Cortiva Versus AlloDerm Ready-to-use in Prepectoral and Submuscular Breast Reconstruction: Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Study Design and Early Findings

Cortiva versus AlloDerm in Prepectoral and Partial Submuscular Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Several acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are used for soft-tissue support in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Little high-level evidence supports the use of one ADM over another. The authors sought to compare Cortiva 1-mm Allograft Dermis with AlloDerm RTU (ready to use), the most studied ADM in the literature.

METHODS

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing Cortiva with AlloDerm in prepectoral and subpectoral immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction was performed at 2 academic hospitals from March of 2017 to December of 2021. Reconstructions were direct to implant (DTI) or tissue expander (TE). Primary outcome was reconstructive failure, defined as TE explantation before planned further reconstruction, or explantation of DTI reconstructions before 3 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were additional complications, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and cost.

RESULTS

There were 302 patients included: 151 AlloDerm (280 breasts), 151 Cortiva (277 breasts). The majority of reconstructions in both cohorts consisted of TE (62% versus 38% DTI), smooth device (68% versus 32% textured), and prepectoral (80% versus 20% subpectoral). Reconstructive failure was no different between ADMs (AlloDerm 9.3% versus Cortiva 8.3%; P = 0.68). There were no additional differences in any complications or PROs between ADMs. Seromas occurred in 7.6% of Cortiva but 12% of AlloDerm cases, in which the odds of seroma formation were two-fold higher (odds ratio, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.01 to 3.67]; P = 0.047). AlloDerm variable cost was 10% to 15% more than Cortiva, and there were no additional cost differences.

CONCLUSION

When assessing safety, clinical performance, PROs, and cost, Cortiva is noninferior to AlloDerm in immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction, and may be less expensive, with lower risk of seroma formation.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, I.

Comparing Cortiva Silhouette to AlloDerm for Use in Prepectoral Two-stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

Background

The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction has become increasingly routine during the past 20 years. ADMs improve soft-tissue support, facilitate greater tissue expander (TE) fill volumes, and reduce rates of capsular contracture. As the ADM market continues to grow, outcomes studies are necessary to assess the risks and benefits of each product. In this study, we compare the performance of Cortiva Silhouette, the thinnest ADM widely available, to AlloDerm, commonly considered the industry standard.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of 178 consecutive two-stage prosthetic breast reconstructions performed by the senior author. In every case, either Cortiva or AlloDerm was used to provide soft-tissue support during TE placement. Subjects were divided into Cortiva and AlloDerm cohorts and compared across patient characteristics and reconstructive outcomes variables.

Results

During the study period, AlloDerm was used in 116 reconstructions; Cortiva was used in 62. After propensity score matching (62 AlloDerm, 62 Cortiva), Cortiva was associated with greater intraoperative and final TE fill volumes, as well as larger silicone implants. Cortiva was also associated with fewer complications overall, and fewer instances of mastectomy skin necrosis, delayed wound healing, and seroma.

Conclusions

Cortiva Silhouette is noninferior to AlloDerm in terms of safety and providing soft-tissue support in prepectoral two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. In this study, Cortiva supported greater TE fill volumes and larger silicone implants relative to AlloDerm and was associated with fewer complications.

A Comparison of Capsular Contracture Rates after Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Using Biologic versus Synthetic Mesh

Background

Capsular contracture is one of the most common reasons for reoperation after implant-based breast reconstruction. Prior investigations have suggested that biologic mesh may mitigate capsular contracture development. This study sought to compare capsular contracture rates between patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with biologic versus synthetic mesh.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of the senior author's primary implant-based breast reconstructions between 2008 and 2023. Demographics and the incidence of clinically significant Baker grade III or IV capsular contractures were compared between biologic and synthetic mesh cohorts. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were then performed to assess potential risk factors for the development of capsular contracture.

Results

A total of 772 breasts underwent immediate reconstruction, of which 689 (89.2%) used biologic and 83 (10.8%) used synthetic mesh. Capsular contracture occurred in 15 (2.2%) biologic mesh breasts and three (3.6%) synthetic mesh breasts with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.430). Logistic regression showed that radiation was a borderline significant risk factor for developing capsular contracture, but the use of either biologic or synthetic mesh was not significant (P = 0.351).

Conclusions

Biologic and synthetic meshes function as effective tools in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Our long-term data suggest that the risk of capsular contracture with these devices is low, and there does not seem to be a difference between the two materials. However, there does need to be a shift in how capsular contracture is assessed and discussed in the reconstruction population.

Acellular dermal matrix in urethral reconstruction

The management of severe urethral stricture has always posed a formidable challenge. Traditional approaches such as skin flaps, mucosal grafts, and urethroplasty may not be suitable for lengthy and intricate strictures. In the past two decades, tissue engineering solutions utilizing acellular dermal matrix have emerged as potential alternatives. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a non-immunogenic biological collagen scaffold that has demonstrated its ability to induce layer-by-layer tissue regeneration. The application of ADM in urethral reconstruction through tissue engineering has become a practical endeavor. This article provides an overview of the preparation, characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of ADM along with its utilization in urethral reconstruction via tissue engineering.

National Trends in Acellular Dermal Matrix Utilization in Immediate Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction is the most common method of immediate breast reconstruction in the United States, with acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) playing a significant role in implant support and coverage. This study evaluated recent national trends in ADM use in immediate breast reconstruction and assessed patient characteristics and 30-day complication rates.

METHODS

The authors queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for all patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction from 2015 to 2020. Primary outcomes were major surgical and medical complications, as well as ADM use per year. Subset analysis was performed to compare patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction with ADM in 2015 versus 2020.

RESULTS

In 39,800 immediate breast reconstructions, ADMs were used in 55.5% of cases ( n = 22,087). ADM usage increased annually from 2015 through 2020. Direct-to-implant reconstruction was significantly associated with ADM use ( P < 0.001). Compared with the no-ADM cohort, there was a significantly increased rate of return to the operating room for any reason ( P < 0.001). When comparing the 2015 and 2020 ADM cohorts, the 2020 ADM cohort had a significantly higher rate of superficial infections. Obesity, smoking history, and insulin-dependent diabetes were independent risk factors for superficial wounds in patients receiving ADM.

CONCLUSIONS

ADM use in immediate breast reconstruction increased significantly from 2015 to 2020, likely reflecting national trends in increasing direct-to-implant and prepectoral breast reconstruction. Obesity, smoking history, and insulin-dependent diabetes were independent risk factors for superficial wound infections in the ADM cohort. Patients with ADM had a slight increased incidence of return to the operating room.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, II.

A prospective randomized clinical trial to assess antibiotic pocket irrigation on tissue expander breast reconstruction

Bacterial infection is the most common complication following staged post-mastectomy breast reconstruction initiated with a tissue expander (TE). To limit bacterial infection, antibiotic irrigation of the surgical site is commonly performed despite little high-quality data to support this practice. We performed a prospective randomized control trial to compare the impact of saline irrigation alone to a triple antibiotic irrigation regimen (1 g cefazolin, 80 mg gentamicin, and 50,000 units of bacitracin in 500 mL of saline) for breast implant surgery. The microbiome in breasts with cancer (n = 16) was compared to those without (n = 16), as all patients (n = 16) had unilateral cancers but bilateral mastectomies (n = 32). Biologic and prosthetic specimens procured both at the time of mastectomy and during TE removal months later were analyzed for longitudinal comparison. Outcomes included clinical infection, bacterial abundance, and relative microbiome composition. No patient in either group suffered a reconstructive failure or developed an infection. Triple antibiotic irrigation administered at the time of immediate TE reconstruction did not reduce bacterial abundance or impact microbial diversity relative to saline irrigation at the time of planned exchange. Implanted prosthetic material adopted the microbial composition of the surrounding host tissue. In cancer-naïve breasts, relative to saline, antibiotic irrigation increased bacterial abundance on periprosthetic capsules (P = 0.03) and acellular dermal matrices (P = 0.04) and altered the microbiota on both. These data show that, relative to saline only, the use of triple antibiotic irrigation in TE breast reconstruction does impact the bacterial abundance and diversity of certain biomaterials from cancer-naïve breasts. IMPORTANCE The lifetime risk of breast cancer is ~13% in women and is treated with a mastectomy in ~50% of cases. The majority are reconstructed, usually starting with a tissue expander to help restore the volume for a subsequent permanent breast implant or the women's own tissues. The biopsychosocial benefits of breast reconstruction, though, can be tempered by a high complication rate of at least 7% but over 30% in some women. Bacterial infection is the most common complication, and can lead to treatment delays, patient physical and emotional distress and escalating health care cost. To limit this risk, plastic surgeons have tried a variety of strategies to limit bacterial infection including irrigating the pocket created after removing the breast implant with antibiotic solutions, but good-quality data are scarce. Herein, we study the value of antibiotics in pocket irrigation using a robust randomized clinical trial design and molecular microbiology approaches.

Clinical Outcomes of Acellular Dermal Matrix (SimpliDerm and AlloDerm Ready-to-Use) in Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Background

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for post-mastectomy reconstruction is considered by many surgeons to be an accepted component of surgical technique. Early clinical experience is described for SimpliDerm® - a novel human ADM (Aziyo Biologics, Silver Spring, USA), and AlloDerm® Ready-To-Use (RTU) - an established ADM (Allergan Medical, Irvine, USA).

Methods

Records were retrospectively reviewed from four sites between 2016 and 2021 of patients who underwent immediate, two-stage reconstruction with either SimpliDerm (n=38) or AlloDerm RTU (n=69) after mastectomy and were followed out to exchange to permanent implant(s), tissue expander(s) explant, or death.

Results

Immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expanders and ADM was performed on 107 patients (181 breasts). Overall mean patient age was 51.4 ± 12.4 years, and mean BMI was 28.0 ± 5.8 kg/m². Significantly more patients in the SimpliDerm group were of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (34.2% vs. 7.2%; P<.001). Reconstructions were predominantly prepectoral (82.3%). A total of 35 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 27 (25.2%) patients, with no difference in AE type, classification, or rates between ADM groups. No AEs were considered related to either ADM. The observed AE profiles and rates are similar to those published for other ADMs in immediate breast reconstruction.

Conclusions

There continues to be a need for additional clinically equivalent ADMs to provide physicians with more availability and options for their practice. This retrospective, multisite study describes comparable clinical outcomes with SimpliDerm and AlloDerm RTU through a median of 133.5 days (~four months) following immediate two-stage breast reconstruction.

From Salvage to Prevention: A Single-Surgeon Experience with Acellular Dermal Matrix and Infection in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Increasing amounts of acellular dermal matrix are being used with the adoption of prepectoral breast reconstruction. Postoperative infection remains a challenge in breast reconstruction, and the contribution of acellular dermal matrix type, processing, and sterility assurance level to risk of complications in prepectoral reconstruction is not well studied.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction from February of 2017 to July of 2020. Because of an increase in the rate of infection, the drain protocol was changed and acellular dermal matrix type was switched from AlloDerm (sterility assurance level, 10-3) to DermACELL (sterility assurance level, 10-6) in January of 2019. Demographic and surgical variables were collected, in addition to details regarding development and management of infection.

RESULTS

Despite higher rates of direct-to-implant reconstruction and bilateral procedures and increased implant volumes, the rate of infection was significantly lower in patients who received DermACELL instead of AlloDerm [two of 38 (5.3 percent) versus 11 of 41 (26.8 percent); p = 0.014]. Drain duration was slightly longer in the DermACELL group, consistent with the change in drain protocol. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics remained similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With increased reliance on large amounts of acellular dermal matrix for prepectoral breast reconstruction, it directly follows that the properties of acellular dermal matrix with respect to incorporation, sterility, and implant support are that much more important to consider. There have been few studies comparing different types of acellular dermal matrix in prepectoral breast reconstruction, and further research is required to determine the contribution of acellular dermal matrix type and processing techniques to development of postoperative infection.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Alloderm-RTU with DermACELL in Immediate Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Background: The effectiveness of different acellular dermal matrices (ADM) used for implant-based reconstruction immediately following mastectomy is an important clinical question. A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed to evaluate the superiority of DermACELL over Alloderm-RTU in reducing drain duration. Methods: Patients undergoing mastectomy with subpectoral immediate and permanent implant-based breast reconstruction were randomized to Alloderm-RTU or DermACELL. The primary outcome was seroma formation, measured by the duration of postoperative drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: post drain removal seroma aspiration, infection, redbreast syndrome, wound dehiscence, loss of the implant, and unplanned return to the operating room. Results: 62 patients were randomized for 81 mastectomies (41 Alloderm-RTU, 40 DermACELL). Baseline characteristics were similar. There was no statistically significant difference in mean drain duration (p = 0.16), with a trend towards longer duration in the Alloderm-RTU group (1.6 days; 95%CI, 0.7 to 3.9). The overall rate of minor and major complications were statistically similar between the two groups; although patients with Alloderm-RTU had 3 times as many infections requiring antibiotics (7.9% vs. 2.5%) with a risk difference of 5.4 (95%CI −4.5 to 15.2), and twice as many unplanned returns to the operating room (15.8% vs. 7.5%) with a risk difference of 8.3 (95% CI −5.9 to 22.5) as DermACELL. Conclusion: This is the first prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the two most commonly used human-derived ADMs. There was no statistically significant difference in drain duration, minor, or major complications between DermACELL over Alloderm-RTU in immediate subpectoral permanent implant-based breast reconstruction post-mastectomy.

Surgical Outcomes in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has reemerged as a popular option for prosthetic-based breast reconstruction. Recent published literature highlights good outcomes; however, techniques are evolving and options exist for different technologies. The aim of this study is to evaluate short-term complication rates of prepectoral reconstructions using Cortiva acellular dermal matrix.

Methods:

A multicenter retrospective study was conducted of all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate direct-to-implant or 2-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with Cortiva (RTI Surgical, Alachua, Fla.) between January 2016 and September 2018. The incidence of surgical complications was determined and studied against patient demographics and procedural details.

Results:

One-hundred eighteen patients met the inclusion criteria for a total of 183 individual breasts reconstructed with prepectoral implant. Average length of follow-up was 9.26 months (range, 1.0 month to 2.5 years). Thirty-two breasts (17.49%) experienced 1 or more complications. Prepectoral reconstruction was successful 89.07% of the time. Infection was the most common cause of both reoperation and implant failure, with 7.65% of all breasts requiring washout and 5.46% failing prosthetic reconstruction secondary to infection.

Conclusions:

Surgical outcomes for prepectoral breast reconstruction using 2-stage and direct-to-implant are similar and comparable to the literature for dual-plane reconstruction, with infection being the main cause of failure.

Challenges and Solutions for the Implementation of Shared Decision-making in Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Patient-centered care is a hallmark of quality in healthcare. It is defined as care that is respectful of, and responsive to, individual patient preferences, needs, and values, while ensuring patients are informed and engaged in the treatment decision-making process.

Methods:

We reviewed the literature and drew upon our own experiences to study the implementation of tools intended to facilitate shared decision-making in breast reconstruction.

Results:

For women with breast cancer, decision-making about breast reconstruction is often a challenging and perplexing process. The variety of choices available regarding timing and type of reconstruction and the unique individual patient and clinical treatment variables to consider can further complicate decisions. Accordingly, strategies to facilitate the decision-making process and enable patients and clinicians to make high-quality decisions about breast reconstruction are an essential component of comprehensive breast cancer care. Shared decision making is one proposed model to support informed and preference-sensitive decision-making in line with the principles of patient-centered care. Despite an emerging level of interest in shared decision making, there remains a lack of clarity regarding what the process involves and how to effectively implement it into clinical practice.

Conclusions:

Thus, widespread adoption of shared decision making remains lacking in clinical practice for women considering postmastectomy breast reconstruction. To address these gaps, this article reviews the principles of shared decision making, explores ways shared decision making can be utilized for patients who are candidates for breast reconstruction, and provides a practical overview to facilitate implementation of shared decision making into clinical practice.