Acellular Dermal Matrices in Primary Breast Reconstruction: Principles, Concepts, and Indications

Comparison of Different Acellular Dermal Matrix in Breast Reconstruction: A Skin-to-Skin Study

BACKGROUND

Since the early 2000s, acellular dermal matrix has been a popular adjunct to prepectoral breast reconstruction to enhance outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in the postoperative course of 2 standard acellular dermal matrix products, AlloDerm SELECT Ready To Use and DermACELL.

METHODS

A prospective, patient-blind study of patients undergoing bilateral nipple and/or skin-sparing mastectomies with either tissue expander or silicone implant insertion between 2019 and 2022 were selected for this study. The study design used patients as their own controls between 2 products randomly assigned to the left or right breast. Outcomes between the products included average time for drain removal, infection rate, seroma rate, and incorporation rates.

RESULTS

The prospective clinical data of 55 patients (110 breasts) were recorded for 90 days. There were no significant differences between drain removal time, average drain output, or seroma aspiration amount. A higher percentage of seromas was recorded in the breasts with AlloDerm (30.91%) compared with breasts containing DermACELL (14.55%, P < .05), and a statistically significant difference between the incorporation rates of AlloDerm (93.4%) and DermACELL (99.8%, P < .05) was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of patient demographic disparities, both products had a 94.55% success rate for reconstruction outcomes. AlloDerm was determined to have a higher incidence of seromas as a postoperative complication and a trend to lower incorporation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Breast Reconstruction using the Anterior Approach Scarless Latissimus Dorsi Muscular flap: A Single Center Retrospective Study

Introduction

Scarless latissimus dorsi (LD) flap is a breast reconstruction technique, which allow to cover the lower pole of implant with a large portion of the LD muscle without skin paddle; it represents a surgical solution that transpose vascularized tissue avoiding the failure of breast reconstruction, following necrosis of mastectomy skin flaps.

Material and Method

A retrospective review of patients undergoing immediate or delayed breast reconstruction using scarless LD flap reconstructions was performed. Clinical data obtained from follow-up visits were recorded. To evaluate breast shape contentment and patient satisfaction, the patients were requested to answer the Breast-Q, version 2.0 reduction module postoperative scales questionnaire at the 12-month follow-up.

Results

We performed 19 scarless LD flap reconstructions between September 2019 and June 2022. The surgical time in average (considering minutes ± SD) was 130 (±15) minutes. The aesthetic assessment was good/excellent in 83% of patients. This was statistically significant (P=0.0).

Conclusions

The scarless LD flap reconstruction is a valid and reliable solution, which has the advantage to reduce the risk of exposed prosthesis if native skin necrosis occurs.

Early Complications after Prepectoral Tissue Expander Placement in Breast Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has become popularized with the concurrent use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). The authors sought to compare 3-month postoperative complication rates and explantation rates for first-stage, tissue-expander-based, prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without the use of ADM.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective chart review was performed to identify consecutive patients undergoing prepectoral tissue-expander-based breast reconstruction from August of 2020 to January of 2022. Chi-square tests were used to compare demographic categorical variables, and multiple variable regression models were used to identify variables associated with 3-month postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The authors enrolled 124 consecutive patients. Fifty-five patients (98 breasts) were included in the no-ADM cohort and 69 patients (98 breasts) were included in the ADM cohort. There were no statistically significant differences between the ADM and no-ADM cohorts with regard to 90-day postoperative outcomes. On multivariable analysis, there were no independent associations between seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, mastectomy skin flap necrosis, infection, unplanned return to the operating room, or explantation in the ADM and no-ADM groups after controlling for age, body mass index, history of diabetes, tobacco use, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and postoperative radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' results reveal no significant differences in odds of postoperative complications, unplanned return to the operating room, or explantation between the ADM and no-ADM cohorts. More studies are needed to evaluate the safety of prepectoral, tissue expander placement without ADM.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Improvement in Biocompatibility and Biointegration of Human Acellular Dermal Matrix through Vacuum Plasma Surface Treatment

Efforts are ongoing to enhance the functionality of human acellular dermal matrices (hADMs), which are extensively utilized in reconstructive surgeries. Among these efforts, plasma treatments, particularly vacuum plasma treatments, have recently emerged in the medical field. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of a vacuum plasma treatment in enhancing the biocompatibility and biointegration of hADMs. Utilizing a plasma activator (ACTILINK reborn, Plasmapp Co., Ltd., Daejeon, Republic of Korea), hADMs were treated and evaluated through in vitro and in vivo analyses. Hydrophilicity changes were gauged by the blood absorption times, while SEM imaging was used to analyze physical surface deformation. Protein adsorption was measured with fluorescently labeled bovine serum albumin and fibronectin. For the in vivo study, mice were implanted with plasma-treated and untreated hADMs, and the post-implantation effects were analyzed through histological and immunofluorescence microscopy. The plasma-treated hADMs demonstrated a significantly enhanced hydrophilicity compared to the untreated samples. SEM imaging confirmed the maintenance of the microroughness after the treatment. The treated hADMs showed a significant reduction in fibronectin adsorption, a critical factor for cellular adhesion. In vivo, the plasma-treated hADMs exhibited reduced capsule formation and enhanced fibroblast infiltration, indicating improved biocompatibility and integration. These findings highlight the potential of a plasma treatment to enhance the performance of hADMs in clinical settings, offering a promising avenue for improving reconstructive surgery outcomes.

Outcomes after tissue expander exchange to implant in two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix: A retrospective cohort study

As prepectoral implant placement becomes widely adopted, recent studies investigating the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) during tissue expander placement have demonstrated no major benefit with regard to postoperative outcomes. We sought to evaluate second-stage outcomes 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant with and without ADM. Consecutive patients who underwent prepectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction with and without ADM were identified. Patients were followed up for 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest including implant rippling, capsular contracture, implant explantation, additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported outcomes were collected and compared. Sixty-eight breasts in the ADM cohort and sixty-one breasts in the no ADM cohort underwent tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest were similar between the ADM and no ADM cohorts with no statistically significant differences identified regarding incidences of implant rippling (24.6% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.08), capsular contracture (4.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 1.00), and explantation (6.6% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.67) between the two cohorts. BREAST-Q scores were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of physical wellbeing and satisfaction in terms of implant rippling, as can be seen, which improved in the no ADM cohort (p = 0.04). Our study reports no major benefit for the inclusion of ADM with respect to implant rippling, capsular contracture, explantation, need for additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported satisfaction in prepectoral second-stage implant-based breast reconstruction.

Breast Reconstruction following Mastectomy for Breast Cancer or Prophylactic Mastectomy: Therapeutic Options and Results

(1) Importance of problem: Breast cancer accounted for 685,000 deaths globally in 2020, and half of all cases occur in women with no specific risk factor besides gender and age group. During the last four decades, we have seen a 40% reduction in age-standardized breast cancer mortality and have also witnessed a reduction in the medium age at diagnosis, which in turn means that the number of mastectomies performed for younger women increased, raising the need for adequate breast reconstructive surgery. Advances in oncological treatment have made it possible to limit the extent of what represents radical surgery for breast cancer, yet in the past decade, we have seen a marked trend toward mastectomies in breast-conserving surgery-eligible patients. Prophylactic mastectomies have also registered an upward trend. This trend together with new uses for breast reconstruction like chest feminization in transgender patients has increased the need for breast reconstruction surgery. (2) Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze the types of reconstructive procedures, their indications, their limitations, their functional results, and their safety profiles when used during the integrated treatment plan of the oncologic patient. (3) Methods: We conducted an extensive literature review of the main reconstructive techniques, especially the autologous procedures; summarized the findings; and presented a few cases from our own experience for exemplification of the usage of breast reconstruction in oncologic patients. (4) Conclusions: Breast reconstruction has become a necessary step in the treatment of most breast cancers, and many reconstructive techniques are now routinely practiced. Microsurgical techniques are considered the "gold standard", but they are not accessible to all services, from a technical or financial point of view, so pediculated flaps remain the safe and reliable option, along with alloplastic procedures, to improve the quality of life of these patients.

In Vivo Efficacy of an Injectable Human Acellular Dermal Matrix

BACKGROUND

Human acellular dermal matrix (hADM) has found applications in a variety of settings, particularly in breast surgery. The most common hADM is a sheet. Recently, an injectable hADM has been introduced; we compared the biocompatibility and long-term structural integrity of, an injectable hADM and a sheet-type hADM in mice.

METHODS

An injectable hADM (experimental group) and a sheet-type hADM (control group) were implanted into sub-panniculus pockets on the backs of 50 mice. The animals were sacrificed 2, 4, 8, 12, or 24 weeks later and the hADMs and surrounding tissues were recovered and stained for histopathological analyses. The microscopic endpoints included the thickness of the hADM and capsule around the hADM, and the extents of fibroblast proliferation and neovascularization.

RESULTS

No animal developed a complication or infection. The capsule was significantly thinner in the experimental than the control group. There were no significant differences between groups in the hADM thickness. Microscopically, the fibroblast density inside the hADM was significantly higher in the experimental group. The fibroblasts inside of the hADM lay significantly deeper in the experimental group. Similarly, the experimental group exhibited significantly deeper microvessels inside the hADM.

CONCLUSIONS

The injectable hADM had a thinner capsule thickness (more biocompatible), than the sheet-type hADM. It maintained its thickness as well as the sheet-type hADM and had a more fibroblast proliferation and neovascularization. This means the tissue incorporation and long-term structural integrity of the injectable hADM may be as good as or better than that of the sheet-type hADM.

NO LEVEL ASSIGNED

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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 .

Early Seroma Treatment Protocol Based on US-Guided Aspiration in DTI Prepectoral Reconstruction: A Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Seroma is a common complication after prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction with ADM, leading to wound dehiscencse, infection, and even loss of reconstruction at last. A new ultrasound (US) guided follow-up protocol has been applied to compare primary and secondary complications incidence and their treatment, and evaluate the effect of precocious seroma detection and its evacuation in reducing secondary complications.

METHODS

We enrolled 406 patients from January 1st, 2021 to July 1st, 2023 who underwent mastectomy and 1-stage prepectoral reconstruction with ADM. Experimental group counted 96 patients, whom have been treated as protocol fashion, therefore with multiple US-guided evaluations and eventual evacuations along with postoperative period; control group (310 patients) has exclusively been clinically evaluated.

RESULTS

Seroma incidence detected rate among experimental group, after 1-year follow-up, was 32.2%, compared to 16.8% in control cohort, additionally no other secondary complications were detected in the first group. Referring to the wound dehiscence incidence, a statistically significant higher frequency was observed in control group compared with treatment 1 (21.2% vs. 0%; P = .0027).

CONCLUSIONS

Seroma and correlated secondary complications may lead to additional surgeries, higher sanitary costs and even reconstructive failure. With a seriated US follow-up protocol application, the surgeon could promptly manage and treat seroma, decreasing additional complications rate, particularly wound dehiscence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Comparative clinical outcomes of using three-dimensional and TIGR mesh in immediate breast reconstruction surgery for breast cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Breast reconstruction (BR) surgery is a widely utilized approach for women who have undergone mastectomy. Using synthetic mesh can offer advantages over other materials providing long-lasting support and natural-looking results. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of 3DMax™ mesh to TIGR mesh in BR surgery, providing clear information about the non-inferiority of 3DMax™ mesh to TIGR.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluates postoperative complications in breast cancer patients who underwent subcutaneous mastectomy with direct-to-implant immediate BR using silicone implants and either 3DMax™ mesh or TIGR® Matrix Surgical Mesh.

RESULTS

This study involved BR surgeries in 82 patients, including 57 surgeries in the 3D mesh group and 49 in the TIGR mesh group. The two groups had no significant differences regarding age, body mass index (BMI), cancer stage, or surgical complications. However, patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy had higher incidence rates of long-term complications than other patients. Patients with infection or partial necrosis had a heightened risk of implant loss.

CONCLUSION

The clinical results obtained in this study suggest that among synthetic meshes used in immediate BR, 3DMax™ is not inferior to TIGR Matrix Surgical Mesh regarding complications.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Reconstruction: How Do We Choose?

Aspects of a patient's lifestyle, their state of health, breast size, and mastectomy skin flap quality are factors that influence the suggested plane of dissection in implant-based breast reconstruction. This article aims to review developments in prosthetic breast reconstruction and provide recommendations to help providers choose whether prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction in the best approach for each of their patients.

Impact of Obesity on Outcomes of Prepectoral vs Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The impact of obesity on outcomes of prepectoral vs subpectoral implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is not well-established.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to assess the surgical and patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral vs subpectoral IBR. The authors hypothesized that obese patients would have similar outcomes regardless of device plane.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of obese patients who underwent 2-stage IBR from January 2017 to December 2019. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of any breast-related complication; the secondary endpoint was device explantation.

RESULTS

The authors identified a total of 284 reconstructions (184 prepectoral, 100 subpectoral) in 209 patients. Subpectoral reconstruction demonstrated higher rates of overall complications (50% vs 37%, P = .047) and device explantation (25% vs 12.5%, P = .008) than prepectoral reconstruction. In multivariable regression, subpectoral reconstruction was associated with higher risk of infection (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65; P = .022) and device explantation (HR, 1.97; P = .034). Subgroup analyses demonstrated significantly higher rates of complications and explantation in the subpectoral group in those with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35 and BMI ≥40. The authors found no significant differences in mean scores for satisfaction with the breast (41.57 ± 13.19 vs 45.50 ± 11.91, P = .469), psychosocial well-being (39.43 ± 11.23 vs 39.30 ± 12.49, P = .915), and sexual well-being (17.17 ± 7.83 vs 17.0 ± 9.03, P = .931) between subpectoral and prepectoral reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly decreased overall complications, infections, and device explantation in obese patients compared with subpectoral reconstruction. Prepectoral reconstruction provides superior outcomes to subpectoral reconstruction with comparable patient-reported outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Optimizing Acellular Dermal Matrix Integration in Heterologous Breast Reconstructive Surgery: Surgical Tips and Post-Operative Management

Background and Objective: Prepectoral implant placement in breast reconstruction is currently a must-have in the portfolios of breast surgeons. The introduction of new tools and conservative mastectomies is a game changer in this field. The prepectoral plane usually goes hand-in-hand with the ADM wrapping of the implant. It is a cell-free dermal matrix comprising a structurally integrated basement membrane complex and an extracellular matrix. The literature reports that ADMs may be useful, but proper patient selection, surgical placement, and post-operative management are essential to unlock the potential of this tool, as these factors contribute to the proper integration of the matrix with surrounding tissues. Materials and Methods: A total of 245 prepectoral breast reconstructions with prostheses or expanders and ADMs were performed in our institution between 2016 and 2022. A retrospective study was carried out to record patient characteristics, risk factors, surgical procedures, reconstructive processes, and complications. Based on our experience, we developed a meticulous reconstruction protocol in order to optimize surgical practice and lower complication rates. The DTI and two-stage reconstruction were compared. Results: Seroma formation was the most frequent early complication (less than 90 days after surgery) that we observed; however, the majority were drained in outpatient settings and healed rapidly. Secondary healing of wounds, which required a few more weeks of dressing, represented the second most frequent early complication (10.61%). Rippling was the most common late complication, particularly in DTI patients. After comparing the DTI and two-stage reconstruction, no statistically significant increase in complications was found. Conclusions: The weakness of prepectoral breast reconstruction is poor matrix integration, which leads to seroma and other complications. ADM acts like a graft; it requires firm and healthy tissues to set in. In order to do so, there are three key steps to follow: (1) adequate patient selection; (2) preservative and gentle handling of intra-operative technique; and (3) meticulous post-operative management.

Comparison of the Characteristics of Three Acellular Dermal Matrices Subjected to Distinct Processing Methods Using Five Types of Histochemical Staining

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is treated using various devitalization and aseptic processing methods. The processing effects on ADM were evaluated by histochemical tests.

METHODS

From January 2014 to December 2016, 18 patients [average age, 43.0 (range, 30-54) years] who underwent breast reconstruction with an ADM and tissue expander were prospectively enrolled. During the permanent implant replacement, a biopsy of the ADM was performed. We used three different human-derived products, namely, Alloderm®, Allomend®, and Megaderm®. Hematoxylin and eosin, CD68, CD3, CD31, and smooth muscle actin were used to evaluate the collagen structure, inflammation, angiogenesis, and myofibroblast infiltration. Each ADM was semi-quantitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

Significant differences in collagen degradation, acute inflammation, and myofibroblast infiltration were observed among the ADMs. Collagen degeneration (p<0.001) and myofibroblast infiltration (smooth muscle actin-positive, p=0.018; CD31-negative, p=0.765) were the most severe in Megaderm®. Acute inflammation, represented by CD68, was most severe in Alloderm® (p=0.024). Both radiation and freeze-drying treatment physically damaged the collagen structure. Collagen degeneration was most severe in Megaderm®, followed by Allomend® and Alloderm®. Since Alloderm® is treated using chemicals, an assessment of the chemical irritation is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

The biopsy results were inconclusive. Therefore, to better interpret processing, more large-scale, serial, histochemical studies of each ADM are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors 38 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 39 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 40 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 41 Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Should Acellular Dermal Matrices Be Used for Implant-based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy? Clinical Recommendation Based on the GRADE Approach

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) entered the market in the early 2000s and their use has increased thereafter. Several retrospective cohort studies and single surgeon series reported benefits with the use of ADMs. However, robust evidence supporting these advantages is lacking. There is the need to define the role for ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) after mastectomy.

Methods

A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints, and establish recommendation for the use of ADMs for subpectoral one-/two-stage IBBR (compared with no ADM use) for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: the panel members suggest subpectoral one- or two-stage IBBR either with ADMs or without ADMs for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction (with very low certainty of evidence).

Conclusions

The systematic review has revealed a very low certainty of evidence for most of the important outcomes in ADM-assisted IBBR and the absence of standard tools for evaluating clinical outcomes. Forty-five percent of panel members expressed a conditional recommendation either in favor of or against the use of ADMs in subpectoral one- or two-stages IBBR for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. Future subgroup analyses could help identify relevant clinical and pathological factors to select patients for whom one technique could be preferable to another.

Acellular cadaveric dermal matrix grafts for orbital wall reconstruction in patients with sinonasal malignancies

PURPOSE

To describe the utilization of acellular cadaveric dermal matrix (ACDM) in patients undergoing orbital wall reconstruction after orbital preservation surgery for sinonasal malignancy.

METHODS

Retrospective case series of seven patients with sinonasal malignancy who had orbital reconstruction with ACDM implants from January 2012 to August 2020. Orbital preservation was performed in all patients with tumor extension up to and including periorbital. The main outcome measures were implant exposure, orbital infection, diplopia in primary gaze, enophthalmos, and eyelid malposition.

RESULTS

Patients ranged 37-78 years old (median: 66 years) and included 4 females and 3 males. The median follow-up time was 9 months (range 6-43 months) from the date of surgery. Squamous cell carcinoma comprised the majority of tumors with all patients needing medial wall reconstruction. Three patients received postoperative radiation therapy. No patients had any implant exposure, orbital infection, enophthalmos, or eyelid malposition.

CONCLUSIONS

ACDM grafts can be used safely in orbital wall reconstruction in patients with sinonasal malignancies.

Braxon®-assisted prepectoral breast reconstruction: A decade later

We are sitting on the cusp of the bioengineered breast era, in which implant-based breast reconstruction is seeing a growing trend and biotechnology research progressively empowers clinical practice. As never before, the choice of biomaterials has acquired great importance for achieving reconstructive outcomes, and the increase in the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in the field of senology tells us a story of profound upheaval and progress. With the advent of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR), plenty of devices have been proposed to wrap the silicone prosthesis, either completely or partially. However, this has caused a great deal of confusion and dissent with regard to the adoption of feasible reconstructive strategies as well as the original scientific rationale underlying the prepectoral approach. Braxon^® is the very first device that made prepectoral implant positioning possible, wrapping around the prosthesis and exerting the proven ADM regenerative potential at the implant–tissue interface, taking advantage of the body's physiological healing mechanisms. To date, the Braxon^® method is among the most studied and practiced worldwide, and more than 50 publications confirm the superior performance of the device in the most varied clinical scenarios. However, a comprehensive record of the working of this pioneering device is still missing. Therefore, our aim with this review is to lay a structured knowledge of surgery with BRAXON^® and to provide a decision-making tool in the field of PPBR through a complete understanding on the very first device for prepectoral, one decade after its introduction.

Biological Cover Mitigates Disruption of the Dermal Structure in Mechanically Expanded Skin in a Porcine Model

Tissue expansion is an integral procedure of the vast majority of breast reconstruction and has a significant impact on the final clinical outcomes. Therefore, technological advances leading to a fewer number of unfavorable outcomes and a decrease in complication rates are imperative. In this study, using a porcine model, we investigated an effect of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) used as a tissue expander cover on the dermal changes induced by mechanical forces during tissue expansion. After 14 days of expansion, skin samples were collected from one animal, while the second animal underwent radiation, and tissue was collected 8 weeks later. Tissue expanded without the use of ADM and unexpanded skin served as the controls. Collected skin biopsies were used for histological and immunohistochemical evaluation, and for gene expression analysis. We revealed that the biological cover incorporation into host tissue is facilitated by macrophages without inducing a broad inflammatory response. The utilization of ADM mitigated disruption in the dermal structure, excessive collagen deposition, and capsule formation in non-irradiated expanded skin. The protective effect was not fully maintained in irradiated skin. These results demonstrate that tissue expansion might be improved by using the tissue expander cover.

Pre-Pectoral One-Stage Breast Reconstruction with Anterior Coverage Using Superior Anterior Biological Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) and Inferior Anterior Dermal Sling Support

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) implants has enhanced breast reconstruction. ADM is a biotechnologically designed human tissue of bovine or porcine origin in which tissue processing removes cellular antigens. In this case report, we describe the use of ADM in one-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction. Skin-reduction breast reconstruction with a prepectoral implant was performed. We created a combined dermal pocket using the inferior dermal flap, sutured with a patch of acellular dermal matrix to continue its extension until the upper pole, to cover the implant. This technique offers single-stage immediate reconstruction, with a decreased requirement for ADM and increased use of vascularized tissue and implant support. Additionally, in the pre-pectoral space, decreased pain postoperatively and less anatomic disruption is offered.

"Oncologic Safety of Staged Pre-Pectoral Implant Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: a Mean 9-Year Follow-Up."

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy has recently gained popularity as an alternative to total or partial submuscular reconstruction. In the absence of long-term follow-up, concerns have been raised over the oncologic safety of using mastectomy flaps that preserve the entire thickness of the subcutaneous fat and its circulation. In this article we present our average 9-year oncologic follow-up of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy and 2-stage prepectoral implant reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, a group of previously reported 151 consecutive breast cancer patients [246 breasts, (160 therapeutic, 86 preventative)] who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy and staged prepectoral implant reconstruction between 2005 and 2015 were followed up for an average of 109 months (range, 14 to 192 months). Tumor related data, oncologic markers, staging, neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy, and radiation therapy were evaluated to determine local recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival rates.

RESULTS

Local recurrence rate in 151 patients was 2.6 percent. Eleven patients (7.3 percent) died from metastatic disease and 3 patients from unrelated causes. The average 109-month overall survival rate was 92.9 percent and disease-free survival rate was 87.8 percent. Over the same period nine patients (6 percent) were alive with distant disease.

CONCLUSION

Our 9-year two-stage prepectoral reconstruction study of nipple-sparing mastectomy shows that the procedure is oncologically safe, having comparable recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival rates as total mastectomy.

Immunomodulation of Acellular Dermal Matrix Through Interleukin 4 Enhances Vascular Infiltration

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) supported implant-based reconstruction remains the most commonly performed mode of reconstruction after breast cancer. Acellular dermal matrix clinical usage has reported benefits but requires rapid and efficient vascular and cellular incorporation into the recipient to have the best outcomes. Orderly transition from M1 to M2 macrophage phenotypic profile, coordinated in part by interleukin 4 (IL-4), is an important component of vascular stabilization and remodeling. Using the ADM substrate as a delivery device for immunomodulation of macrophage phenotype holds the potential to improve integration.

METHODS

Interleukin 4 was adsorbed onto ADM samples and drug elution curves were measured. Next, experimental groups of 8 C57BL/6 mice had 5-mm ADM discs surgically placed in a dorsal window chamber with a vascularized skin flap on one side and a plastic cover slip on the other in a model of implant-based breast reconstruction. Group 1 consisted of IL-4 (5 μg) adsorbed into the ADM preoperatively and group 2 consisted of an untreated ADM control. Serial gross examinations were performed with histology at day 21 for markers of vascularization, mesenchymal cell infiltration, and macrophage lineage.

RESULTS

Drug elution curves showed sustained IL-4 release for 10 days after adsorption. Serial gross examination showed similar rates of superficial vascular investment of the ADM beginning at the periphery by day 14 and increasing through day 21. Interleukin-4 treatment led to significantly increased CD31 staining of vascular endothelial cells within the ADM over the control group (P < 0.05) at 21 days. Although vimentin staining did not indicate a significant increase in fibroblasts overall, IL-4 did result in a significant increase in expression of α-smooth muscle actin. The expression of macrophage phenotype markers Arginase1 and iNOS present within the ADM were not significantly affected by IL-4 treatment at the day 21 time point.

CONCLUSIONS

Acellular dermal matrix has the potential to be used for immunomodulatory cytokine delivery during the timeframe of healing. Using implanted ADM as a delivery vehicle to drive IL-4 mediated angiogenesis and vascular remodeling significantly enhanced vascularity within the ADM substrate.

Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix for Two-Staged Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: An Institutional Experience

The introduction of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to breast reconstruction has allowed surgeons to reexplore the prepectoral implant placement technique in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Our institution adopted a novel approach using meshed ADM to lessen the financial burden of increased ADM utilization with the prepectoral breast reconstruction. This is a retrospective, single-center review of two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction using meshed human-derived ADM for anterior prosthesis coverage. Patient demographics, oncologic data, perioperative characteristics, and complications were examined and reported as means with standard deviations. Cost-saving with the meshed technique was evaluated. Forty-eight patients (72 breasts) with a mean age of 48.5 ± 15.0 years (range 26–70 years) were included in the study. The mean follow-up time was 13.2 ± 4.4 months (range 4.1–25.8 months). Nineteen breasts (24.6%) experienced complications, with seromas being the most common complication (12.5%, n  = 9). Expander removal and reoperation occurred at a rate of 8.3 and 9.7%, respectively. The average time to drain removal was 18.8 ± 6.6 days (range 8–32 days). Meshed ADM provided an average cost savings of $6,601 for unilateral and $13,202 for bilateral reconstructions. Our study found that human-derived meshed ADM can be safely used in two-staged prepectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction and can result in significant cost savings.

Abnormal Ultrasonographic Findings of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Correlations with Histopathology

Background: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstruction can show various ultrasound (US) findings. However, there are limited reports on the US features of the ADM. The aims of this study were to evaluate US findings of the ADM in implant-based breast reconstruction and correlate them with histopathological findings. Methods: Between January 2015 and August 2020, 250 women who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction with ADM and a breast US examination at 6 months to 1 year after reconstruction were retrospectively analyzed. Abnormal US findings were classified as type 1 (focal thickening with decreased echogenicity), 2 (diffusely hyperechoic), or 3 (bright echogenic spots). ADM biopsy was performed in 33 patients who underwent second stage or revisional surgeries. Results: In total, 176 consecutive women with 207 US findings were analyzed. The US findings were normal in 52.2% of the women. The percentages of type 1, 2, and 3 patients were 13.5%, 11.1%, and 23. 2%, respectively. These patients had microscopic findings that showed patchy areas with chronic inflammatory infiltrates, dense collagen bundles without degenerative or inflammatory changes, and empty spaces or degenerated foci unaccompanied by inflammation. Conclusion: Knowing the various ADM presentations on US can help avoid unnecessary invasive procedures.

Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: early and long-term safety evaluation of 146 unselected cases of the early pre-pectoral era of a single-institution, including cases with previous breast irradiation and post-mastectomy radiation therapy

We re-evaluated acute and early-late toxicity-related factors among pre-pectoral immediate tissue expander/implant (TE/I) breast reconstruction (BR) unselected, first-era, cases, including previous breast radiation treatment and post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). A retrospective analysis of 146 (117 therapeutic and 29 prophylactic) pre-pectoral reconstructions, between 2012 and 2016, considered patient-related (age, body mass index [BMI], smoke-history, comorbidity, BRCA mutation), and treatment-related characteristics (previous irradiation, axillary surgery, PMRT, pre- and postoperative chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and target-therapy). Safety was evaluated as acute and early-late complications, and TE/I failures. At multivariate analysis of the 146 cases (117 patients submitted to BR) a significant factor related to acute toxicity was: BMI ≥ 25 (31.3% [≥ 25] vs 8.8% [< 25]; OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.56-12.6; p = 0.003), while previous breast surgery on ipsilateral side presented a borderline significance (31.6% [previous surgery] vs 7.4% [no previous surgery]; OR 3.74, 95% CI 0.97-14.40; p = 0.055). Factors significantly related to TE/I failure were: current or previous smoking exposition (13.8% [smokers] vs 2.6% [non-smokers]; OR 7.32, 95% CI 1.37-39.08; p = 0.02) and preoperative chemotherapy (18.8% [yes] vs 3.5% [no]; OR 8.16, 95% CI 1.29-51.63; p = 0.026). At 4-year median follow-up, 3 deaths, 5 locoregional recurrences, and 14 distant metastases occurred. Immediate pre-pectoral BR is safe and effective, with low rates of acute and early-late complications. BMI and previous breast surgery were related to higher complications but not failure; smoking and preoperative chemotherapy were related to TE/I explant. Previous RT and PMRT were related neither to early-late toxicity nor failure.

Comparing post-surgical outcomes of pre-pectoral versus dual-plane direct-to-implant breast reconstruction without increasing the use of acellular dermal matrix

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction when performed using the dual-plane technique can be associated with increased postoperative pain, longer recovery, functional impairment, and animation deformity. These issues can be avoided by using the pre-pectoral technique that traditionally uses larger pieces of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and results in increased costs. It is unclear how these two methods compare when the technique is modified to avoid the use of additional ADM.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction using a dual-plane or pre-pectoral technique between January 2014 and December 2019. Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction was performed using a partial anterior coverage technique, and therefore no additional ADM was used per case as compared to the dual-plane technique. Rates of post-surgical complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 77 patients, 48 (86 breasts) underwent dual-plane reconstruction, whereas 29 (48 breasts) underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction. Mean follow-up time for the dual-plane and pre-pectoral groups was 23.3 and 8.7 months, respectively (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in the rates of any of the short-term post-surgical outcomes between the two groups: seroma (14% vs 6.3%, p = 0.175); hematoma (2.3% vs 4.2%, p = 0.617); skin/nipple necrosis (7% vs 10.4%, p = 0.522); wound skin infection (2.3% vs 2.1%, p = 1.0); wound dehiscence (4.7% vs 2.1, p = 0.654); and implant loss (1.2% vs 8.3%, p = 0.055).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-pectoral reconstruction using a partial anterior coverage technique appears to be a safe alternative to dual-plane reconstruction when considering short-term post-surgical complications.

Tissue Expansion after Non-Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: A Comparative Study of Expansion Courses of Prepectoral and Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement with Acellular Dermal Matrix

Although skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy has been popular in the treatment of breast cancer, the radical excision of breast tissue is unavoidable in certain circumstances. However, the ability of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to expand remains questionable, and this situation may further hinder tissue expansion. From October 2017 to January 2020, patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expander placement using ADM whose initial fill volume was less than 50 mL were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcomes were the number of visits and number of days required to complete the expansion, and the secondary outcomes were the amount of postoperative expansions, expander fill ratio and expander volume. Between the prepectoral group (n = 26) and subpectoral group (n = 39), the mean number of days (81.46 days versus 88.64 days, p = 0.365) and mean number of visits (5.08 versus 5.69, p = 0.91) required to complete expansion exhibited no significant differences. Additionally, there were no significant differences in the mean amount of postoperative expansion (314.23 mL versus 315.38 mL, p = 0.950), the mean final volume (353.08 mL versus 339.62 mL, p = 0.481) or the mean final volume ratio (0.89 versus 0.86, p = 0.35) between the two groups. Therefore, we suggest that prepectoral tissue expander placement after conventional mastectomy can be a valid option.

Understanding the Evidence and Improving Outcomes with Implant-Based Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the risks, benefits, and safety profile of prepectoral breast reconstruction. 2. Have knowledge of primary immediate and delayed prepectoral breast reconstruction techniques and secondary procedures required. 3. Describe data on outcomes of prepectoral breast reconstruction.

SUMMARY

Once considered to have an unacceptable complication profile, prepectoral breast reconstruction is increasing in popularity because of decreased surgical invasiveness and postoperative pain and the absence of animation deformity. Short-term outcomes studies comparing prepectoral breast reconstruction to partially submuscular techniques demonstrate similarly acceptable rates of postoperative complications. Aesthetic outcomes demonstrate similar rates of capsular contracture but increased rippling and implant palpability of the upper pole. Postoperative functional data are limited but overall show decreased pain and more rapid return of function but equivalent satisfaction on the BREAST-Q. Long-term aesthetic data and rates of revision are lacking.

Postoperative Complications in Breast Reconstruction With Porcine Acellular Dermis and Polypropylene Meshes in Subpectoral Implant Placement

AIM

This research compares postoperative complication rates with Strattice™, SERAGYN^® BR, and TiLOOP^® Bra interposition devices for subpectoral implant placement after skin or nipple sparing mastectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

188 breast reconstructions in 157 patients after primary (n=96), secondary (n=71), or prophylactic (n=21) surgery were analyzed regarding major and minor complications.

RESULTS

With acellular dermal matrix (ADM) Strattice™, 27.5% major and 27.5% minor complications occurred. Implant loss rates were 27.3% in primary and 30.8% in secondary reconstructions. With SERAGYN^® BR, 11.1% major and 13,0% minor complications occurred. Implant losses (6.1%) occurred exclusively in primary reconstructions. With TiLOOP^® Bra, 14.9% major and 9.6% minor complications occurred. Implant loss rates were 7.7% in primary and 7.1% in secondary reconstructions.

CONCLUSION

ADM was associated with high complication rates in primary and secondary reconstructions. Low complication rates were seen with mesh interposition devices in primary, secondary, and prophylactic reconstructions.

Selective Denervation of Pectoralis Major Muscle Improves Cosmetic Outcome and Quality of Life in Retro-Pectoral Implant Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Selective pectoralis major muscle (PMM) denervation has been described in retro-pectoral reconstructions to obtain the advantages of the pre-pectoral approach. Present study compared subjective evaluations between retro-pectoral implant based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) with denervation to traditional techniques without denervation.

METHODS

In 2020, two 2 groups of patients submitted to retro-pectoral IBBR, minimum 12-month follow-up, were compared through BREAST-Q post-operative questionnaire. Group-1 included direct-to-implant or two2-stage tissue expanderTE cases with selective PMM denervation, while Group-2 similar procedures, in the same time span 2017-2019, without denervation. BREAST-Q was divided into five 5 independent scales and for each scale item responses were summed up and transformed into a score, ranging from 0 to 100, to analyze and compare the results.

RESULTS

50 patients were included both in Group1 and Group-2. Group-1 patients reported significantly higher scores in "satisfaction with the reconstructed breast" scale compared to Group-2, means-medians of 56-58 and 47-50, respectively. A trend in favor of Group-1 was recorded in the scales of "psycho-social well-being", 64-65 vs. 58-53, and "sexual well-being", 53-47 vs. 48-47, albeit not significant. Substantial equivalence was found in "satisfaction with the result overall" and "physical well-being".

CONCLUSION

PMM denervation can improve cosmetic results in retro-pec IBBRs, thus leading to better QoL. Possible pain and physical discomfort weren't caused by denervation with scores similar to non-denervated controls.

Breast reconstruction and radiation therapy: An Italian expert Delphi consensus statements and critical review

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiation therapy (RT) or mastectomy have shown comparable oncological outcomes in early-stage breast cancer and are considered standard of care treatments. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) targeted to both the chest wall and regional lymph nodes is recommended in high-risk patients. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) represents a significant recent improvement in breast surgery. Nevertheless, it represents a challenge for radiation oncologists as it triggers different decision-making strategies related to treatment volume definition and target delineation. Hence, the choice of the best combination and timing when offering RT to breast cancer patients who underwent or are planned to undergo reconstruction procedures should be carefully evaluated and based on individual considerations. We present an Italian expert Delphi Consensus statements and critical review, led by a core group of all the professional profiles involved in the management of breast cancer patients undergoing reconstructive procedures and RT. The report was structured as to consider the main recommendations on breast reconstruction and RT and analyse the current open issues deserving investigation and consensus. We used a three key-phases and a Delphi process. The final expert panel of 40 colleagues selected key topics as identified by the core group of the project. A final consensus on 26 key statements on RT and breast reconstruction after three rounds of the Delphi voting process and harmonisation was reached. An accompanying critical review of available literature was summarized. A clear communication and cooperation between surgeon and radiation oncologist is of paramount relevance both in the setting of breast reconstruction following mastectomy when PMRT is planned and when extensive glandular rearrangements as OBCS is performed. A shared-decision making, relying on outcome-based and patient-centred considerations, is essential, while waiting for higher level-of-evidence data.

Dual-Plane Retro-pectoral Versus Pre-pectoral DTI Breast Reconstruction: An Italian Multicenter Experience

Background

The use of conservative mastectomies has risen significantly during the last few years. The reconstructive choice of direct-to-implant reconstruction has become more practicable with modern mastectomy techniques. The initial trend in Italian centers was to use dual-plane hybrid reconstruction. However, a high level of complications has been registered. From 2015 onward, in our centers, a pre-pectoral approach has been adopted. The authors sought to describe the Italian trend to gradually discard the sub-pectoral technique with lower lateral pole coverage of the prosthesis using ADMs comparing it with the pre-pectoral approach with ADMs, without any muscle dissection, in terms of complication rates.

Materials and Methods

A multicenter retrospective clinical study was performed from January 2010 to June 2018. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: Cases with an ADM-only coverage pre-pectoral reconstruction made up the first group (Group 1). Those with the retro-pectoral muscular position + ADM implant coverage comprised the second one (Group 2). Complications such as seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, surgical site infection, reconstruction failure, animation deformity and capsular contracture were recorded.

Results

We performed 716 direct-to-implant reconstructions: 509 were partially sub-pectoral and 207 were pre-pectoral. Minimum follow-up was 1 year. Incidence of complications was higher in dual-plane reconstructions. There were statistical significant differences in the rates of seroma and hematoma.

Conclusion

Using the pre-pectoral approach, the authors have experienced favorable aesthetics and superior clinical and functional outcomes. Retro-pectoral muscular ADM implant coverage has to be considered only in specific complicated second-stage surgeries.

Level of Evidence V

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00266-020-01892-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In Vitro Analysis of Histology, Mechanics, and Safety of Radiation-free Pre-hydrated Human Acellular Dermal Matrix

Purpose

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) supports tissue expanders or implants in implant-based breast reconstruction. The characteristics of ADM tissue are defined by the manufacturing procedure, such as decellularization, preservation, and sterilization, and are directly related to clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the properties of a new pre-hydrated-ADM (H-ADM-low) obtained using a decellularization reagent reduction process with a low concentration of detergent with those of radiation-sterilized H-ADM and freeze-dried ADM (FD-ADM).

Methods

ADMs were evaluated in terms of structure, mechanical quality, and cytotoxicity using histochemical staining, tensile strength testing, and in vitro cell viability analysis.

Results

The tissue structure of H-ADM-low (CGDERM ONE-STEP) was similar to that of native skin despite complete decellularization. By contrast, in FD-ADM, the tissue structure was damaged by the freeze-drying process, and radiation-sterilized H-ADM showed a compact fibrillar arrangement. Furthermore, matrix components such as collagen and elastin were preserved in H-ADM-low, whereas a loss of elastin fibers with fragmented distribution was observed in radiation-sterilized H-ADMs. H-ADM-low's tensile strength (58.84 MPa) was significantly greater than that of FD-ADM (38.60 MPa) and comparable with that of radiation-sterilized H-ADMs. The residual detergent content in H-ADM-low (47.45 mg/L) was 2.67-fold lower than that of H-ADM decellularized with a conventional detergent concentration (126.99 mg/mL), and this finding was consistent with the cell viability results (90.7% and 70.7%, respectively), indicating that H-ADM-low has very low cytotoxicity.

Conclusions

H-ADM-low produced through aseptic processes retains the original tissue structure, demonstrates excellent mechanical properties, and does not affect cell viability. Therefore, this newer H-ADM is suitable for use in implant-based breast reconstruction.

The Nomenclature, Terminology and Lexicon of Breast Surgery: Are We Really Saying the Same Thing?

This study investigated inconsistencies in the use of descriptors in breast surgery and recommends a novel nomenclature that will be adopted and standardized among plastic surgeons. The study used a modified Delphi methodology to first identify redundant descriptors or those with multiple interpretations, and then achieve consensus on ideal recommended nomenclature in breast surgery. The Delphi panel agreed that there was misuse of and lack of a clear definition for several terms, and recommended removal of these subjective terms. Replacement with more anatomic nomenclature was suggested. Stretch deformity, pectoral banding, and implant-gland mismatch were introduced as new terms.

A comparison of patient-reported outcomes between Alloderm and Dermacell in immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction: A randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Alloderm and Dermacell are the two leading human acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Despite differences in sterility, consistency, thickness and cost, there are no comparative trials to date to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) between the two products. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a difference in patient-reported outcomes (as measured by the BREAST-Q) between patients reconstructed with Alloderm and Dermacell.

METHODS

A single center, open-label, randomized control trial of patients undergoing IBR with an implant for breast cancer or breast cancer prophylaxis was performed. Patients were randomized to either Alloderm or Dermacell. Baseline demographic data were compared, and linear mixed models were used to identify associations with BREAST-Q over time.

RESULTS

Between June 2016 and October 2018, 62 patients were randomized into two groups, 31(50%) Alloderm and 31(50%) Dermacell. Of these, 23(74%) patients in the Alloderm group and 27(87%) patients of the Dermacell group filled out BREAST-Q questionnaires. Baseline BREAST-Q scores with respect to satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and physical well-being were similar between groups (p>0.05). At 3 months postoperatively, the Alloderm group had a statistically significant improvement with respect to satisfaction with breasts (67 vs 53, p = 0.03), satisfaction with overall results (85 vs 61, p = 0.003), satisfaction with the surgeon (89 vs 67, p = 0.01), and satisfaction with information provided (74 vs 59, p = 0.02). At 12 months postoperatively, there were no statistically significant differences in PROM between groups (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

We report the first randomized controlled trial to date comparing patient-reported outcomes of the two most commonly used ADMs in IBR in Canada. Although a short-term analysis favors the use of Alloderm, there does not appear to be any difference in outcomes between the two products in the longer term.

Direct-to-Implant, Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Single-Surgeon Experience with 201 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

The resurgence of prepectoral breast reconstruction has brought strict patient inclusion and exclusion criteria by numerous authors. This article provides an overview of a single surgeon's experience with 201 patients, 313 breasts using immediate, direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction. The article compares surgical outcomes of different patient cohorts to elucidate risk factors that may predispose patients toward developing complications.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed, identifying all patients who underwent prepectoral, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction from June of 2016 to June of 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients representing 313 breasts were included. A midlateral incision was used in 157 breasts (50.2 percent), followed by a skin-reducing, Wise-pattern in 90 breasts (28.8 percent). Acellular dermal matrix was used in 243 breasts (77.6 percent), free nipple grafts were used in 39 breasts (12.5 percent), and postmastectomy radiation therapy was used in 58 breasts (18.5 percent). Complications requiring operative intervention occurred in 24 breasts (7.7 percent), and minor complications occurred in 23 breasts (7.3 percent). There were no significant differences in complication rates for (1) acellular dermal matrix use versus non-acellular dermal matrix use, (2) Wise-pattern versus other incision, or (3) postmastectomy radiotherapy (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This represents the largest single-surgeon, direct-to-implant prepectoral cohort in the literature. Surgical complications did not differ with acellular dermal matrix use, incision selection, and the use of postmastectomy radiation therapy. There may be an association between acellular dermal matrix use and major complications and radiotherapy with minor complications.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Meta-analysis of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: guide to patient selection and current outcomes

PURPOSE

 This meta-analysis provides a large-scale comparison of prepectoral vs. subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction, with primary outcomes of patient safety and efficacy.

METHODS

Literature review was performed via PRISMA criteria, 33 studies met inclusion criteria for prepectoral review and 13 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Patient characteristics and per-breast complications were collected. Data were analyzed using Cochrane RevMan and IBM SPSS.

RESULTS

In 4692 breasts of 3014 patients that underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction, rippling was observed as the most common complication, followed by seroma and skin flap necrosis. Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant decrease in odds of skin flap necrosis and capsular contracture in prepectoral groups compared to subpectoral groups. Odds of infection, seroma, and hematoma were equal between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has surged in popularity in recent years. This review and large-scale analysis corroborates current literature reporting a favorable safety profile with emphasis on patient selection. Variability in skin flap thickness and vascularity mandates thoughtful selection of patients whose overall health and intra-operative skin flap assessment can tolerate a muscle-sparing reconstruction.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Smooth Surface Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Traditional 2-stage breast reconstruction involves placement of a textured-surface tissue expander (TTE). Recent studies have demonstrated textured surface devices have higher propensity for bacterial contamination and biofilm formation.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of smooth surface tissue expanders (STE) in immediate breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive women who underwent STE breast reconstruction from 2016 to 2017 at 3 institutions. Indications and outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total 112 patients underwent STE reconstruction (75 subpectoral, 37 prepectoral placement), receiving 173 devices and monitored for a mean follow-up of 14.1 months. Demographics of patients included average age of 53 years and average BMI of 27.2 kg/m2, and 18.6% received postmastectomy radiation therapy. Overall complication rates were 15.6% and included mastectomy skin flap necrosis (10.4%), seroma (5.2%), expander malposition (2.9%), and infection requiring intravenous antibiotic therapy (3.5%). Six (3.5%) unplanned reoperations with explantation were reported for 3 infections and 3 patients requesting change of plan with no reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

STEs represent a safe and efficacious alternative to TTE breast reconstruction with at least equitable outcomes. Technique modification including tab fixation, strict pocket control, postoperative bra support, and suture choice may contribute to observed favorable outcomes and are reviewed. Early results for infection control and explantation rate are encouraging and warrant comparative evaluation for potential superiority over TTEs in a prospective randomized trial.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Evidence for the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are tissue grafts that have been specially processed to remove all cellular components. These machined biological scaffolds have become popular in a variety of surgical settings due to their rapid incorporation into living tissue. As ADMs are highly malleable and cause minimal inflammation, they have come to serve as a useful tool in implant-based breast reconstruction procedures. The major benefits of using an ADM in this setting include superior initial breast contouring, decreased risk of capsular contracture after implant insertion, and consistent sustained positioning of the reconstructed breast. Despite these advantages, these tissue grafts are foreign to the host, and postoperative complications following ADM insertion, including infection and seroma, have been well documented. When considering using ADMs in this setting, it is important to first consider patient-specific factors that could preclude their use, such as low body mass index, small breasts, or a history of radiation exposure to the breast tissue. ADM grafts are also expensive, which may present another barrier to their use. Review of the literature ultimately suggests a continued role for ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction, and continued research in this field is warranted.

Acellular Dermal Matrices: Applications in Plastic Surgery

Modern advances in tissue engineering have transformed the plastic surgeon's management strategies across a wide variety of applications. Comprehension of the fundamentals of biologic constructs is critical to navigating the available armamentarium. It is essential that plastic surgeons become familiar with some of the existing methods for utilizing biologics as well as the advantages and limitations to their use. In this article, the authors describe the basic science of biologics with a focus on acellular dermal matrices (ADMs), and review the recent evidence behind their use for a variety of reconstructive and aesthetic purposes. The review is organized by system and examines the common indications, techniques, and outcomes pertaining to the application of ADMs in select anatomic areas. The final section briefly considers possible future directions for using biologics in plastic and reconstructive surgery.

Postsurgical Ultrasound Evaluation of Patients with Prosthesis in Acellular Dermal Matrix: Results from Monocentric Experience

Mastectomy and breast prosthetic reconstruction is the most common surgical treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer. In the last few years, breast prosthetic augmentation in acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has been introduced. The aim of this study is to present our single-center experience in evaluating the outcome of patients who underwent breast reconstruction in ADM, using ultrasound (US) examination. US follow-up allows evaluating both normal postoperative findings and changes and potential local complications, demonstrating that ADM is a safe option for women candidates for mastectomy.

The bioengineered prosthetic breast reconstruction: advancements, evidence, and outcomes

Recent advancements in prosthetic breast reconstruction have provided the foundation for the bioengineered breast. These advancements include improved mastectomy techniques, autologous fat grafting, acellular dermal matrices (ADMs), and improved devices. Device-based breast reconstruction has evolved from subcutaneous, partial or total subpectoral, and now to prepectoral placement of devices. The evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the bioengineered breast continues to increase. This manuscript will review the fundamental components of the bioengineered breast and provide an update of the current evidence.

Outcomes of Acellular Dermal Matrix for Immediate Tissue Expander Reconstruction with Radiotherapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing literature support for the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in expander-based breast reconstruction, the effect of ADM on clinical outcomes in the presence of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) has not been well described.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the impact ADM plays on clinical outcomes on immediate tissue expander (ITE) reconstruction undergoing PMRT.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent ITE breast reconstruction from 2004 to 2014 at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Patients were categorized into four cohorts: ADM, ADM with PMRT, non-ADM, and non-ADM with PMRT. Outcomes and complications were compared among cohorts.

RESULTS

Over 10 years, 957 patients underwent ITE reconstruction (683 non-ADM, 113 non-ADM with PMRT, 486 ADM, and 88 ADM with PMRT) with 1370 reconstructions. Overall complication rates for the ADM and non-ADM cohorts were 39.0% and 16.7%, respectively (P < 0.001). Within both cohorts, mastectomy skin flap necrosis (MSFN) was the most common complication, followed by infection. ADM use was associated with a significantly higher rate of infections and seromas in both radiated and non-radiated groups; however, when comparing radiated cohorts, the incidence of explantation was significantly lower with the use of ADM.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to use ADM for expander-based breast reconstruction should be performed with caution, given higher overall rates of complications, including infections and seromas. There may, however, be a role for ADM in cases requiring PMRT, as the overall incidence of implant failure is lower than non-ADM cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction

The options for prosthetic breast reconstruction have expanded and include prepectoral versus subpectoral location of devices as well as performing these operations in one- or two-stage. Current practice patterns are evolving toward the placement of devices in the prepectoral plane in a single stage. The authors' patient selection criteria and surgical technique were reviewed and organized in a step-by-step format. On and off label techniques for acellular dermal matrix (ADM) assembly were reviewed. A review of surgical outcomes was completed. Two-stage reconstruction confers several advantages such as reducing pressure on the mastectomy skin flaps, optimal implant selection for the second stage and the opportunity to revise the reconstruction, all of which can increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. This manuscript will review the indications, techniques, and outcomes following prepectoral, two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction.