DermACELL Acellular Dermal Matrix in Oncologic Breast Reconstruction: A Cohort Study and Systematic Review

Red Breast Syndrome-Where Has It Gone?: A Systematic Review of Red Breast Syndrome Incidence Overtime

BACKGROUND

Red breast syndrome (RBS) has been noted in past literature as a possible complication of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) with the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs). Since its first appearance in 2009, RBS has drawn growing medical attention with reported incidence ranging from 7%-9%. There has been a noted decrease in the emergence of RBS despite its inclusion among the analyzed complications in a number of studies. This systematic review aims to evaluate the trend in reported RBS incidence over time and appropriately determine an accurate incidence of RBS from reported literature since the emergence of the phenomena.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed in July 2023 that analyzed the incidence of RBS among retrospective cohort studies on complication rates of IBBR with ADM. Patient demographics, RBS incidence rates, and all-cause complications were captured. The review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria was used to assess study quality.

RESULTS

From 2009 to 2023, a total of 48 studies (n = 6251) met inclusion criteria of which 35 studies from 2017 to 2023 were not already included in a prior systematic review (n = 5246). The mean incidence of RBS in the unreported studies was 2.88% with a weighted mean of 3.22%. Analysis of the trend in RBS over time shows an increasing reported incidence rate from 2009 with a peak in incidence between 2016 and 2017, followed by a steady decline through 2022. Twenty-six of the studies were published from 2016 to 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of RBS among prior studies and systematic reviews has fluctuated significantly since its initial emergence in 2009. Reported incidence rates have been on the decline since 2018 with a true weighted incidence of 3.22% from analysis of recent reported studies. Potential causes for the decline in incidence include practice changes in ADM preparation, changes in the ADM brand used for IBBR, and improved categorization of RBS compared to cellulitis/infection. Despite more robust criteria for diagnosis, no consensus for management has yet been established.

A comparison of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) efficacy and complication profile in women undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer amongst women in the United Kingdom, with implant-based reconstruction (IBR) using Acellular Dermal Matrices (ADM) gaining popularity for post-mastectomy procedures. This study compares outcomes of different ADMs that are commonly used in women undergoing IBR, this was short and long-term complications.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CDSR databases was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines, focusing on women undergoing IBR with FlexHD, AlloDerm, Bovine, or Porcine ADMs. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 51 studies were captured by the search, of which 27 were included in the network meta-analysis. Alloderm was the most used ADM (54%), followed by Porcine (17%), Bovine (11%), DermAcell (11%), and FlexHD (7%). The mean follow-up was 27.8 months. The complication rates varied. Porcine ADMs had the highest rate of seroma formation (10.3%) and of haematoma formation (2.7%). AlloDerm FD had the highest rate of wound dehiscence (3.1%). Implant failure was highest in AlloDerm FD ADMs (11.8%), followed by Porcine ADMs (11.2%). Infections were most common in Porcine (11.2%) and AlloDerm FD ADMs (11.0%). Capsular contracture was rare across all ADM types, with no significant differences observed. In the NMA, AlloDerm FD showed significantly higher risks of infection, explantation, and wound dehiscence compared to AlloDerm RTU.

CONCLUSION

The overall complication profiles of ADMs used in IBR are similar, except for the higher risks associated with AlloDerm FD compared to RTU. These findings suggest that the choice of ADM may not significantly impact overall outcomes, except in specific cases like AlloDerm FD. Further high-quality, long-term, double-arm studies are necessary to confirm comparative profile of specific ADM types and to account for potential confounding variables through multivariable regression analysis.

Prepectoral versus Submuscular Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Comparison of Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common reconstructive approach after mastectomy. Prepectoral implants offer advantages over submuscular implants, such as less animation deformity, pain, weakness, and postradiation capsular contracture. However, clinical outcomes after prepectoral reconstruction are debated. The authors performed a matched-cohort analysis of outcomes after prepectoral and submuscular reconstruction at a large academic medical center.

METHODS

Patients treated with implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy from January of 2018 through October of 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were propensity score exact matched to control demographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative differences. Outcomes assessed included surgical-site occurrences, capsular contracture, and explantation of either expander or implant. Subanalysis was done on infections and secondary reconstructions.

RESULTS

A total of 634 breasts were included (prepectoral, 197; submuscular, 437). A total of 292 breasts were matched (146 prepectoral:146 submuscular) and analyzed for clinical outcomes. Prepectoral reconstructions were associated with greater rates of SSI (prepectoral, 15.8%; submuscular, 3.4%; P < 0.001), seroma (prepectoral, 26.0%; submuscular, 10.3%; P < 0.001), and explantation (prepectoral, 23.3%; submuscular, 4.8%; P < 0.001). Subanalysis of infections revealed that prepectoral implants have shorter time to infection, deeper infections, and more Gram-negative infections, and are more often treated surgically (all P < 0.05). There have been no failures of secondary reconstructions after explantation in the entire population at a mean follow-up of 20.1 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is associated with higher rates of infection, seroma, and explantation compared with submuscular reconstructions. Infections of prepectoral implants may need different antibiotic management to avoid explantation. Secondary reconstruction after explantation can result in long-term success.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.