Textured versus Smooth Tissue Expanders: A Comparison of Complications in 3526 Breast Reconstructions

Smooth Operator: Nanotextured Breast Tissue Expanders Are Associated with Lower Rates of Capsular Contracture

Background: Continuous research on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) has introduced a focus on surface texturizations and a shift towards smooth breast devices, yet outcomes comparing the complication profiles of differently textured tissue expanders (TEs) remain conflicting. The study aim was to compare the complication profile of a new nanotextured and MRI-compatible TE to micro- and macrotextured TEs and to identify possible predictors for complications. Methods: A retrospective analysis of women undergoing expander-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy between January 2016 and March 2022 was conducted. The primary endpoint was the development of capsular contracture. Possible predictors were analyzed in a mixed-effects model using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). Moreover, a comparison of complications and an evaluation of predictors were carried out. Results: A total of 147 breasts, encompassing 82 nanotextured, 43 microtextured and 22 macrotextured TEs, were analyzed. Breasts with nanotextured TEs were less likely to develop capsular contracture overall (OR, 0.12; 95%CI 0.05-0.28, p < 0.001). Post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) was identified as a predictor for capsular contracture (OR, 4.67; 95%CI 1.86-11.71, p < 0.001). Breasts with nanotextured TEs showed a higher rate of seroma, but lower rates of malposition and pain. Predictors for developing postoperative complications included higher mastectomy weight (p = 0.008). Conclusions: Breasts with nanotextured TEs exhibited the lowest rate of capsular contracture compared to micro- and macrotextured TEs. Together with its MRI-compatibility and improved oncologic follow-up, the nanotextured TE seems to be a favorable device for expander-based breast reconstruction.

Safety Profile Comparison of 2 Smooth Tissue Expander Types: Artoura and CPX4

INTRODUCTION

With the recent transition to smooth tissue expanders (TEs), functional differences between TE subtypes have not been fully elucidated. This study evaluated the differences in TE characteristics and complications between 2 commonly used Mentor smooth TE models, Artoura and CPX4.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who received either smooth Mentor Artoura or CPX4 TE from 2012 to 2022 was conducted. Demographic data, perioperative information, pain scores, TE variables, cancer characteristics, and complications were collected. A multivariate analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between TE subtype and complications while controlling for demographic, TE characteristics, radiation, and chemotherapy exposure.

RESULTS

During the study period, 62 smooth Artoura TEs and 79 smooth CPX4 TEs were used. Patients who received CPX4 smooth implants tended to be older (51.09 vs 46.18 years old, P = 0.02) and have a higher body mass index (28.66 vs 23.50 kg/m 2 , P < 0.001). There were no differences among patient comorbidities. CPX4 required on average a greater total fill volume (422.23 vs 348.07 mL, P = 0.01) and had a greater drain duration (16.91 vs 14.33 days, P = 0.05). There were no differences in TE plane placement between Artoura and CPX4. Additionally, there were no differences in complication rates, including infection, hematomas, seromas, wound breakdown, TE replacement, and capsular contracture. When controlling for body mass index, diabetes, TE plane placement, acellular dermal matrix use, radiation exposure, and chemotherapy, there was no association between TE subtype and any individual complication.

DISCUSSION

Differences in total fill volume and drain duration were significantly different between Mentor Artoura and CPX4 implants, which may influence TE subtype selection. However, Artoura and CPX4 have excellent and equivalent safety profiles with similar complication rates, even when controlling for demographic and TE characteristics.

The current use of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction: device design, features, and technical considerations

INTRODUCTION

The use of tissue expanders (TE) in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction is a widely accepted practice, especially in patients desiring implant-based breast reconstruction. It has become the standard of care to perform a two-staged breast reconstruction using tissue expanders for the past 50 years due to its reliability, safety, cost-effectiveness, and versatility. Due to its popularity, there are numerous types and features of breast tissue expanders and various surgical approaches available for plastic surgeons.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we will review the role of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction, the types and features of breast tissue expanders, and technical considerations.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction offers significant advantages of preserving the breast skin envelope and reestablishing the breast mound. With evolving approaches to breast reconstruction, tissue expander design, and application underwent several refinements and modifications. Due to these advances, studies on its long-term efficacy and safety profile typically fall behind and more studies with higher levels of evidence are needed to better evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of tissue expanders. With increased understanding, reconstructive surgeons can minimize complications and maximize reconstructive, aesthetic outcomes with high patient satisfaction.