First-year complications after immediate breast reconstruction with a biological and a synthetic mesh in the same patient: A randomized controlled study

Gothenburg Breast reconstruction (GoBreast) II protocol: a Swedish partially randomised patient preference, superiority trial comparing autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Although breast reconstruction is an integral part of breast cancer treatment, there is little high-quality evidence to indicate which method is the most effective. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are generally thought to provide the most solid scientific evidence, but there are significant barriers to conducting RCTs in breast reconstruction, making both recruitment and achieving unbiased and generalisable results a challenge. The objective of this study is to compare implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction in non-irradiated patients. Moreover, the study aims to improve the evidence for trial decision-making in breast reconstruction.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study design partially randomised patient preference trial might be a way to overcome the aforementioned challenges. In the present study, patients who consent to randomisation will be randomised to implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction, whereas patients with strong preferences will be able to choose the method. The study is designed as a superiority trial based on the patient-reported questionnaire BREAST-Q and 124 participants will be randomised. In the preference cohort, patients will be included until 62 participants have selected the least popular alternative. Follow-up will be 60 months. Embedded qualitative studies and within-trial economic evaluation will be performed. The primary outcome is patient-reported breast-specific quality of life/satisfaction, and the secondary outcomes are complications, factors affecting satisfaction and cost-effectiveness.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2023-04754-01). Results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at peer-reviewed scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT06195865.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

For preference sensitive treatments, such as breast reconstructions, there are barriers to conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary aims of this systematic review were to investigate what type of research questions are explored by RCTs in breast reconstruction, where have they been performed and where have they been published, and to thematise the research questions and thus create an overview of the state of the research field.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials investigating any aspect of breast reconstructions were included. The PubMed database was searched with a pre-defined search string. Inclusion and data abstraction was performed in a pre-defined standardised fashion. For the purpose of this study, we defined key issues as comparison of categories of breast reconstruction and comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, when the thematisation was done.

RESULTS

A total of 419 abstracts were retrieved from the search. Of the 419, 310 were excluded as they were not RCTs concerning some aspect of breast reconstruction, which left us with 110 abstracts to be included in the study. The research questions of the included studies could more or less be divided into seven different themes inclusive of 2 key issues: Other issues - comparison of different categories of breast reconstruction, comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, surgical details within a category of breast reconstruction, surgical details valid for several categories of breast reconstruction, donor site management, anaesthetics, and non-surgical details. Only five studies compared key issues, and they all illustrate the challenges with RCTs in breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 110 publications based on RCTs in breast reconstruction have been published. Seven themes of research questions could be identified. Only five studies have explored the key issues. Better scientific evidence is needed for the key issues in breast reconstruction, for example by implementing a new study design in the field.

The Usage of Mesh and Relevant Prognosis in Implant Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although mesh-based implant breast reconstruction surgery is emerging as the primary surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, mesh use remains controversial in implant breast reconstruction surgery, especially in terms of how to select the ideal mesh. Our aim is to elaborate relevant prognosis in the mesh-based implant breast reconstruction surgery.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane library searches. Extracted data included study type, basic characteristics, mesh information, complications, etc. We analyzed the included cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that reported mesh-related implant breast reconstruction complications and breast quality scale scores.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies including 7475 subjects were included. The results showed that the overall complication rate was 2.07 times higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (risk ratio [RR]: 2.07, 95% CI 1.14-3.78). The risk of seroma was 4.50 times higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (RR: 4.50, 95% CI 2.27-8.95). In terms of comparing breast quality scale scores, the mesh group had scores that were 1.49 (95% CI 0.19-2.78) higher than the non-mesh group for "physical well-being" and 2.05 (95% CI 0.08-4.02) higher for "sexual well-being."

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that the risk of total complications was higher with biological mesh than with synthetic mesh in implant breast reconstruction surgery. Based on short-term cost, healthcare burden, and healthcare benefits, synthetic meshes are superior to biological meshes.

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 .

Comparative clinical outcomes of using three-dimensional and TIGR mesh in immediate breast reconstruction surgery for breast cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Breast reconstruction (BR) surgery is a widely utilized approach for women who have undergone mastectomy. Using synthetic mesh can offer advantages over other materials providing long-lasting support and natural-looking results. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of 3DMax™ mesh to TIGR mesh in BR surgery, providing clear information about the non-inferiority of 3DMax™ mesh to TIGR.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluates postoperative complications in breast cancer patients who underwent subcutaneous mastectomy with direct-to-implant immediate BR using silicone implants and either 3DMax™ mesh or TIGR® Matrix Surgical Mesh.

RESULTS

This study involved BR surgeries in 82 patients, including 57 surgeries in the 3D mesh group and 49 in the TIGR mesh group. The two groups had no significant differences regarding age, body mass index (BMI), cancer stage, or surgical complications. However, patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy had higher incidence rates of long-term complications than other patients. Patients with infection or partial necrosis had a heightened risk of implant loss.

CONCLUSION

The clinical results obtained in this study suggest that among synthetic meshes used in immediate BR, 3DMax™ is not inferior to TIGR Matrix Surgical Mesh regarding complications.

Immediate breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients with the use of Serasynth and SeragynBR synthetic meshes. Single-oncological center experience, analysis of complications

<br><b>Introduction:</b> The use of meshes in mastectomies with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) has become the gold standard.</br> <br><b>Aim:</b> The use of meshes in mastectomies with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) has become a gold standard. The purpose of the study was to analyze the complications and own experience with the use of Serasynth fully absorbable and SeragynBR partially absorbable synthetic meshes.</br> <br><b>Material and methods:</b> In the period from December 2017 to July 2020, 118 IBR were performed in the Author's Department with the use of SeragynBR and Serasynth meshes in 93 patients operated for breast cancer. 78 Serasynth meshes (Group 1) and 40 SeragynBR meshes (Group 2) were implanted.</br> <br><b>Results:</b> The most common complication was persistent seroma collection, which was reported in 17.9% of cases in Group 1 and 25% in Group 2. Skin inflammation was reported in 7.6% and 17.5%, while infections in 2.5% and 5% of the operated breasts in Group 1 and Group 2. Reoperation was required in 5.1% and 5% of the patients in Group 1 and Group 2. The percentage of complications was lower when Serasynth rather than Seragyn BR meshes were implanted. The frequent incidence of the seroma collection did not contribute in any significant way to serious complications such as removal of mesh/implant or infection. The complications, which developed following the implantation of both mesh types, were similar to those presented in other publications concerning mastectomy with IBR with the use of synthetic meshes. The percentage of implant losses/explanations in the discussed groups was lower than that reported in the literature.</br> <br><b>Conclusion:</b> Despite the complications, both types of meshes can be considered as safe additions to reconstructive breast surgeries.</br> <br><b>Level of Evidence:</b> Level III.</br>.

Rise of Acellular Dermal Matrix: Cost Consciousness, Industry Payment, and Publication Productivity

BACKGROUND

Despite high cost and lack of FDA approval for breast surgery, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has become commonplace in reconstructive surgery and has been the focus of more than 500 plastic surgery publications since its wide adoption. We hypothesized that ADM-related academic output would correlate with public interest and industry funding.

STUDY DESIGN

All PubMed-indexed studies focusing on ADM in 11 plastic surgery journals were included (n = 535). Data on industry funding to the 17 most productive authors were extracted from the Open Payments Database. Google Trends in "breast surgery cost" and related terms were queried. Relationships among publication quantity, author industry funding, and public interest were analyzed by Pearson's correlation and linear regression.

RESULTS

The most published authors produced 8 qualifying publications on average (range 5 to 17), with 80% focused on breast surgery. These individuals grossed a total of $19 million industry dollars overall with $17 million (89%) in nonconsulting compensation from ADM-producing companies (NC-ADM). Individual total compensation and NC-ADM compensation, by quartile, were $194,000/$320,000/$1.25 million and $17,000/$210,000/$1.1 million, respectively. These variables showed strong correlation with individual publication rate with a linear regression coefficient of $110K in NC-ADM per publication (p < 0.01). Authors disclosed funding in a mean ± SD of 65 ± 26% of their work with strong correlation between disclosure and NC-ADM (p < 0.01). Google "breast surgery cost" search volume has grown rapidly in significant correlation with ADM publications (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates significant correlation between ADM-related publication, industry funding, funding disclosure, and public interest. Education in the potential for such relationships and the importance of objectivity in plastic surgery warrants discussion.

Comparing the Outcomes and Complication Rates of Biologic vs Synthetic Meshes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluates all published studies comparing biologic and synthetic meshes in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), to determine which category of mesh produces the most favorable outcomes.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women globally. Implant-based breast reconstruction is currently the most popular method of postmastectomy reconstruction, and recently, the use of surgical mesh in IBBR has become commonplace. Although there is a long-standing belief among surgeons that biologic mesh is superior to synthetic mesh in terms of surgical complications and patient outcomes, few studies exist to support this claim.

METHODS

A systematic search of the EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases was performed in January 2022. Primary literature studies comparing biologic and synthetic meshes within the same experimental framework were included. Study quality and bias were assessed using the validated Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria.

RESULTS

After duplicate removal, 109 publications were reviewed, with 12 meeting the predetermined inclusion criteria. Outcomes included common surgical complications, histological analysis, interactions with oncologic therapies, quality of life measures, and esthetic outcomes. Across all 12 studies, synthetic meshes were rated as at least equivalent to biologic meshes for every reported outcome. On average, the studies in this review tended to have moderate Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scores.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review offers the first comprehensive evaluation of all publications comparing biologic and synthetic meshes in IBBR. The consistent finding that synthetic meshes are at least equivalent to biologic meshes across a range of clinical outcomes offers a compelling argument in favor of prioritizing the use of synthetic meshes in IBBR.

Acellular dermal matrix in reconstructive surgery: Applications, benefits, and cost

Modern tissue engineering has made substantial advancements that have revolutionized plastic surgery. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is an example that has gained considerable attention recently. ADM can be made from humans, bovines, or porcine tissues. ADM acts as a scaffold that incorporates into the recipient tissue. It is gradually infiltrated by fibroblasts and vascularized. Fortunately, many techniques have been used to remove cellular and antigenic components from ADM to minimize immune system rejection. ADM is made of collagen, fibronectin, elastin, laminin, glycosaminoglycans, and hyaluronic acid. It is used in critical wounds (e.g., diabetic wounds) to protect soft tissue and accelerate wound healing. It is also used in implant-based breast reconstruction surgery to improve aesthetic outcomes and reduce capsule contracture risk. ADM has also gained attention in abdominal and chest wall defects. Some studies have shown that ADM is associated with less erosion and infection in abdominal hernias than synthetic meshes. However, its higher cost prevents it from being commonly used in hernia repair. Also, using ADM in tendon repair (e.g., Achilles tendon) has been associated with increased stability and reduced rejection rate. Despite its advantages, ADM might result in complications such as hematoma, seroma, necrosis, and infection. Moreover, ADM is expensive, making it an unsuitable option for many patients. Finally, the literature on ADM is insufficient, and more research on the results of ADM usage in surgeries is needed. This article aims to review the literature regarding the application, Benefits, and costs of ADM in reconstructive surgery.

Comparing Complications of Biologic and Synthetic Mesh in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background  In breast reconstruction, synthetic meshes are frequently used to replace acellular dermal matrix (ADM), since ADM is expensive and often leads to complications. However, there is limited evidence that compares the types of substitutes. This study aimed to compare complications between materials via a network meta-analysis. Methods  We systematically reviewed studies reporting any type of complication from 2010 to 2021. The primary outcomes were the proportion of infection, seroma, major complications, or contracture. We classified the intervention into four categories: ADM, absorbable mesh, nonabsorbable mesh, and nothing used. We then performed a network meta-analysis between these categories and estimated the odds ratio with random-effect models. Results  Of 603 searched studies through the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases, following their review by two independent reviewers, 61 studies were included for full-text reading, of which 17 studies were finally included. There was a low risk of bias in the included studies, but only an indirect comparison between absorbable and non-absorbable mesh was possible. Infection was more frequent in ADM but not in the two synthetic mesh groups, namely the absorbable or nonabsorbable types, compared with the nonmesh group. The proportion of seroma in the synthetic mesh group was lower (odds ratio was 0.2 for the absorbable and 0.1 for the nonabsorbable mesh group) than in the ADM group. Proportions of major complications and contractures did not significantly differ between groups. Conclusion  Compared with ADM, synthetic meshes have low infection and seroma rates. However, more studies concerning aesthetic outcomes and direct comparisons are needed.

Novel three-dimensional acellular dermal matrix for prepectoral breast reconstruction: First year in review with BRAXON®Fast

Implant-based breast reconstruction is part of breast cancer treatment, and increasingly optimized reconstructive procedures exploit highly biocompatible materials to ensure enhanced aesthetic-functional results. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are collagen-based materials that made prepectoral implant placement possible, thanks to their bioactive antifibrosis action. Recently, the first three-dimensional ADM, BRAXON^®Fast, has been produced. Its 3D design represents the technological evolution of BRAXON^® ADM, a flat collagen matrix, and allows for a time-saving complete wrapping of the synthetic prosthesis, thus creating a total biological interface on the implant with patient's tissues. Here, we report our experience on the first 23 eligible patients who received BRAXON^®Fast-assisted prepectoral reconstruction. On a total of 27 breasts, the overall complication rate was 11.1%, including one minor seroma (3.7%), one case of necrosis (3.7%), and one implant removal due to infection. As new-generation devices, 3D ADMs showed an effective performance, allowing to reduce the overall exposure time for implant preparation and providing an optimal safety profile.

A Retrospective Study Assessing the Outcomes of Immediate Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant and Mesh-Based Breast Reconstruction

(1) Introduction: In response to patient concerns about breast cancer recurrence, increased use of breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing, and advancements in breast reconstruction techniques, mastectomy rates have been observed to rise over the last decade. The aim of the study is to compare the outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral implants and long-term, dual-stage resorbable mesh-based breast reconstructions in mutation carriers (prophylactic surgery) and breast cancer patients. (2) Patients and methods: This retrospective, two-center study included 170 consecutive patients after 232 procedures: Prepectoral surgery was performed in 156 cases and subpectoral was performed in 76. (3) Results: Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with more frequent minor late complications (p < 0.001), but not major ones (p = 0.101), while postoperative chemotherapy was related to more frequent serious (p = 0.005) postoperative complications. Postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of minor complications (31.03%) than no-radiotherapy (12.21%; p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression found complications to be significantly associated with an expander (OR = 4.43), skin-reducing mastectomy (OR = 9.97), therapeutic mastectomy vs. risk-reducing mastectomy (OR = 4.08), and postoperative chemotherapy (OR = 12.89). Patients in whom prepectoral surgeries were performed demonstrated significantly shorter median hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and lower minor complication rates (5.77% vs. 26.32% p < 0.001), but similar major late complication rates (p = 0.915). (4) Conclusions: Implant-based breast reconstruction with the use of long-term, dual-stage resorbable, synthetic mesh is a safe and effective method of breast restoration, associated with low morbidity and good cosmesis. Nevertheless, prospective, multicenter, and long-term outcome data studies are needed to further evaluate the benefits of such treatments.

Seroma after Simple Mastectomy in Breast Cancer-The Role of CD4+ T Helper Cells and the Evidence as a Possible Specific Immune Process

Seroma development after breast cancer surgery is the most common postoperative complication seen after mastectomy but neither its origin nor its cellular composition is known. To investigate the assumption of immunological significance, one of the first aims of this pilot study is to describe the cellular content of collected seroma fluids and its corresponding serum in patients with simple mastectomy after needle aspiration, as well as the serum of healthy controls. The content of red blood cells (RBC) was measured by haemato-counter analyses, and the lymphocyte identification/quantification was conducted by flow cytometry analyses in seroma fluid (SFl) and the sera of patients (PBp) as well as controls (PBc). Significantly lower numbers of RBCs were measured in SFl. Cytotoxic T cells are significantly reduced in SFl, whereas T helper (Th) cells are significantly enriched compared to PBp. Significantly higher numbers of Th2 cells were found in SFl and PBp compared to PBc. The exact same pattern is seen when analyzing the Th17 subgroup. In conclusion, in contrast to healthy controls, significantly higher Th2 and Th17 cell subgroup-mediated immune responses were measured in seroma formations and were further confirmed in the peripheral blood of breast cancer (including DCIS) patients after simple mastectomy. This could lead to the assumption of a possible immunological cause for the origin of a seroma.

Comparison of nine methods of immediate breast reconstruction after resection of localized breast cancer: A cost-effectiveness Markov decision analysis of prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction without radiation therapy have reconstruction methods available with uncertain long-term costs associated with complications requiring surgery and revisions. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of nine methods of immediate breast reconstruction for women with localized breast cancer.

METHODS

Markov modeling was performed over 10-years for unilateral/bilateral breast reconstructions from healthcare/societal perspectives. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched to derive data from 13,744 patients in 79 prospective studies. Complications requiring surgery (mastectomy necrosis, total/partial flap necrosis, seroma, hematoma, infection, wound dehiscence, abdominal hernia, implant removal/explantation) and revisions (fat necrosis, capsular contracture, asymmetry, scars/redundant tissue, implant rupture/removal, fat grafting) were evaluated over yearly cycles. Reconstructions included: direct-to-implant (DTI), tissue expander-to-implant (TEI), latissimus dorsi flap-to-implant (LDI), latissimus dorsi (LD), pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM), free TRAM, deep inferior epigastric perforator/superficial inferior epigastric artery (DIEP/SIEA), thigh-based, or gluteal based flaps. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and net monetary benefits (NMB). Willingness-to-pay thresholds were $50,000 and $100,000.

RESULTS

From a healthcare perspective for unilateral reconstruction, compared to LD, the ICER for DTI was -$42,109.35/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), LDI was -$25,300.83/QALY, TEI was -$22,036.02/QALY, DIEP/SIEA was $8307.65/QALY, free TRAM was $8677.26/QALY, pedicled TRAM was $13,021.44/QALY, gluteal-based was $17,698.99/QALY, and thigh-based was $23,447.82/QALY. NMB of DIEP/SIEA was $404,523.47, free TRAM was $403,821.40, gluteal-based was $392,478.64, thigh-based was $387,691.70, pedicled TRAM was $376,901.83, LD was $370,646.93, DTI was $339,668.77, LDI was $334,350.30, and TEI was $329,265.84.

CONCLUSIONS

All nine methods of immediate breast reconstruction were considered cost-effective from healthcare/societal perspectives. LD provided the lowest costs, while DIEP/SIEA provided the greatest effectiveness and NMB.

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.

Direct comparison of CGCRYODERM and DermACELL in the same patient for outcomes in bilateral implant-based breast reconstruction: a retrospective case series

Background

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has been popularized in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). However, it is still controversial if ADM-associated complication rates differ with varying types of ADM products. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative complications between CGCRYODERM and DermACELL.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed on 32 patients (64 breasts) who underwent bilateral prosthetic breast reconstruction between June 2015 and December 2019. All patients received two different ADMs in each breast during the surgery. Demographic variables, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the cryopreserved and pre-hydrated ADM.

Results

The overall major and minor postoperative complications developed in 7 and 1 out of 32 patients, respectively. Seroma and infection were the most common complications. There were no cases that infection and/or seroma involved both breasts in one individual. No significant differences were observed in terms of seroma, infection, hematoma, mastectomy flap necrosis, or drainage period between the CGCRYODERM and DermACELL groups (P=0.5637, 0.1797, 1.0000, 0.3173, and 0.2925, respectively). There was no case of reconstruction failure leading to explantation.

Conclusions

There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications between the two breasts reconstructed with CGCRYODERM and DermACELL in the same patient who underwent bilateral IBR. This is the first study to compare cryopreserved and pre-hydrated ADMs. We suggest that CGCRYODERM is a suitable option with a comparable safety profile for IBR.

Pliable, Scalable, and Degradable Scaffolds with Varying Spatial Stiffness and Tunable Compressive Modulus Produced by Adopting a Modular Design Strategy at the Macrolevel

Clinical results obtained when degradable polymer-based medical devices are used in breast reconstruction following mastectomy are promising. However, it remains challenging to develop a large scaffold structure capable of providing both sufficient external mechanical support and an internal cell-like environment to support breast tissue regeneration. We propose an internal-bra-like prototype to solve both challenges. The design combines a 3D-printed scaffold with knitted meshes and electrospun nanofibers and has properties suitable for both breast tissue regeneration and support of a silicone implant. Finite element analysis (FEA) was used to predict the macroscopic and microscopic stiffnesses of the proposed structure. The simulations show that introduction of the mesh leads to a macroscopic scaffold stiffness similar to the stiffness of breast tissue, and mechanical testing confirms that the introduction of more layers of mesh in the modular design results in a lower elastic modulus. The compressive modulus of the scaffold can be tailored within a range from hundreds of kPa to tens of kPa. Biaxial tensile testing reveals stiffening with increasing strain and indicates that rapid strain-induced softening occurs only within the first loading cycle. In addition, the microscopic local stiffness obtained from FEA simulations indicates that cells experience significant heterogeneous mechanical stimuli at different places in the scaffold and that the local mechanical stimulus generated by the strand surface is controlled by the elastic modulus of the polymer, rather than by the scaffold architecture. From in vitro experiments, it was observed that the addition of knitted mesh and an electrospun nanofiber layer to the scaffold significantly increased cell seeding efficiency, cell attachment, and proliferation compared to the 3D-printed scaffold alone. In summary, our results suggest that the proposed design strategy is promising for soft tissue engineering of scaffolds to assist breast reconstruction and regeneration.

Long-Term Dynamic Changes in Cosmetic Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction after Implant-Based Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction and Contralateral Mastopexy with or without an Ultrapro Mesh Sling Used for the Inner Bra Technique. A Retrospective Correlational Study

Simple Summary

Immediate implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction (IPMBR) with contralateral symmetrization has mostly short-term limited evidence of cosmetic outcomes. Ageing after IPMBR and symmetrization may contribute to symmetry worsening. This non-interventional retrospective correlational study presents the clinical and aesthetic results of synthetic ULTRAPRO^® mesh inner bra sling symmetrization mastopexy with standard mastopexies. A total of 59 patients were enrolled in the mesh group (MG), and 58 patients were enrolled in the non-mesh group (NMG). There were no significant differences in surgical complications (p = 0.521; chi-square. The median sternal notch-to-nipple distance difference was 1 cm in the MG and 3.5 cm in the NMG from the last follow-up, and the median nipple-to-inferior mammary fold distance differences were 0.5 cm and 0.75 cm. ULTRAPRO^® mesh sling symmetrization can be successfully used to decrease pseudoptosis and nipple down-migration, offering a safe alternative for long-lasting symmetry and high patient satisfaction.

Abstract

Immediate implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction (IPMBR) with contralateral symmetrization has mostly short-term limited evidence of cosmetic outcomes. Because 84% of early-stage breast cancer patients have overall survival of more than 10 years, reconstructed breast symmetry should provide long-lasting results and acceptable patient satisfaction. Ageing, changes in body weight, and biomechanical changes after IPMBR and symmetrization may contribute to symmetry worsening. This non-interventional single-centre retrospective correlational study presents the clinical and aesthetic results of synthetic ULTRAPRO^® mesh inner bra sling symmetrization mastopexy with standard mastopexies. According to the results, a total of 59 patients were enrolled in the mesh group (MG), and 58 patients were enrolled in the non-mesh group (NMG). There were no significant differences in surgical complications (p = 0.521; chi-square). The median sternal notch-to-nipple distance difference was 1 cm in the MG and 3.5 cm in the NMG from the last follow-up, and the median nipple-to-inferior mammary fold distance differences were 0.5 cm and 0.75 cm. The mesh did not hinder the follow-up investigation. In conclusion, ULTRAPRO^® mesh sling symmetrization can be successfully used to decrease pseudoptosis and nipple down-migration, offering a safe alternative for long-lasting symmetry and high patient satisfaction.

First-year complications after immediate breast reconstruction with a biological and a synthetic mesh in the same patient: A randomized controlled study

Background

Even though meshes and matrices are widely used in breast reconstruction, there is little high‐quality scientific evidence for their risks and benefits. The aim of this study was to compare first‐year surgical complication rates in implant‐based immediate breast reconstruction with a biological mesh with that of a synthetic mesh, in the same patient.

Methods

This study is a clinical, randomized, prospective trial. Patients operated on with bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were randomized to biological mesh on one side and synthetic mesh on the other side.

Results

A total of 48 breasts were randomized. As the synthetically and the biologically reconstructed breasts that were compared belonged to the same woman, systemic factors were exactly the same in the two groups. The most common complication was seroma formation with a frequency of 38% in the biological group and 3.8% in the synthetical group (p = .011). A higher frequency of total implant loss could be seen in the biologic mesh group (8.5% vs. 2%), albeit not statistically significant (p = .083).

Conclusions

In the same patient, a synthetic mesh seems to yield a lower risk for serious complications, such as implant loss, than a biological mesh.