Results of XPAND II: A Multicenter, Prospective, Continued-Access Clinical Trial Using the AeroForm Tissue Expander for Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction

Air Versus Saline in Tissue Expanders: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

 There has been a greater focus in recent literature proposing air to be a superior medium to saline in tissue expanders. This study aims to review the literature and assess the quality of data on the efficacy and safety of air as an alternative medium to saline in tissue expanders, in the setting of postmastectomy two-stage reconstruction.

METHODS

 A systematic review regarding air inflation of tissue expanders was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The methods followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Three reviewers separately performed data extraction and comprehensive synthesis.

RESULTS

 A total of 427 articles were identified in our search query, of which 11 met the inclusion criteria. Three pertained to inflation with room air, and eight pertained to inflation with CO2 using the AeroForm device. They were comparable to decreased overall complication rates in the room air/CO2 cohort compared to saline, although statistical significance was only observed in one of five two-arm studies. Investigating specific complications in the five two-arm studies, significantly lower rates of skin flap necrosis were only observed in two CO2-based studies. Studies rarely discussed other safety profile concerns, such as the impacts of air travel, radiation planning, and air extravasation beyond descriptions of select patients within the cohort.

CONCLUSION

 There is insufficient evidence to suggest improved outcomes with room air inflation of tissue expanders. Further work is needed to fully characterize the benefits and safety profiles of air insufflation before being adopted into clinical practice.

Predictors for Prolonged TE-to-Implant Exchange During Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Single Institution Experience

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence regarding the factors causing a prolonged time for tissue expander (TE) exchange into a definitive implant using two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). This study aimed to review our experience with IBBR, focusing on the time for TE-to-implant exchange and determining which factors cause a prolonged time for exchange.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed to include women undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR with TEs after total mastectomy between January 2011 and May 2021. Reconstructions with irradiated TEs were excluded. Cases that had a prolonged time for TE-to-implant exchange were defined as those undergoing exchange longer than 232 days, which corresponds to the 75th percentile of the overall study group.

RESULTS

We included 442 reconstructions in our analysis. The median age for our series was 51 years and the median body mass index was 26.43-kg/m2. The median time for TE-to-implant exchange was 155 days [IQR, 107-232]. Cases that had a prolonged time for TE-to-implant exchange were defined as those undergoing exchange on postoperative day 232 or afterward. Diabetes (OR 4.05, p = 0.006), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 2.76, p = 0.006), an increased length of stay (OR 1.54, p = 0.013), and a lengthier time to complete outpatient expansions (OR 1.018, p < 0.001) were independently associated with a prolonged time for exchange.

CONCLUSION

As evident from our analysis, the time for exchange is highly heterogeneous among patients. Although several factors affect the timing for TE-to-implant exchange, efforts must be directed to finalize outpatient expansions as soon as possible to expedite the transition into a definitive implant.

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 .

Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction With Gas vs Saline Tissue Expanders: Does the Fill Type Matter?

The most common reconstruction technique following mastectomy is a 2-stage technique that involves tissue expansion followed by definitive implant-based reconstruction (IBR). Tissue expanders (TEs) have classically used saline for initial fill; however, TEs with an initial gas fill (GTE)-including the CO2-based AeroForm (AirXpanders, San Francisco, CA) TE and TEs initially filled with atmospheric air-have been increasingly used in the past decade. We aimed to compare the outcomes in breast reconstruction for tissue expanders initially filled with saline vs gas. PubMed was queried for studies comparing gas- and saline-filled tissue expanders (STEs) used in IBR. A meta-analysis was performed on major postoperative outcomes and the required expansion and definitive reconstruction time. Eleven studies were selected and included in the analysis. No significant differences existed between tissue expansion with GTEs vs STEs for 11 of the 13 postoperative outcomes investigated. Out of the complications investigated, only the risk of infection/cellulitis/abscess formation was significantly lower in the GTE cohort (odds ratio 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.82; P = .0009). The time to definitive reconstruction was also significantly lower in the GTE cohort (mean difference [MD], 45.85 days; 95% CI, -57.80 to -33.90; P < .00001). The total time to full expansion approached significance in the GTE cohort (MD, -20.33 days; 95% CI, -41.71 to 1.04; P = .06). A cost analysis considering TE cost and infection risk determined that GTE use saved a predicted $2055.34 in overall healthcare costs. Surgical outcomes for both fill types were predominantly similar; however, GTEs were associated with a significantly decreased risk of postoperative infection compared to saline-filled TEs. GTEs could also reduce healthcare expenditures and require less time until definitive reconstruction after placement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

The Impact of Aeroform Tissue Expanders on the Outcomes of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction can improve the quality of patients' lives by restoring the breasts' natural appearance. Saline-based tissue expanders are associated with significant drawbacks. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to reveal the usability, safety, and economic burden of AeroForm-based tissue expanders for breast reconstruction.

METHODS

An extensive systematic literature review was implemented from inception to 9 December 2021. All clinical studies that included women with breast cancer subjected to AeroForm-based tissue expansion for breast reconstruction were included in the study.

RESULTS

This systematic review included eleven articles consisting of 748 patients. There were 1220 reconstructed breasts in which 530 (43.44%) breasts were reconstructed using AeroForm devices. AeroForm-based tissue expanders were associated with shorter duration to complete breast expansion (MD-35.22; 95% -46.65, -23.78;P<0.001) and complete reconstruction (MD-30.511; 95% -54.659, -6.636;P=0.013). The overall satisfaction rate of the aesthetic results of the AeroForm expanders was 81.4% (95%CI; 60.3% to 92.6%,P=0.006) and 64.6% (95%CI; 53.8% to 74%,P=0.008) for patients and surgeons. Patients subjected to saline-based breast reconstruction were 1.17 times at high risk to develop breast-related adverse events (RR1.17; 95% 0.86, 1.58; P=0.31). This includes a high risk of mastectomy flap necrosis (RR1.91; 95% 1.03, 3.55;P=0.04) and post-operative wound infection (RR 1.63; 95% 0.91, 2.91;P=0.1).

CONCLUSION

AeroForm-based tissue expanders represent a new era of breast reconstruction. These devices provided an earlier transition to exchange for the permanent implant with a convenient and comfortable expansion process. This was associated with a high satisfaction rate for patients and surgeons.

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 .