A comparative study of pre- or subpectoral expander position with the fenestrated Acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage, on drainage volume and Seroma Formation after Non-Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

Does the use of Acellular Dermal Matrices (ADM) in women undergoing pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction increase operative success versus non-use of ADM in the same setting? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in the UK. Reconstruction - of which implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most common - forms a core part of surgical management of breast cancer. More recently, pre-pectoral IBBR has become common as technology and operative techniques have evolved. Many surgeons use acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in reconstruction however there is little evidence in literature that this improves surgical outcomes. This review will assess available evidence for surgical outcomes for breast reconstructions using ADM versus non-use of ADM.

METHODS

A database search was performed of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2012-2022). Studies were screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Risk of Bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale and ROBIS tools. Analysis and meta-analysis were performed.

RESULTS

This review included 22 studies (3822 breast reconstructions). No significant difference between overall complications and failure rates between ADM and non-ADM use was demonstrated. Capsular contracture, wound dehiscence and implant rippling had significant differences however these results demonstrated high heterogeneity thus wider generalisation may be inaccurate. Patient quality of life scores were not recorded consistently or comparably between papers.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests a lack of significant differences in most complications between ADM use and non-use for pre-pectoral IBBR. If no increase in complications exists between groups, this has significant implications for surgical and legislative decision-making. There is, however, inadequate evidence available on the topic and further research is required.

Prevention of Postoperative Complications by Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved over time. However, the effects of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) compared with those of subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) have not been clearly defined. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the occurrence of surgical complications between PBR and SBR to determine the procedure that is effective and relatively safe.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published until April of 2021 comparing PBR and SBR following mastectomy. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. General information on the studies and surgical outcomes were extracted. Among 857 studies, 34 and 29 were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed to clearly compare the results of patients who underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy.

RESULTS

Pooled results showed that prevention of capsular contracture (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79) and infection control (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92) were better with PBR than with SBR. Rates of hematoma, implant loss, seroma, skin-flap necrosis, and wound dehiscence were not significantly different between PBR and SBR. PBR considerably improved postoperative pain, BREAST-Q score, and upper arm function compared with SBR. Among postmastectomy radiation therapy patients, the incidence rates of capsular contracture were significantly lower in the PBR group than in the SBR group (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that PBR had fewer postoperative complications than SBR. The authors' meta-analysis suggests that PBR could be used as an alternative technique for breast reconstruction in appropriate patients.

Difference in the outcomes of anterior tenting and wrapping techniques for acellular dermal matrix coverage in prepectoral breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) play an essential role in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions; however, the most appropriate method for ADMs is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of our institutional database. Patients who underwent mastectomy and prepectoral breast reconstruction using tissue expanders or breast implants covered with ADMs between March 2018 and June 2021 were included. Patient characteristics, postoperative complications, and long-term outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

In total, 112 patients (126 breasts) were included. The anterior tenting and wrapping techniques were used in the reconstruction of 32 (25.3%) and 94 (74.7%) breasts, respectively. Using propensity score matching, nine breasts were selected for each technique within the direct-to-implant reconstruction group, while 16 breasts were selected for each technique within the 2-stage reconstruction group. The choice of technique (anterior vs. wrapping) in implementing ADM did not generate any significant differences in postoperative complications, including seroma formation and capsular contracture, for the direct-to-implant and 2-stage reconstruction groups. Regarding the direct-to-implant reconstruction group, the average postoperative drain volume was less in the anterior tenting group than that in the wrapping group (anterior tenting vs. wrapping; 495.09 ± 156.118 mL vs. 673.43 ± 307.954 mL, p = 0.006), but the difference was insignificant after propensity score matching.

CONCLUSION

We report our experience with covering prosthetic devices with ADMs during postmastectomy breast reconstruction. No differences in the postoperative drain volume or postoperative outcomes were found between the study groups. Future studies are needed to determine the method that provides the most satisfactory results.

Seroma After Breast Reconstruction With Tissue Expanders: Outcomes and Management

BACKGROUND

Seroma is a relatively common complication after breast reconstruction with tissue expanders. The main risk in the presence of seroma is development of periprosthetic infection, which can lead to implant loss. Our goals were to identify risk factors for seroma, and to describe our protocol for managing fluid accumulation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An IRB approved breast reconstruction database was reviewed to identify patients who underwent tissue expander reconstruction. Patient characteristics, details of surgery, outcomes and treatment were recorded.

RESULTS

Two hundred nineteen tissue expander reconstructions were performed in 138 patients. Twenty-eight reconstructions developed seroma (12.8%), and 75 were identified to have prolonged drains (34.2%). Seroma was more common in patients with lymph node surgery ( P = 0.043), delayed reconstruction ( P = 0.049), and prepectoral reconstruction ( P = 0.002). Seroma and/or prolonged drains were more commonly noted in patients with higher body mass index ( P = 0.044) and larger breast size ( P = 0.001). Aspiration was the most common intervention (85.7%), which was performed in the clinic utilizing the expander port site. There was no difference in infection or explantation rate between seroma and no-seroma patients ( P = 0.546 and 0.167), whereas patients with any fluid concern (seroma and/or prolonged drains) were more prone to developing infection and undergoing explantation ( P = 0.041 and P < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

We recommend that prolonged drain placement longer than 3 weeks should be avoided, and patients should be screened for fluid accumulation after drain removal. Serial aspiration via expander port site and continuation of expansion provide a safe and effective method to manage seromas to avoid infection and expander loss.

ADM-assisted prepectoral breast reconstruction is not associated with high complication rate as before: a Meta-analysis

Implant-related breast reconstruction can be divided into subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR) and prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) according to the different anatomical planes. The previous stereotype was that PPBR had a high complication rate and was not suitable for clinical use. However, with the emergence of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), the clinical effect of PPBR has been improved. To compare the outcomes difference between SPBR and PPBR, We conducted this meta-analysis. Articles on SPBR versus PPBR were searched in PubMed, Web of Sciences, Embase, and Cochrane databases, strictly following the PRISMA guidelines. According to the set criteria, we included the literature that met the requirements. Extracted data were the incidence of adverse events and the duration of drainage. Results show that SPBR has a higher incidence rate in capsular contracture, animation deformity, infection, hematoma and delayed healing wound than PPBR. There are no significant differences in skin flap necrosis, seroma, implant loss, reoperation and duration of drainage between the two groups. Hence, PPBR is no longer a high complication surgical method and can be used in the clinical practice. However, there are few large sample studies at present, so it is necessary to carry out further studies on PPBR.

Advances on the modification and biomedical applications of acellular dermal matrices

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is derived from natural skin by removing the entire epidermis and the cell components of dermis, but retaining the collagen components of dermis. It can be used as a therapeutic alternative to “gold standard” tissue grafts and has been widely used in many surgical fields, since it possesses affluent predominant physicochemical and biological characteristics that have attracted the attention of researchers. Herein, the basic science of biologics with a focus on ADMs is comprehensively described, the modification principles and technologies of ADM are discussed, and the characteristics of ADMs and the evidence behind their use for a variety of reconstructive and prosthetic purposes are reviewed. In addition, the advances in biomedical applications of ADMs and the common indications for use in reconstructing and repairing wounds, maintaining homeostasis in the filling of a tissue defect, guiding tissue regeneration, and delivering cells via grafts in surgical applications are thoroughly analyzed. This review expectedly promotes and inspires the emergence of natural raw collagen-based materials as an advanced substitute biomaterial to autologous tissue transplantation.

Graphical Abstract