Comparison of Outcomes Using AlloDerm Versus FlexHD for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

A Cohort Analysis of Early Outcomes After AlloDerm, FlexHD, and SurgiMend Use in Two-Stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently utilized in prepectoral breast reconstruction, but few studies have examined the role of ADM type in complication risk.

OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to determine the impact of ADM type on early complication rates in 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction.

METHODS

We performed a cohort examination of all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction with ADM support at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2018 to 2021. ADM types utilized included AlloDerm (LifeCell Corporation, Branchburg, NJ), FlexHD (MTF Biologics, Edison, NJ), and SurgiMend (Integra LifeSciences Corporation, Princeton, NJ). Complication rates based on the number of tissue expanders (TEs) were determined for each ADM type. Performance of multivariate logistic regression determined the impact of ADM type on complication risk after accounting for confounders.

RESULTS

Overall, 726 patients (1054 TEs: 194 AlloDerm, 93 FlexHD, 767 SurgiMend) were included. The 3 cohorts differed in terms of mastectomy type (nipple-sparing: 23.5% of AlloDerm, 33.3% of FlexHD, 19.1% of SurgiMend, P = .038); ADM perforation (perforated: 94.8% of AlloDerm, 98.2% of FlexHD, 100% of SurgiMend, P < .001); and ADM size (AlloDerm: 153.2 cm2 [37.6], SurgiMend: 198.7 cm2 [10.4], FlexHD: 223.7 cm2 [37.9], P < .001). On univariate examination, no differences existed between ADM types for seroma, infection, exposure, malposition, or TE loss. Additionally, after adjustment for confounders with multivariate regression, no ADM type had higher odds of TE loss.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort of prepectoral reconstruction patients, ADM type did not significantly affect the risk of complications. Additional prospective studies are warranted to better evaluate ADM choice for prepectoral breast reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Comparing the Outcomes and Complication Rates of Biologic vs Synthetic Meshes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluates all published studies comparing biologic and synthetic meshes in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), to determine which category of mesh produces the most favorable outcomes.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women globally. Implant-based breast reconstruction is currently the most popular method of postmastectomy reconstruction, and recently, the use of surgical mesh in IBBR has become commonplace. Although there is a long-standing belief among surgeons that biologic mesh is superior to synthetic mesh in terms of surgical complications and patient outcomes, few studies exist to support this claim.

METHODS

A systematic search of the EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases was performed in January 2022. Primary literature studies comparing biologic and synthetic meshes within the same experimental framework were included. Study quality and bias were assessed using the validated Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria.

RESULTS

After duplicate removal, 109 publications were reviewed, with 12 meeting the predetermined inclusion criteria. Outcomes included common surgical complications, histological analysis, interactions with oncologic therapies, quality of life measures, and esthetic outcomes. Across all 12 studies, synthetic meshes were rated as at least equivalent to biologic meshes for every reported outcome. On average, the studies in this review tended to have moderate Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scores.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review offers the first comprehensive evaluation of all publications comparing biologic and synthetic meshes in IBBR. The consistent finding that synthetic meshes are at least equivalent to biologic meshes across a range of clinical outcomes offers a compelling argument in favor of prioritizing the use of synthetic meshes in IBBR.

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.

Impact of Dermal Matrix Brand in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction is the most common procedure for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Acellular dermal matrix is used to provide additional coverage in subpectoral and prepectoral implant placement. In this study, the authors compared postoperative outcomes between AlloDerm (LifeCell, Branchburg, N.J.) and DermACELL (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Mich.), two acellular dermal matrix brands.

METHODS

A retrospective review of implant-based breast reconstruction from 2016 to 2020 was conducted. Patient demographics and comorbidities, implant size and location, acellular dermal matrix choice, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Primary outcomes assessed were seroma and infection compared between two acellular dermal matrix brands. Independent clinical parameters were assessed with multiple logistic regression models for the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Reconstruction was performed in 150 patients (241 breasts). Eighty-eight patients underwent expander placement with AlloDerm and 62 patients with DermACELL. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. There was a significantly higher incidence of seroma in the AlloDerm group in univariate (AlloDerm 21.7 percent versus DermACELL 8.2 percent, p < 0.005) and multivariate analyses ( p = 0.04; 95 percent CI, 1.02 to 6.07). Acellular dermal matrix use (regardless of type) was not associated with higher rates of infection ( p = 0.99), but body mass index was ( p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Both AlloDerm and DermACELL had similar infection rates regardless of contributing risk factors. AlloDerm was found to be a risk factor for seroma formation in the postoperative period. As such, it is important to be aware of this complication when performing implant-based reconstruction with this brand of acellular dermal matrix.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Acellular Dermal Matrix-Associated Complications in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Two Human Tissues

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction accounts for the vast majority of breast reconstruction procedures and is commonly performed with human acellular dermal matrix. There is no consensus as to the optimal human acellular dermal matrix preparation, and high-quality evidence concerning comparative effectiveness is lacking. This study is the first prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial to compare human acellular dermal matrix-related complications of the two most commonly used human acellular dermal matrices in implant-based breast reconstruction. The authors hypothesize that there will be no difference in infection, seroma, and reconstructive failure between FlexHD Pliable and AlloDerm RTU.

METHODS

The authors conducted a Level 1 prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial to assess complications associated with the use of two human acellular dermal matrices in immediate postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction across seven clinical sites. Group A patients received FlexHD Pliable (113 patients with 187 breast reconstructions), and group B patients received AlloDerm RTU (117 patients with 197 breast reconstructions).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference with respect to patient demographics, indications, comorbidities, and reconstruction approach between groups. Mean follow-up time was 10.7 ± 3.2 months. There was no statistical difference in the overall matrix-related complications between groups A and B (4.3 percent versus 7.1 percent, p = 0.233). Obesity (OR, 1.14; 95 percent CI, 1.05 to 1.24; p = 0.001) and prepectoral placement of matrix (OR, 4.53; 95 percent CI, 1.82 to 11.3; p = 0.001) were independently associated with greater risks of overall matrix-related complications.

CONCLUSION

This work supports the use of human acellular dermal matrices in implant-based breast reconstruction and demonstrates no significant difference in matrix-related complication rates between FlexHD Pliable and AlloDerm RTU.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, I.

Comparison of 30-day Clinical Outcomes with SimpliDerm and AlloDerm RTU in Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is widely used in breast reconstruction, and outcomes of these procedures may be improved through optimized product design. SimpliDerm is a new human ADM designed to closely preserve the architecture of native dermis, with the goal of improving surgical outcomes. This study reports the initial (30-day) clinical experience with SimpliDerm compared with AlloDerm Ready-To-Use (RTU) in ADM-assisted breast reconstruction.

Methods:

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of 59 consecutive patients who underwent immediate 2-stage reconstruction with SimpliDerm (n = 28) or AlloDerm RTU (n = 31) following mastectomy are reported.

Results:

Fifty-nine women (108 breasts) underwent posmastectomy breast reconstruction with SimpliDerm or AlloDerm RTU. Mean patient age was 51.1 years, and mean body mass index was 28.2 kg/m². Reconstructions were predominantly prepectoral (95.4%), used tissue expanders (100%), and followed a skin-sparing (64%) approach to mastectomy. Mean time to final drain removal did not differ between groups (17.0 days, SimpliDerm versus 17.7 days, AlloDerm RTU). Adverse events occurred in 13 (22%) patients; none considered serious—all were mild or moderate in intensity. Adverse event rates did not differ between groups. The observed adverse event profiles and rates are similar to those published for other ADMs in immediate breast reconstruction.

Conclusions:

There remains a clinical need for ADMs with more optimal characteristics. This case series describes comparable outcomes with SimpliDerm and AlloDerm RTU over 30 days after immediate 2-stage breast reconstruction.

Single-Unit technique for the use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander-based breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in immediate two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction following mastectomy is now a common practice. The procedure confers several compelling benefits, including coverage of the inferior pole, enhanced definition of the inframammary fold, and reduction of capsular contracture. However, operative techniques used to create the ADM inferolateral sling can be unwieldy in practice, typically involving the placement of the ADM followed by positioning and anchoring of the prosthetic expander. At best, this may be a relatively minor nuisance, but may potentially influence outcomes, including discrepancies in symmetry.

METHODS

We present a novel modification that aims to streamline this procedure. Perforations are made through the allograft, through which the tissue expander tabs are brought through and sutured together ex vivo to allow the ADM and expander to be placed into the inframammary fold position as a single unit. A retrospective chart review was then performed of patients who underwent breast reconstruction utilizing this technique between July 2015 and December 2018. Outcomes including postsurgical complications such as infection, malposition, and reoperation were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients met the inclusion criteria, corresponding to 108 breasts. The average follow-up was 18 months. The overall complication rate was 29.6% of breasts. The most commonly observed complications were mastectomy skin necrosis (9.3%) and major infection (8.3%). There was a 7.4% rate of malposition.

CONCLUSIONS

This simple but effective modification in ADM technique is associated with a comparable complication rate and allows for greater ease and consistency in tissue expander placement.

Regulation of decellularized matrix mediated immune response

The substantially growing gap between suitable donors and patients waiting for new organ transplantation has compelled tissue engineers to look for suitable patient-specific alternatives. Lately, a decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM), obtained primarily from either discarded human tissues/organs or other species, has shown great promise in the constrained availability of high-quality donor tissues. In this review, we have addressed critical gaps and often-ignored aspects of understanding the innate and adaptive immune response to the dECM. Firstly, although most of the studies claim preservation of the ECM ultrastructure, almost all methods employed for decellularization would inevitably cause a certain degree of disruption to the ECM ultrastructure and modulation in secondary conformations, which may elicit a distinct immunogenic response. Secondly, it is still a major challenge to find ways to conserve the native biochemical, structural and biomechanical cues by making a judicious decision regarding the choice of decellularization agents/techniques. We have critically analyzed various decellularization protocols and tried to find answers on various aspects such as whether the secondary structural conformation of dECM proteins would be preserved after decellularization. Thirdly, to keep the dECM ultrastructure as close to the native ECM we have raised the question "How good is good enough?" Even residual cellular antigens or nucleic acid fragments may elicit antigenicity leading to a low-grade immune response. A combinative knowledge of macrophage plasticity in the decellularized tissue and limits of decellularization will help achieve the native ultrastructure. Lastly, we have shifted our focus on the scientific basis of the presently accepted criteria for decellularization, and the effect on immune response concerning the interaction between the decellularized extracellular matrix and macrophages with the subsequent influence of T-cell activation. Amalgamating suitable decellularization approaches, sufficient knowledge of macrophage plasticity and elucidation of molecular pathways together will help fabricate functional immune informed decellularized tissues in vitro that will have substantial implications for efficient clinical translation and prediction for in vivo reprogramming and tissue regeneration.

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.

Total Muscle Coverage versus AlloDerm Human Dermal Matrix for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic breast reconstruction is the most common method for treatment of patients undergoing mastectomy. Acellular dermal matrix has become more popular in implant-based breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of all patients undergoing prosthetic breast reconstruction between August of 2002 and December of 2013. Patients were analyzed in terms of demographics, fill volumes, number of expansions, costs, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 284 patients underwent mastectomy surgery with 481 implant-based breast reconstructions. Four hundred eight tissue expanders had total muscle coverage, whereas 73 had AlloDerm. The rate of overall complications and major complications was significantly higher in the AlloDerm group: 20.5 percent versus 8.8 percent (p = 0.005), and 13.7 percent versus 5.1 percent (p = 0.0001), respectively. The mean initial fill volume was significantly lower in the total muscle coverage group compared to the acellular dermal matrix group (54 ± 47 versus 167 ± 139; p = 0.00003), resulting in a higher number of expansions (8.1 versus 5.8; p = 0.000051) and longer time to full expansion (60.2 days versus 43.3 days; p = 0.0002). This did not translate into a faster time to expander exchange (162.4 days versus 162.3 days; p = 0.13). Use of AlloDerm added a mean cost of $2217 for each breast.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved with the advent of acellular dermal matrices. Although the use of acellular dermal matrix allows increased initial fill volumes and fewer total expansions, there is an increased risk of complications and increased costs, especially in patients undergoing bilateral reconstruction. Total muscle coverage remains an excellent option for providing quality breast reconstruction without increased complications.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Comparison of Sterile and Aseptic AlloDerm in 2039 Consecutive Cases

BACKGROUND

Sterile ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix, introduced as an alternative to aseptic freeze-dried acellular dermal matrix for implant-based breast reconstruction, has been investigated in a limited number of studies. This study compared outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction with ready-to-use and freeze-dried acellular dermal matrix.

METHODS

The authors analyzed patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction with either freeze-dried or ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix, including demographics, clinical variables, and outcomes. An a priori power analysis was performed and logistic regression modeling was used to quantify the effect of acellular dermal matrix on outcomes while controlling for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 1285 consecutive patients undergoing 2039 immediate prosthetic breast reconstructions constituted the population: 612 (n = 910 breasts) with freeze-dried matrix and 673 (n = 1129 breasts) with ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix. The freeze-dried matrix cohort had a significantly higher rate of explantation compared with the ready-to-use matrix cohort (18.0 percent versus 12.0 percent; p = 0.0036), but surgical-site infection, wound dehiscence, mastectomy flap necrosis, seroma, and hematoma did not differ significantly between groups. On multivariate regression, patients undergoing reconstruction with freeze-dried matrix, compared to ready-to-use matrix, did not have higher odds of experiencing surgical-site infections (OR, 1.064; p = 0.7455), but did have higher odds of explantation (OR, 1.570; p = 0.0161). Tobacco use (OR, 2.809; p = 0.0002) and body mass index (OR, 1.054; p < 0.0001) were also independent predictors of explantation.

CONCLUSION

Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with sterile ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix has a comparable overall safety profile and a lower rate of prosthetic explantations compared with aseptic freeze-dried acellular dermal matrix.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

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

Background:

Several acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) can be used to provide soft-tissue support for post- and prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstructions. Yet, several recent meta-analysis suggest that due to a lack of rigorous evaluation in the setting of head-to-head prospective randomized control trials, few reliable conclusions regarding performance outcomes can be drawn. We compare Cortiva 1 mm to AlloDerm RTU in the setting of submuscular reconstruction in one study, and prepectoral in the second. Moreover, we present the findings from the interim analysis in our submuscular study.

Methods:

Using a single-blinded prospective randomized control trial design, we compare outcomes in 180 patients undergoing submuscular breast reconstruction with 16 × 8 cm ADM support (either Cortiva 1 mm or AlloDerm RTU). A parallel study evaluates 16 × 20 cm sheets of these ADMs in 180 patients undergoing prepectoral reconstructions. Time to drain removal, complications, fill volumes, patient-reported outcomes, and narcotic consumption are prospectively evaluated.

Results:

Interim analysis of 59 breasts in the submuscular study arm (Cortiva n = 31; AlloDerm n = 28) revealed no statistically significant differences with respect to outcome. At the time of interim analysis, the AlloDerm RTU group contained a higher proportion of never-smokers (P = 0.009), while patients implanted with Cortiva 1 mm received a larger tissue expander (P = 0.02).

Conclusion:

We present a protocol for a robust randomized control trial to evaluate outcomes in both submuscular and prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction assisted by 2 distinct types of ADM. Our interim analysis reveals no evidence of inferiority of outcomes in a comparison of AlloDerm to Cortiva.

Revascularization of AlloDerm Used during Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery

Objectives  AlloDerm is an acellular dermal matrix often used for reconstruction throughout the body. AlloDerm has been shown to undergo revascularization when used to reconstruct soft tissue such as in abdominal wall reconstruction. In this study, the authors review the literature on revascularization of AlloDerm and demonstrate the histologic findings of AlloDerm after implantation during skull base reconstruction. Study Design  Literature review and case reports. Setting  Tertiary Care Institution Participants  Patients from a tertiary care institution Main Outcome Measures  Histologic slides are evaluated and compared with nonimplanted AlloDerm. Methods  The authors review a case of explanted AlloDerm that had been used for skull base reconstruction after endoscopic skull base surgery. Results  Upon reviewing the histologic slides of explanted AlloDerm to nonimplanted AlloDerm, we demonstrate revascularization of AlloDerm when used in skull base reconstruction. Representative slides will be included. Conclusions  AlloDerm undergoes revascularization when used for skull base reconstruction.

Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy in Oncological Breast Surgery: Comparison with Standard Care Dressings

Background:

Negative pressure wound therapy was developed for treating wounds associated with unfavorable healing factors. The principles of the negative pressure wound therapy applied on clean and closed surgical incision originate the closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT). We evaluated the use of ciNPT in the setting of oncological breast surgery.

Methods:

From January 1, 2015, to June 31, 2015, we prospectively selected 37 patients undergoing oncological breast surgery with a minimum of 4 risk factors. Seventeen patients (25 surgeries) voluntary tested ciNPT (ciNPT sample), whereas the remaining 20 (22 surgeries) chose conventional postsurgery dressing (Standard Care sample). Follow-up controls to evaluate postsurgical complications were performed on days 7, 14, 30, and 90. At 12 months, the quality of life, scar, and overall aesthetic outcomes were evaluated with specific questionnaires filled in by surgeon and patient. The Standard Care sample was investigated on risk factors associated with poor healing.

Results:

The ciNPT sample showed a significant prevalence of high risk factors, especially extensive undermining and bilateral surgeries, and a predominance of women under 65 years; only 1/25 (4%) surgical procedures was followed by complications. In the Standard Care sample, 10 of 22 surgeries (45%) were followed by complications. The difference in complication rate between the 2 samples was significant. The BIS (Body Image Scale) scores suggested that most patients were satisfied with their body image regardless of the type of dressing. All other questionnaire scores clearly vouched for a significant superiority of the ciNPT. Previous surgery ≤ 30 days emerged as the surgery-related high risk factor most frequently associated with postsurgery complications.

Conclusion:

The results of our study support the use of ciNPT in oncological breast surgery: it showed to be a well-tolerated, adaptable, and reliable dressing capable of reducing postsurgical complications and improving scar outcomes in patients presenting with high risk factors.

A Meta-analysis of Studies Comparing Outcomes of Diverse Acellular Dermal Matrices for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The current diversity of the available acellular dermal matrix (ADM) materials for implant-based breast reconstruction raises the issue of whether there are any differences in postoperative outcomes according to the kind of ADM used. The present meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether choice of ADM products can affect outcomes.

METHODS

Studies that used multiple kinds of ADM products for implant-based breast reconstruction and compared outcomes between them were searched. Outcomes of interest were rates of postoperative complications: infection, seroma, mastectomy flap necrosis, reconstruction failure, and overall complications.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies met the selection criteria. There was only 1 randomized controlled trial, and the other 16 studies had retrospective designs. Comparison of FlexHD, DermaMatrix, and ready-to-use AlloDerm with freeze-dried AlloDerm was conducted in multiple studies and could be meta-analyzed, in which 12 studies participated. In the meta-analysis comparing FlexHD and freeze-dried AlloDerm, using the results of 6 studies, both products showed similar pooled risks for all kinds of complications. When comparing DermaMatrix and freeze-dried AlloDerm with the results from 4 studies, there were also no differences between the pooled risks of complications of the two. Similarly, the meta-analysis of 4 studies comparing ready-to-use and freeze-dried AlloDerm demonstrated that the pooled risks for the complications did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates that the 3 recently invented, human cadaveric skin-based products of FlexHD, DermaMatrix, and ready-to-use AlloDerm have similar risks of complications compared with those of freeze-dried AlloDerm, which has been used for longer. However, as most studies had low levels of evidence, further investigations are needed.

Comparing the Outcome of Different Biologically Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-based Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of the Literatures

Background:

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used extensively in implant-based breast reconstruction. It was reported that due to the different sources and processing methods, the outcomes of ADMs in implant-based breast reconstructions are expected to differ. We designed this study to statistically analyze and discuss the outcome of 3 commonly used ADMs, Alloderm, Strattice, and Surgimend in implant-based breast reconstruction.

Methods:

Comprehensive review of the literatures searched on electronic databases was done to identify studies published between 2006 and 2017 comparing the outcome of ADMs. Pooled random effect estimates for each complication and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. One-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni test were used to compare statistical significance between and within groups, respectively. Multiple linear regression was done to include confounding factors and R statistic program for forest plot.

Results:

Twenty-one studies met the inclusion with a total of 1,659, 999, and 912 breasts reconstructions in Alloderm, Strattice, and Surgimend, respectively. Seven complications extracted including major and minor infection, seroma, implant loss, hematoma, capsular contracture, and localized erythema. Pooled total complication rates were 23.82% (95% CI, 21.18–26.47%) in Strattice, 17.98% (95% CI, 15.49–20.47%) in Surgimend, 16.21% (95% CI, 14.44–17.99%) in Alloderm. Seroma rate was the highest in Strattice group (8.61%; 95% CI, 6.87–10.35%). There was no statistical significance between and within groups.

Conclusion:

Although Strattice exhibited a higher overall pooled complication rate compared with Alloderm and Surgimend, the incidence of individual complication varies between studies. A cost analysis of different ADMs may aid in choosing the type of ADMs to be used.

A 3D Mammometric Comparison of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction With and Without Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM)

This retrospective study utilizes 3D imaging and mammometrics to compare implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of ADM. Previous studies have suggested improved aesthetic outcomes with the use of ADM, but none have been able to quantify this difference. Images were obtained at early and late time points following the expander-implant exchange procedure. Measurements included the point of maximum projection, the superior, inferior, medial and lateral volumetric distribution, and the distance from the point of maximum projection to the inframammary fold along the breast meridian. The patients' demographic information, implant size, and complication rate between the two cohorts were similar. In the early post-operative period, the patients with ADM demonstrated higher medial pole volume; however, this difference did not persist in the late post-operative period. Patients with ADM demonstrated a small but statistically significant greater point of maximum projection and length of lower pole curvature in comparison with the non-ADM cohort. In summary, the results of this study demonstrate improved mammometric measurements when ADM is used in implant-based breast reconstruction, supporting superior aesthetic outcomes in early and late post-operative time points.

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 .

Moffitt Cancer Center Experience of Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: Does Acellular Dermal Matrix Increase Return to the Operating Room?

BACKGROUND

Tissue expander and implant remains the most common technique for breast reconstruction. A controversial topic within this method is routine use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Acellular dermal matrices have increased risks of infection, seroma, hematoma, skin flap necrosis, and total complications.

METHODS

After an institutional review board approval, a retrospective chart review was conducted of 756 tissue expander with implant cases from November 2010 to November 2016 at Moffitt Cancer Center with 2 breast reconstruction surgeons. Patients were grouped in 2 groups: tissue expander alone reconstruction (TE) and tissue expander with ADM (TE + ADM). Complications were defined by return visits to the operating room for irrigation and debridement as well as for subsequent tissue expander placement.

RESULTS

There were 703 patients in the TE group and 53 in the TE + ADM group. Patients undergoing TE + ADM reconstruction were 3 times more likely to experience return to operating room compared with patients undergoing TE alone (7.5% vs 2.4%). Patients were significantly more likely to undergo 3 or more subsequent tissue expander placement procedures with TE + ADM (54.7%) compared with TE alone (4.8%) (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although ADM may be appropriate for specific patients, its use in tissue expander breast reconstruction should be judiciously selected, because there is an observed increase in complications needing return to the operating room.

Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

In modern implant-based immediate breast reconstruction, it has become common to use biological acellular dermal and synthetic matrices in combination with a tissue expander or an implant. The aim of this systematic review was to examine differences in recurrence of cancer, impact on oncological treatment, health related quality of life, complications and aesthetic outcome between matrix and no matrix in immediate breast reconstruction. Systematic searches, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed according to predetermined criteria. Fifty-one studies were eligible and included in the review. The certainty of evidence for overall complication rate and implant loss is low (GRADE ⊕⊕□ □). The certainty of evidence for delay of adjuvant treatment, implant loss, infection, capsular contraction and aesthetic outcome is very low (GRADE ⊕□ □ □). No study reported data on recurrence of cancer or health related quality of life. In conclusion, there is a lack of high quality studies that compare the use of matrix with no matrix in immediate breast reconstruction. Specifically, there are no data on risk of recurrence of cancer, delay of adjuvant treatment and Health related quality of life (HRQoL). In addition, there is a risk of bias in many studies. It is often unclear what complications have been included and how they have been diagnosed, and how and when capsular contracture and aesthetic outcome have been evaluated. Controlled trials that further analyse the impact of radiotherapy, type of matrix and type of procedure (one or two stages) are necessary.

Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Expander/Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Assessment of Risks and Benefits

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrix has gained widespread acceptance in immediate expander/implant reconstruction because of perceived benefits, including improved expansion dynamics and superior aesthetic results. Although previous investigators have evaluated its risks, few studies have assessed the impact of acellular dermal matrix on other outcomes, including patient-reported measures.

METHODS

The Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study used a prospective cohort design to evaluate patients undergoing postmastectomy reconstruction from 10 centers and 58 participating surgeons between 2012 and 2015. The analysis focused on women undergoing immediate tissue expander reconstruction following mastectomies for cancer treatment or prophylaxis. Medical records and patient-reported outcome data, using the BREAST-Q and Numeric Pain Rating Scale instruments, were reviewed. Bivariate analyses and mixed-effects regression models were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 1297 patients were evaluated, including 655 (50.5 percent) with acellular dermal matrix and 642 (49.5 percent) without acellular dermal matrix. Controlling for demographic and clinical covariates, no significant differences were seen between acellular dermal matrix and non-acellular dermal matrix cohorts in overall complications (OR, 1.21; p = 0.263), major complications (OR, 1.43; p = 0.052), wound infections (OR, 1.49; p = 0.118), or reconstructive failures (OR, 1.55; p = 0.089) at 2 years after reconstruction. There were also no significant differences between the cohorts in the time to expander/implant exchange (p = 0.78). No significant differences were observed in patient-reported outcome scores, including satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, physical well-being, and postoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter, prospective analysis, the authors found no significant acellular dermal matrix effects on complications, time to exchange, or patient-reported outcome in immediate expander/implant breast reconstruction. Further studies are needed to develop criteria for more selective use of acellular dermal matrix in these patients.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Dermis, acellular dermal matrix, and fibroblasts from different layers of pig skin exhibit different profibrotic characteristics: evidence from in vivo study

To explore the profibrotic characteristics of the autografted dermis, acellular dermal matrix, and dermal fibroblasts from superficial/deep layers of pig skin, 93 wounds were established on the dorsa of 7 pigs. 72 wounds autografted with the superficial/deep dermis and acellular dermal matrix served as the superficial/deep dermis and acellular dermal matrix group, respectively, and were sampled at 2, 4, and 8 weeks post-wounding. 21 wounds autografted with/without superficial/deep dermal fibroblasts served as the superficial/deep dermal fibroblast group and the control group, respectively, and were sampled at 2 weeks post-wounding. The hematoxylin and eosin staining showed that the wounded skin thicknesses in the deep dermis group (superficial acellular dermal matrix group) were significantly greater than those in the superficial dermis group (deep acellular dermal matrix group) at each time point, the thickness of the cutting plane in the deep dermal fibroblast group was significantly greater than that in the superficial dermal fibroblast group and the control group. The western blots showed that the α-smooth muscle actin expression in the deep dermis group (superficial acellular dermal matrix group) was significantly greater than that in the superficial dermis group (deep acellular dermal matrix group) at each time point. In summary, the deep dermis and dermal fibroblasts exhibited more profibrotic characteristics than the superficial ones, on the contrary, the deep acellular dermal matrix exhibited less profibrotic characteristics than the superficial one.

Pre-hydrated sterile acellular dermal matrix allograft in breast reconstruction: review of a single unit's experience

BACKGROUND

The acellular dermal matrix (Flex HD) (FHD) became available for use in Western Australia in 2014 to aid prosthetic breast reconstruction and this descriptive study aims to review and discuss a single institution's experience since its introduction.

METHODS

By retrospective case note, review data were collected for all patients who underwent prosthetic breast reconstruction with the aid of FHD between January 2014 and August 2015 in our institution. Data on basic demographic parameters, risk factors, surgery-related factors, post-operative factors and follow-up information were collected. All complications were recorded and described in detail.

RESULTS

FHD was used in 42 breast reconstructions in 26 patients. Procedure-related complications were seen in 26% (n = 11) of cases. A major complication requiring return to theatre was seen in 11% (n = 5) of cases. Cellulitis of the reconstructed breast (red breast syndrome) was seen in 16.67% (n = 7) cases. Overall implant loss was 2.4% (n = 1). Of the six possible risk factors for any complication, only current smoking was found to increase the risk of complications (odds ratio = 9.667, 95% confidence interval = 1.429-65.377).

CONCLUSION

FHD is associated with a relatively high overall complication rate. Use of this optional expensive material has to be carefully selected balancing its perceived advantages against this possible risk. The red breast syndrome merits further studies considering its frequent occurrence with FHD use.

Cost analysis of postmastectomy reconstruction: A comparison of two staged implant reconstruction using tissue expander and acellular dermal matrix with abdominal-based perforator free flaps

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Two staged tissue expander-implant with acellular dermal matrix (TE/I + ADM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap are the most common implant and autologous methods of reconstruction in the U.S. Implant-based techniques are disproportionally more popular, partially due to its presumed cost effectiveness. We performed a comprehensive cost analysis to compare TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap.

METHODS

A comparative cost analysis of TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap was performed. Medicare reimbursement costs for each procedure and their associated complications were calculated. Pooled probabilities of complications including cellulitis, seroma, skin necrosis, implant removal, flap loss, partial flap loss, and fat necrosis, were calculated using published studies from 2010 to 2016.

RESULTS

Average actual cost for successful TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap were $13 304.55 and $10 237.13, respectively. Incorporating pooled complication data from published literature resulted in an increase in cost to $13 963.46 for TE/I + ADM and $12 624.29 for DIEP flap. The expected costs for successful TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap were $9700.35 and $8644.23, which are lower than the actual costs.

CONCLUSIONS

DIEP flap breast reconstruction incurs lower costs compared to TE/I + ADM. These costs are lower at baseline and when additional costs from pooled complications are incorporated.

Clinical Outcomes in Breast Reconstruction Patients Using a Sterile Acellular Dermal Matrix Allograft

BACKGROUND

Human acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have enabled successful breast reconstructions while decreasing muscle donor morbidity and pain for the patient. However, some literature reports indicate an increase in complications, especially infection. The decellularization and terminal sterilization properties of DermACELL (D-ADM), a human ADM, may reduce the rate of complications in augmented breast reconstruction while still maintaining successful outcomes. In the study presented here, we evaluate the quality and safety of outcomes with the use of D-ADM during tissue expander breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients who underwent breast reconstruction with the use of D-ADM, at a single-military hospital-based practice, resulting in a population of 38 subjects and 58 breasts who had breast reconstruction augmented with D-ADM.

RESULTS

Fifty-six breasts (96.6%) in thirty-six patients demonstrated successful outcomes with a median 27 weeks' time to complete healing. Post-reconstruction radiation and chemotherapy were applied to 24.1 and 25.9% of reconstructions, respectively. Complications rates were minimal with rates of 1.7% for surgical site infection and 1.7% for red breast syndrome.

CONCLUSION

The low complication rates combined with the high success and patient satisfaction rates observed for D-ADM support the use of this ADM in breast reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 .

Surveillance and Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Breast Oncologic Surgery with Immediate Reconstruction

Surgical site infection (SSI) after immediate breast reconstruction is much more common than would be expected after a clean surgical procedure. Although the SSI rates reported in individual studies are quite variable, there are no obvious explanations for the variation in infection rates between institutions. The microbiology of these SSIs is unusual, with higher proportions of infections caused by atypical Myobacterium species and Gram-negative bacilli than would be expected for this anatomic site. In an effort to prevent SSIs, many surgeons use a variety of different practices including irrigation and soaking of implants with antibiotic solutions and prolonged duration of prophylactic antibiotics, although the literature to support these practices is very sparse. In particular, prolonged use of antibiotics post-discharge is concerning due to the potential for harm, including increased risk of Clostridium difficile infection, development of antibiotic resistant organisms, and drug-related allergic reactions. With higher rates of mastectomy and breast implant reconstruction in women with early-stage breast cancer, including greater utilization of reconstruction in higher-risk individuals, the number of women suffering from infection after oncologic reconstruction will likely continue to increase. It is imperative that more research be done to identify modifiable factors associated with increased risk of infection. It is also essential that larger studies with rigorous study designs be performed to identify optimal strategies to decrease the risk of SSI in this vulnerable population.

Uneventful versus Successful Reconstruction and Outcome Pathways in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrices

BACKGROUND

Meaningful data to help guide resource allocation for staged tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction are currently lacking. The authors seek to differentiate uneventful from successful reconstruction and identify common outcome pathways and factors that portend a deviation from an uneventful, two-stage, two-operation course.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of expander/implant reconstructions with or without acellular dermal matrix (2003 to 2009) was performed. Related postreconstructive events (including mastectomy flap necrosis, seroma, wound dehiscence, cellulitis, explantation, hematoma, and capsular revisions) were assessed for 2 years. Uneventful reconstruction was defined as exchange to breast implant within 2 years of tissue expander placement without complications, whereas successful reconstruction was defined as exchange to breast implant within 2 years with or without complications. Factors affecting reconstructive success were analyzed, and patterns of postreconstructive events were summarized as outcome pathways.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirteen patients (295 with acellular dermal matrix and 118 without), with 602 breasts (432 with acellular dermal matrix and 170 without) underwent reconstruction. Forty-six percent of patients (48 percent with acellular dermal matrix and 40 percent without), experienced uneventful reconstruction. Reconstructive success was achieved in 337 patients (82 percent; 82.0 percent with acellular dermal matrix and 80.5 percent without), with reconstructive failure occurring in 58 patients. Multiple logistic regression analyses determined that cellulitis, seroma, and skin necrosis (OR, 15.8, 7.7, and 8.4, respectively) were highly predictive of reconstructive failure. The authors identified 10 distinct pathways experienced by tissue expander/implant patients that were characterized by specific postreconstructive events.

CONCLUSION

The present study will facilitate discussions among patients, providers, and payers by providing a framework for understanding the myriad outcome pathways in implant-based reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Comparison of two cadaveric acellular dermal matrices for immediate breast reconstruction: A prospective randomized trial

AlloDerm RTU^® and AlloMaxTM are two acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) used in implant-based breast reconstruction. In this study, we examined whether different processing methods for the ADMs lead to a disparity in histologic, clinical, and financial outcomes after breast reconstruction. Thirty patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction were randomized into AlloMax or AlloDerm arms (n = 15, each). ADM was placed at the time of immediate reconstruction. Patients were evaluated for complications on postoperative days 7, 14, and 30. During implant exchange, ADM biopsies were taken and compared histologically for vascular and cellular infiltration. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the BRECON-31 questionnaire 1 year after implant exchange. A cost analysis was performed comparing the two ADMs. Patient demographics and complication rates were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). Histologically, vessel density and fibroblast/inflammatory cell infiltrate were greater on the dermal side than on the implant side (p < 0.01) in both ADMs, suggesting greater vascular and cellular in-growth from the dermal side. Vessel density in the middle portion of the Allomax biopsies was significantly higher than the same site in the Alloderm biopsies (p < 0.05). The extent of fibroblast/inflammatory cell infiltration was similar in both arms (p > 0.05). The BRECON-31 satisfaction questionnaire yielded similar responses across all metrics between the two study arms. The negotiated price was slightly different when comparing the two ADMs, with no significant difference in ADM reimbursement. In this study, AlloDerm RTU and AlloMax were successfully used for implant-based breast reconstruction with comparable outcomes.

A Review of the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrices in Postmastectomy Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are now commonly used in postmastectomy implant-based immediate breast reconstruction. In 2-stage reconstructions involving placement of a tissue expander followed by an implant, they can improve the aesthetic outcome and expedite the expansion process. The use of ADMs has also allowed for 1-stage immediate placement of an implant following mastectomy (direct-to-implant reconstruction). However, the use of ADMs is associated with an increased risk of certain types of complications. An understanding of the use of these materials is essential to the postoperative care of patients who undergo ADM-assisted breast reconstruction. In this article, the use of ADMs in postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction is reviewed.

An Alternative Technique for Immediate Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction-A Case Series

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

The practice of breast reconstruction continues to evolve with the introduction of new technologies. The authors describe a unique approach allowing immediate direct-to-implant reconstruction that can be performed on an outpatient basis.

Methods:

After a nipple-sparing mastectomy, acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-covered implants are placed in a prepectoral position in an immediate reconstruction. Assessment of results was performed via a retrospective review of demographic and procedural data.

Results:

Forty-five patients (79 breasts), mean age 46.8 years, were treated with direct-to-implant reconstruction using ADM-wrapped implants placed above the muscle with mean follow-up of 23.1 months (median 22 mo). Mean body mass index was 24.3, and 15 patients (33.3%) were current or former smokers. Twenty-seven patients (60%) had prior breast surgery with 22 (49%) exposed to chemotherapy and 34 (76%) radiation. Procedure time averaged 155 minutes and hospital length of stay averaged 0.6 days. Complications included flap necrosis in 22 cases (28%), seroma in 12 (15%), infection in 8 (10%), rippling in 28 (35%), and contracture in 8 (10%). In 14 breasts (18%), postoperative wound complications (flap necrosis or infection) led to implant loss.

Conclusions:

The availability of ADM and cohesive gel implants has allowed us to perform above-the-muscle implant breast reconstruction in reduced time and often on an outpatient basis. Complication rates were comparable to expected results of standard expander-to-implant, staged breast reconstruction. This technique is a viable option delivering clinically and aesthetically acceptable results in select patients.

Alloplastic adjuncts in breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing role of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and synthetic meshes in both single- and two-stage implant/expander breast reconstruction. Numerous alloplastic adjuncts exist, and these vary in material type, processing, storage, surgical preparation, level of sterility, available sizes and cost. However, there is little published data on most, posing a significant challenge to the reconstructive surgeon trying to compare and select the most suitable product. The aims of this systematic review were to identify, summarize and evaluate the outcomes of studies describing the use of alloplastic adjuncts for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. The secondary aims were to determine their cost-effectiveness and analyze outcomes in patients who also underwent radiotherapy.

METHODS

Using the PRSIMA 2009 statement, a systematic review was conducted to find articles reporting on the outcomes on the use of alloplastic adjuncts in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Multiple databases were searched independently by three authors (Cabalag MS, Miller GS and Chae MP), including: Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to present), Embase (1980 to 2015), PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Current published literature on available alloplastic adjuncts are predominantly centered on ADMs, both allogeneic and xenogeneic, with few outcome studies available for synthetic meshes. Outcomes on the 89 articles, which met the inclusion criteria, were summarized and analyzed. The reported outcomes on alloplastic adjunct-assisted breast reconstruction were varied, with most data available on the use of ADMs, particularly AlloDerm(®) (LifeCell, Branchburg, New Jersey, USA). The use of ADMs in single-stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction resulted in lower complication rates (infection, seroma, implant loss and late revision), and was more cost effective when compared to non-ADM, two-stage reconstruction. The majority of studies demonstrated inferior outcomes in ADM assisted, two-stage expander-to-implant reconstruction compared to non-ADM use. Multiple studies suggest that the use of ADMs results in a reduction of capsular contracture rates. Additionally, the reported beneficial effects of ADM use in irradiated tissue were varied.

CONCLUSIONS

ADM assisted two-stage breast reconstruction was associated with inferior outcomes when compared to non-ADM use. However, alloplastic adjuncts may have a role in single stage, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Published evidence comparing the long-term outcomes between the different types of adjuncts is lacking, and further level one studies are required to identify the ideal product.

Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Are All Acellular Dermal Matrices Created Equal?

BACKGROUND

AlloDerm and FlexHD are two types of acellular dermal matrices commonly used in implant-based reconstruction. Although the use of acellular dermal matrix has revolutionized immediate breast reconstruction in the setting of breast cancer, it remains unclear which type of acellular dermal matrix is best. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare postoperative complication rates between these two types of acellular dermal matrix.

METHODS

The authors reviewed the records of all patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction at their institution between 1998 and 2013. Dependent variables of seroma, hematoma, infection, delayed wound healing, implant exposure, and return to the operating room for management of complications were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 309 consecutive patients were identified. Of these, AlloDerm was used in 123 patients (39.8 percent) and FlexHD was used in 186 patients (60.2 percent). Most patients in the authors' cohort underwent immediate reconstruction [n = 288 (93.2 percent)], with a mean follow-up of 20.0 months. Patients receiving AlloDerm were half as likely to have major infections compared with patients receiving FlexHD (OR, 0.50; 95 percent CI, 0.16 to 1.00; p < 0.05). The rates of other complications were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

There are significantly increased odds of a major infection in patients who undergo implant-based breast reconstruction using FlexHD compared with AlloDerm.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Incidence of Seromas and Infections Using Fenestrated versus Nonfenestrated Acellular Dermal Matrix in Breast Reconstructions

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) provide clinical benefits in breast reconstruction but have been associated with increased postoperative complications, most frequently seromas. Fenestration of the ADM before insertion into the reconstructed breast may reduce the incidence of postoperative complications. In this retrospective analysis, postoperative complications were assessed after breast reconstruction with or without fenestrated ADMs.

METHODS

Patients who underwent immediate 2-staged implant breast reconstructions using ADM at a single center were assessed. The number of reconstructed breasts was stratified by ADM fenestration status and ADM type. The incidence of seroma, infection, extrusion, and explantation, and cosmetic score, was compared within the 2 stratified groups. A multivariable regression was performed to identify independent risk factors associated with these complications and aesthetic outcome.

RESULTS

In total, data from 450 patients who had 603 breast reconstructions using either AlloDerm or FlexHD demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of seroma with nonfenestrated ADMs (20%) versus fenestrated ADMs (11%; P = 0.0098). Rates of infection and explantation, and cosmetic score, were not influenced by fenestration status. In the multivariable analysis, ADM fenestration remained a significant protective factor for seroma formation. FlexHD also yielded a lower incidence of extrusion (P = 0.0031) and a higher cosmetic score (P = 0.0466) compared with AlloDerm after adjusting for other risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support ADM fenestration for reduction of seroma incidence in breast reconstruction, without affecting cosmetic results. Additionally, the choice of ADM may reduce extrusion incidence and improve aesthetic outcomes.

Conservative mastectomies and immediate reconstruction with the use of ADMs

BACKGROUND

In recent years, a novel approach to immediate breast reconstruction has been introduced with the advent of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). In the setting of conservative mastectomies where the native skin envelope is preserved, placement of ADM at the lower pole in continuity with the pectoralis major muscle (PMM) provides additional support, allowing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. The following manuscript presents the senior author's experience with ADM-assisted reconstruction and provides a detailed description of surgical technique along with a comprehensive discussion of patient selection and potential complications.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients undergoing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction following skin sparing or nipple sparing mastectomy with the use of ADM (AlloDerm; LifeCell Corp., Branchburg, USA) was conducted at Women's College Hospital in Toronto over a 5-year period [2008-2013]. Demographic data, previous radiation therapy and post-operative complications were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients representing 119 breasts were identified. Average follow-up was 16 months (range, 3-51 months). Twenty-seven complications were recorded for a complication rate of 22.7% (27/119). Complications included six cases of capsular contracture (Baker III/IV), five cases of red skin syndrome, four cases of rippling, three cases of dehiscence and two cases of seroma. Overall, direct-to-implant reconstruction was successfully completed in 97.5% of breasts (116/119). One case of infection was treated with explantation and conversion to autogenous reconstruction. Two breasts with tissue necrosis or dehiscence had the implants removed and replaced with tissue expanders. Overall reoperation rate was 9.7% (7/72 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

ADM assisted direct-to-implant breast reconstruction has been shown to be a safe option for women who are candidates for skin sparing or nipple sparing mastectomies. Judicious patient selection, effective collaboration between the oncologic and reconstructive surgeon, careful evaluation of post-mastectomy skin flaps and precise surgical technique are paramount to the success of this technique.

Updated Evidence of Acellular Dermal Matrix Use for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has increased exponentially, debates regarding its safety are still ongoing. There have been several meta-analyses; however, potential learning curve effects of using ADM might affect their outcomes. The present meta-analysis reappraised the potential benefits and risks of ADM on the outcome of implant-based breast reconstruction using recent publications.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant studies comparing the outcome of ADM use with traditional submuscular technique, which were published from 2011 to 2014. The relative risks of postoperative complications and mean difference of expander dynamics between the two groups were computed.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies representing 6199 cases were analyzed. There was one randomized controlled study and three prospective cohort studies. The use of ADM significantly elevated the risks of infection, seroma, and mastectomy flap necrosis, but did not affect the risks of implant loss, unplanned reoperation, and total complications. The risks of capsular contracture and implant malposition were significantly reduced by the application of ADM. The ADM allows for significantly greater intraoperative expansion and reduced frequency of injection to complete expansion.

CONCLUSIONS

According to this meta-analysis, the increasing risks for serious complication and overall morbidity related to ADM use might not be remarkable, while its benefits for preventing late complications and improving expander dynamics might be appreciable. Although future well-controlled studies would be required, the implant-based breast reconstruction using ADM may be reliable and advantageous.

Implant-based breast reconstruction with meshes and matrices: biological vs synthetic

This article presents an overview of the different acellular dermal matrices and synthetic meshes used in modern-day primary and secondary implant-based breast reconstruction. Case examples are given, along with a description of the senior author's pioneering direct-to-implant reconstruction.

Anti-endotoxic and antibacterial effects of a dermal substitute coated with host defense peptides

Biomaterials used during surgery and wound treatment are of increasing importance in modern medical care. In the present study we set out to evaluate the addition of thrombin-derived host defense peptides to human acellular dermis (hAD, i.e. epiflex(®)). Antimicrobial activity of the functionalized hAD was demonstrated using radial diffusion and viable count assays against Gram-negative Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Gram-positive Staphylococcus aureus bacteria. Electron microscopy analyses showed that peptide-mediated bacterial killing led to reduced hAD degradation. Furthermore, peptide-functionalized hAD displayed endotoxin-binding activity in vitro, as evidenced by inhibition of NF-κB activation in human monocytic cells (THP-1 cells) and a reduction of pro-inflammatory cytokine production in whole blood in response to lipopolysaccharide stimulation. The dermal substitute retained its anti-endotoxic activity after washing, compatible with results showing that the hAD bound a significant amount of peptide. Furthermore, bacteria-induced contact activation was inhibited by peptide addition to the hAD. E. coli infected hAD, alone, or after treatment with the antiseptic substance polyhexamethylenebiguanide (PHMB), yielded NF-κB activation in THP-1 cells. The activation was abrogated by peptide addition. Thus, thrombin-derived HDPs should be of interest in the further development of new biomaterials with combined antimicrobial and anti-endotoxic functions for use in surgery and wound treatment.

Tissue Reinforcement in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Tissue reinforcement with allogeneic or xenogeneic acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) is increasingly used in single-stage (direct-to-implant) and 2-stage implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy. ADMs allow surgeons to control implant position and obviate the need for submuscular implant placement. Here, we review the benefits and risks of using ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction based on available data.

Methods:

A comprehensive analysis of the literature with focus on recent publications was performed. Additional information regarding the proper use of ADMs was based on our institutional experience.

Results:

ADM use may improve definition of the lateral confines of the breast and lower pole projection. It may facilitate direct-to-implant procedures and improve aesthetic outcomes. The effect of ADMs on complication rates remains controversial. Known patient risk factors such as obesity, smoking, and radiotherapy should be considered during patient selection. For patients with healthy, well-vascularized skin envelopes, ADM-assisted direct-to- implant reconstruction is a safe and cost-effective alternative to 2-stage implant reconstruction, with low complication rates. ADMs may be used to treat capsular contracture, and limited available data further suggest the possibility that ADMs may reduce the risk of capsular contracture. Novel synthetic or biosynthetic tissue reinforcement devices with different physical and ease-of-use properties than ADMs are emerging options for reconstructive surgeons and patients who seek to avoid tissue products from human or mammalian cadavers.

Conclusions:

ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction may improve aesthetic outcomes. However, appropriate patient selection, surgical technique, and postoperative management are critical for its success, including minimizing the risk of complications.

Biological Matrices and Synthetic Meshes Used in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction - a Review of Products Available in Germany

While autologous breast reconstruction was considered the procedure of choice for immediate breast reconstruction, there has been a shift towards implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) in recent years. The proven safety of silicone breast implants and the development of biological matrices and synthetic meshes have contributed to the growing popularity of this approach. Although these different products are widely used, only limited clinical data are available with regard to breast surgery. The aim of this review was to give an overview of available biological matrices and synthetic meshes and discuss their use in clinical practice.