mean follow-up 17·0 months [SD 7·8]) in the one-stage group and 44 women (17·2 months [SD 6·7]) in the two-stage group completed the BREAST-Q at least 1 year after implant placement. We found no significant differences in postoperative patient-reported QOL domains, including physical wellbeing (one-stage mean 78·0 [SD 14·1] vs two-stage 79·3 [12·2], p=0·60), psychosocial wellbeing (72·6 [17·3] vs 72·8 [19·6], p=0·95), and sexual wellbeing (58·0 [17·0] vs 57·1 [19·5], p=0·82), or in the patient-reported satisfaction domains: satisfaction with breasts (63·4 [15·8] vs 60·3 [15·4], p=0·35) and satisfaction with outcome (72·8 [19·1] vs 67·8 [16·3], p=0·19).

INTERPRETATION

Taken together with our previously published findings, one-stage IBBR with ADM does not yield superior results in terms of patient-reported QOL compared with two-stage IBBR. Risks for adverse outcomes were significantly higher in the one-stage ADM group. Use of ADM for one-stage IBBM should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

FUNDING

Pink Ribbon, Nuts-Ohra, and LifeCell.

The use of meshes and matrices in breast reconstruction

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in the UK ( Cancer Research UK, 2018 ). Breast reconstruction following mastectomy can be performed with prosthetic devices or autologous tissue. In the UK implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy is the most common type of breast reconstruction, estimated to account for 70% of the reconstructive caseload in the UK. Since 2001 there has been a considerable increase in the number of prosthetic reconstructions performed with the use of mesh or matrix to augment the reconstructive pocket. This article introduces the main types of mesh and matrix used in implant-based breast reconstruction, reconstructive techniques and reviews the benefits and complications associated with their use.

Adherence to best practice consensus guidelines for implant-based breast reconstruction: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire survey

INTRODUCTION

The 2008 National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit demonstrated marked variation in the practice and outcomes of breast reconstruction in the UK. To standardise practice and improve outcomes for patients, the British professional associations developed best-practice guidelines with specific guidance for newer mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. We explored the degree of uptake of best-practice guidelines within units performing implant-based reconstruction (IBBR) as the first phase of the implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) study.

METHODS

A questionnaire developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Simple summary statistics were calculated for each survey item to assess compliance with current best-practice guidelines.

RESULTS

81 units from 79 NHS Trusts completed the questionnaire. Marked variation was observed in adherence to guidelines, especially those relating to clinical governance and infection prevention strategies. Less than half (n = 28, 47%) of units obtained local clinical governance board approval prior to offering new mesh-based techniques and prospective audit of the clinical, cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes of surgery was infrequent. Most units screened for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus prior to surgery but fewer than 1 in 3 screened for methicillin-sensitive strains. Laminar-flow theatres (recommended for IBBR) were not widely-available with less than 1 in 5 units having regular access. Peri-operative antibiotics were widely-used, but the type and duration were highly-variable.

CONCLUSIONS

The iBRA national practice questionnaire has demonstrated variation in reported practice and adherence to IBBR guidelines. High-quality evidence is urgently required to inform best practice.

Is single-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (SSBR) with an acellular matrix safe?: Strattice™ or Meso Biomatrix® in SSBR

Background

Acellular matrices (AM) might enable a direct single-stage breast reconstruction procedure resulting in an improved efficacy of the reconstruction phase for patients. Safety concerns are an important issue due to a recent study which shows that single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ resulted in more complications versus a two-stage reconstruction. Therefore, the goal of this study is to compare the short- and long-term complications of a single-stage breast reconstruction with the use of two types of AM (Strattice™ and Meso Biomatrix®) versus two-stage breast reconstruction without the use of an AM.

Methods

Cohort study with single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ (n = 28) or Meso BioMatrix® (n = 20) or two-stage breast reconstruction without an AM (n = 36) at the Maastricht Academic Hospital, the Netherlands. All complications, in particular major complications with the need for re-admission to the hospital, re-exploration, and implant explantation, were the primary outcome measures. A 1-year follow-up was achieved for all patients.

Results

Baseline characteristics of all 52 patients were similar between groups. There was a significantly higher complication rate in the single-stage AM groups with loss of the implant in 40.0% of the breasts from the Meso BioMatrix® group and in 10.7% of the Strattice™ group compared to no implant loss in the control group.

Conclusions

This cohort study clearly suggests that the use of a single-stage breast reconstruction is not safe with the use of these AMs. Well-designed prospective studies that guarantee the safety of those matrices should be published before these AMs are used in implant-based surgery.

Level of Evidence: Level III, risk / prognostic study.

Predictors of complications after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In the multicentre randomized trial BRIOS (Breast Reconstruction In One Stage), direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) was associated with a markedly higher postoperative complication rate compared with two-stage tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. This study aimed to identify factors that contribute to the occurrence of complications after DTI ADM-assisted breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the BRIOS study, including all patients treated with DTI ADM-assisted breast reconstruction. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors predictive of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients (91 breasts) were included, of whom 27 (35 breasts) developed a surgical complication. Reoperations were performed in 29 breasts (32 per cent), with prosthesis removal in 22 (24 per cent). In multivariable analyses, mastectomy weight was associated with complications (odds ratio (OR) 1·94, 95 per cent c.i. 1·33 to 2·83), reoperations (OR 1·70, 1·12 to 2·59) and removal of the implant (OR 1·55, 1·11 to 2·17). Younger patients (OR 1·07, 1·01 to 1·13) and those who received adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 4·83, 1·15 to 20·24) more frequently required reoperation. In univariable analyses, adjuvant radiotherapy showed a trend towards more complications (OR 7·23, 0·75 to 69·95) and removal of the implant (OR 5·12, 0·76 to 34·44), without reaching statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Breast size appeared to be the most significant predictor of complications in DTI ADM-assisted breast reconstruction. The technique should preferably be performed in patients with small to moderate sized breasts. Registration number: NTR5446 ( http://www.trialregister.nl).

Patient-reported Outcomes after ADM-assisted Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A Cross-sectional Study

Background

Although the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based reconstruction increases, there is a lack of studies evaluating patient-reported outcome measures after this reconstruction method. We aim to evaluate the patient satisfaction after ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) in 1 of the largest series of patients undergoing ADM-assisted IBBR.

Methods

Patients with ADM-assisted IBBR were invited to fill out the BREAST-Q, a validated and standardized questionnaire to measure patient satisfaction after a breast reconstruction. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patient and surgical characteristics.

Results

In total, 208 patients (38.4%) responded and reported a mean satisfaction of 70.6 ± 20.2 with their breasts and 78.0 ± 20.5 with the outcome. An overall complication rate of 7.7% was noted, with 1.5% severe complications leading to hospital readmission (0.5%) and implant removal (0.5%). Patients with complications and unilateral reconstruction for oncological reasons reported overall less satisfaction rates compared with patients with bilateral, preventive surgery, and an uncomplicated postoperative course. Strongly related domains indicate the importance of patient satisfaction with their breasts and outcome on psychosocial and sexual functioning and satisfaction with information on satisfaction with breasts, outcome, and surgeon.

Conclusion

There is an increased demand for patient-reported outcome measures in a changing practice to which the opinion of the patient assumes a larger role. With high satisfaction rates, ADM-assisted IBBR is a valuable reconstruction method, provided that complication rates remain low. Hence, it should only be performed in a selected group of women.

A 3D Mammometric Comparison of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction With and Without Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM)

This retrospective study utilizes 3D imaging and mammometrics to compare implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of ADM. Previous studies have suggested improved aesthetic outcomes with the use of ADM, but none have been able to quantify this difference. Images were obtained at early and late time points following the expander-implant exchange procedure. Measurements included the point of maximum projection, the superior, inferior, medial and lateral volumetric distribution, and the distance from the point of maximum projection to the inframammary fold along the breast meridian. The patients' demographic information, implant size, and complication rate between the two cohorts were similar. In the early post-operative period, the patients with ADM demonstrated higher medial pole volume; however, this difference did not persist in the late post-operative period. Patients with ADM demonstrated a small but statistically significant greater point of maximum projection and length of lower pole curvature in comparison with the non-ADM cohort. In summary, the results of this study demonstrate improved mammometric measurements when ADM is used in implant-based breast reconstruction, supporting superior aesthetic outcomes in early and late post-operative time points.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 .

Local reaction to FlexHD® acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction: A case report and review of the literature

Since its first reported use for the treatment of burns victims, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) use has expanded to surgeries including repairing thoracic and abdominal wall defects, and breast reconstruction. FlexHD® is a brand of ADM prepared from human cadaveric dermis that has been processed to remove antigenic components and is used to reinforce the subpectoral pocket created during submuscular breast implant surgery. Recent documentation of a phenomenon termed ‘red breast syndrome’ (RBS) has emerged in the medical literature, with little known about its aetiology and treatment. This paper presents a case of blistering cutaneous erythema from FlexHD® ADM.

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.

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.

Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire

Introduction

The introduction of biological and synthetic meshes has revolutionised the practice of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) but evidence for effectiveness is lacking. The iBRA (implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation) study is a national trainee-led project that aims to explore the practice and outcomes of IBBR to inform the design of a future trial. We report the results of the iBRA National Practice Questionnaire (NPQ) which aimed to comprehensively describe the provision and practice of IBBR across the UK.

Methods

A questionnaire investigating local practice and service provision of IBBR developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and variation between centres and overall provision of care examined.

Results

81 units within 79 NHS-hospitals completed the questionnaire. Units offered a range of reconstructive techniques, with IBBR accounting for 70% (IQR:50–80%) of participating units' immediate procedures. Units on average were staffed by 2.5 breast surgeons (IQR:2.0–3.0) and 2.0 plastic surgeons (IQR:1.0–3.0) performing 35 IBBR cases per year (IQR:20-50). Variation was demonstrated in the provision of novel different techniques for IBBR especially the use of biological (n = 62) and synthetic (n = 25) meshes and in patient selection for these procedures.

Conclusions

The iBRA-NPQ has demonstrated marked variation in the provision and practice of IBBR in the UK. The prospective audit phase of the iBRA study will determine the safety and effectiveness of different approaches to IBBR and allow evidence-based best practice to be explored.

•

Implant breast reconstruction (IBBR) and the range of techniques is poorly evidence based.

•

We aimed to explore the current practice of IBBR in the UK to inform the design of a future definitive study.

•

Significant variation was demonstrated in the availability of techniques and patient selection for IBBR.

•

There is a need for well-designed studies to establish best practice and improve outcomes for patients considering IBBR.

Pre-hydrated sterile acellular dermal matrix allograft in breast reconstruction: review of a single unit's experience

BACKGROUND

The acellular dermal matrix (Flex HD) (FHD) became available for use in Western Australia in 2014 to aid prosthetic breast reconstruction and this descriptive study aims to review and discuss a single institution's experience since its introduction.

METHODS

By retrospective case note, review data were collected for all patients who underwent prosthetic breast reconstruction with the aid of FHD between January 2014 and August 2015 in our institution. Data on basic demographic parameters, risk factors, surgery-related factors, post-operative factors and follow-up information were collected. All complications were recorded and described in detail.

RESULTS

FHD was used in 42 breast reconstructions in 26 patients. Procedure-related complications were seen in 26% (n = 11) of cases. A major complication requiring return to theatre was seen in 11% (n = 5) of cases. Cellulitis of the reconstructed breast (red breast syndrome) was seen in 16.67% (n = 7) cases. Overall implant loss was 2.4% (n = 1). Of the six possible risk factors for any complication, only current smoking was found to increase the risk of complications (odds ratio = 9.667, 95% confidence interval = 1.429-65.377).

CONCLUSION

FHD is associated with a relatively high overall complication rate. Use of this optional expensive material has to be carefully selected balancing its perceived advantages against this possible risk. The red breast syndrome merits further studies considering its frequent occurrence with FHD use.

Methodological overview of systematic reviews to establish the evidence base for emergency general surgery

BACKGROUND

The evidence for treatment decision-making in emergency general surgery has not been summarized previously. The aim of this overview was to review the quantity and quality of systematic review evidence for the most common emergency surgical conditions.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of the most common conditions requiring unplanned admission and treatment managed by general surgeons were eligible for inclusion. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched to April 2014. The number and type (randomized or non-randomized) of included studies and patients were extracted and summarized. The total number of unique studies was recorded for each condition. The nature of the interventions (surgical, non-surgical invasive or non-invasive) was documented. The quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist.

RESULTS

The 106 included reviews focused mainly on bowel conditions (42), appendicitis (40) and gallstone disease (17). Fifty-one (48·1 per cent) included RCTs alone, 79 (74·5 per cent) included at least one RCT and 25 (23·6 per cent) summarized non-randomized evidence alone. Reviews included 727 unique studies, of which 30·3 per cent were RCTs. Sixty-five reviews compared different types of surgical intervention and 27 summarized trials of surgical versus non-surgical interventions. Fifty-seven reviews (53·8 per cent) were rated as low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

This overview of reviews highlights the need for more and better research in this field.