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

A Comparative Study of Wraparound versus Anterior Coverage Placement of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral direct-to-implant insertion (DTI) with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is the currently preferred operation for breast reconstruction. There are different placements of ADM, which are largely classified as wraparound placement or anterior coverage placement. Because there are limited data comparing these two placements, this study aimed to compare the outcomes of these two methods.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of immediate prepectoral DTI breast reconstructions performed by a single surgeon between 2018 and 2020. Patients were classified depending on the ADM placement type used. Surgical outcomes and breast shape changes using nipple position during follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients were included in the study, with 87 in the wraparound group and 72 in the anterior coverage group. Demographics were similar between the two groups, excluding ADM amount used (154.1 cm 2 versus 137.8 cm 2 ; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the overall rate of complications between the two groups, including seroma (6.90% versus 5.56%; P = 1.0), total drainage amount (762.1 mL versus 805.9 mL; P = 0.45), and capsular contracture (4.6% versus 1.39%; P = 0.38). The wraparound group had a significantly longer distance change than that of the anterior coverage group in the sternal notch-to-nipple distance (4.44% versus 2.08%; P = 0.03) and midclavicle-to-nipple distance (4.94% versus 2.64%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Wraparound and anterior coverage placement of ADM in prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction showed similar complication rates, including seroma, drainage amount, and capsular contracture. However, wraparound placement can make the breast more ptotic in shape compared with anterior coverage placement.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

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.

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.

Acellular Dermal Matrix Favorably Modulates the Healing Response after Surgery

SUMMARY

When first described for breast reconstruction, the presence of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) was associated with increased seroma formation and infection. However, clinical safety data has gradually improved with surgeon experience to an acceptable outcomes profile of ADM-assisted reconstruction when compared to submuscular implant coverage. In fact, ADM use potentially decreases capsular contracture rates and facilitates expansion for staged pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. Due to new regulatory requirements, the collection of unbiased, well-powered pre-market approval data summarizing long-term clinical outcomes will be essential over the coming years to understand the clinical performance of ADM usage in breast reconstruction.Currently, we can highlight the physiologic benefits of ADM use in breast reconstruction by evaluating the components of surgical wound healing that are favorably augmented by the implanted collagen substrate. ADM takes advantage of the wound healing cascade to incorporate into the patient's tissues - a process that requires a coordinated inflammatory infiltrate and angiogenesis. The presence of ADM augments and modulates the wound healing process to its advantage by simultaneously increasing the invasion of appropriate cellular constituents to facilitate expeditious healing and accelerate angiogenesis. Herein, we summarize the wound healing literature to demonstrate the mechanisms ADM use to biointegrate and the literature in which cellular constituents and soluble growth factors are upregulated in the presence of ADM. Lastly, we use our experimental observations of ADM incorporation to corroborate the literature.

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.

Implant-based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Women undergoing implant-based reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy for breast cancer have numerous options, including timing of IBR relative to radiation and chemotherapy, implant materials, anatomic planes, and use of human acellular dermal matrices. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate these options.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies, from inception to March 23, 2021, without language restriction. We assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods.

Results

We screened 15,936 citations. Thirty-six mostly high or moderate risk of bias studies (48,419 patients) met criteria. Timing of IBR before or after radiation may result in comparable physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being, and satisfaction with breasts (all low SoE), and probably comparable risks of implant failure/loss or explantation (moderate SoE). No studies addressed timing relative to chemotherapy. Silicone and saline implants may result in clinically comparable satisfaction with breasts (low SoE). Whether the implant is in the prepectoral or total submuscular plane may not impact risk of infections (low SoE). Acellular dermal matrix use probably increases the risk of implant failure/loss or need for explant surgery (moderate SoE) and may increase the risk of infections (low SoE). Risks of seroma and unplanned repeat surgeries for revision are probably comparable (moderate SoE), and risk of necrosis may be comparable with or without human acellular dermal matrices (low SoE).

Conclusions

Evidence regarding IBR options is mostly of low SoE. New high-quality research is needed, especially for timing, implant materials, and anatomic planes of implant placement.