Implant Based Breast Reconstruction With Acellular Dermal Matrix: Safety Data From an Open-label, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial in the Setting of Breast Cancer Treatment

Antibiotic Implant Irrigation and Deep Infection: A Retrospective Study of 1508 Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction with Implants

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic implant irrigation is increasingly used to prevent deep infection after implant-based breast reconstruction. However, there is limited evidence of the clinical effect. In this study, the authors compare the risk of a deep infection in a Danish population of women who received antibiotic implant irrigation with either gentamicin or vancomycin, or no irrigation.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients undergoing all types of breast reconstruction with implants at Rigshospitalet and Herlev Hospital, Denmark, from 2010 to 2019. Logistic regression was used to compare the risk of deep infection between no irrigation and irrigation with gentamicin or vancomycin, and to account for the difference in risk between patient subgroups and risk factors.

RESULTS

The authors included 1508 patients who received antibiotic irrigation with gentamicin (500 patients), vancomycin (304 patients), or no irrigation (704 patients). The univariable risk analysis showed a significant decreased risk of deep infection using gentamicin irrigation compared with no irrigation (OR, 0.58; P < 0.05). However, when adjusting for risk factors for infection, there was no significant decrease in the risk of infection when using gentamicin (OR, 0.90; P = 0.71) or vancomycin (OR, 1.0; P = 0.99) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found no significant effect of using antibiotic implant irrigation after isolating it from risk factors for deep infection. However, because of the limitations of the study, the authors cannot conclude that there is no effect of antibiotic implant irrigation. There is a need for a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effect, and potential side-effects, of antibiotic implant irrigation.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, II.

Impact of Tissue Expander Surface Texture on Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction Outcomes: A Combined Analysis

BACKGROUND

With ongoing investigations of the impact of device texturing on breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), studies have begun comparing complication profiles of tissue expanders. However, there is a paucity of timing and severity data of complications. The aim of this study was to provide a comparative survival analysis of postoperative complications between smooth (STEs) and textured tissue expanders (TTEs) in breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A single-institution experience with tissue expander breast reconstruction was reviewed for complications up to 1 year after second-stage reconstruction from 2014 to 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, operation-related variables, and complications were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazard models, and a consensus-based ordinal logistic regression model were used to compare complication profiles.

RESULTS

Of 919 total patients, 600 (65.3%) received TTEs and 319 (34.7%) received STEs. There was increased risk of infection ( P < 0.0001), seroma ( P = 0.046), expander malposition ( P < 0.0001), and wound dehiscence ( P = 0.019) in STEs compared with TTEs. However, there was also a decreased risk of capsular contracture ( P = 0.005) in STEs compared with TTEs. Failure of breast reconstruction ( P < 0.001) and wound dehiscence ( P = 0.018) occurred significantly earlier in STEs compared with TTEs. Predictors for significantly higher severity complications included the following: smooth tissue expander use ( P = 0.007), shorter time to complication ( P < 0.0001), higher body mass index ( P = 0.005), smoking history ( P = 0.025), and nipple-sparing mastectomy ( P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in the timing and severity of complications contribute to the safety profiles of tissue expanders. STEs are associated with increased odds of higher severity and earlier complications. Therefore, tissue expander selection may depend on underlying risk factors and severity predictors.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

For preference sensitive treatments, such as breast reconstructions, there are barriers to conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary aims of this systematic review were to investigate what type of research questions are explored by RCTs in breast reconstruction, where have they been performed and where have they been published, and to thematise the research questions and thus create an overview of the state of the research field.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials investigating any aspect of breast reconstructions were included. The PubMed database was searched with a pre-defined search string. Inclusion and data abstraction was performed in a pre-defined standardised fashion. For the purpose of this study, we defined key issues as comparison of categories of breast reconstruction and comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, when the thematisation was done.

RESULTS

A total of 419 abstracts were retrieved from the search. Of the 419, 310 were excluded as they were not RCTs concerning some aspect of breast reconstruction, which left us with 110 abstracts to be included in the study. The research questions of the included studies could more or less be divided into seven different themes inclusive of 2 key issues: Other issues - comparison of different categories of breast reconstruction, comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, surgical details within a category of breast reconstruction, surgical details valid for several categories of breast reconstruction, donor site management, anaesthetics, and non-surgical details. Only five studies compared key issues, and they all illustrate the challenges with RCTs in breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 110 publications based on RCTs in breast reconstruction have been published. Seven themes of research questions could be identified. Only five studies have explored the key issues. Better scientific evidence is needed for the key issues in breast reconstruction, for example by implementing a new study design in the field.

Review: Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Studies Comparing Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) Versus Without ADM

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the world's most prevalent cancer, and many breast cancer patients undergo mastectomy as the choice of treatment, often with post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) use has become a method to improve outcomes of reconstruction for these patients. We aimed to compare postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes, which are still poorly characterized, between groups utilizing acellular dermal matrix during reconstruction and those without.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched electronic databases from inception to 16 June 2022 for randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies comparing the outcomes of patients who have and have not received acellular dermal matrix in implant-based breast reconstruction. The results were quantitatively combined and analyzed using random-effects models.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were included, representing 3161 breasts. There was no significant difference in postoperative outcomes, such as seroma formation (p = 0.51), hematomas (p = 0.20), infections (p = 0.21), wound dehiscence (p = 0.09), reoperations (p = 0.70), implant loss (p = 0.27), or skin necrosis (p = 0.21). Only two of the studies included evaluated patient-reported outcomes between the use and non-use of ADM in implant-based breast reconstruction using BREAST-Q questionnaire, as well as self-reported pain. There was no reported significant difference in BREAST-Q or pain scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis shows comparable short- and long-term outcomes between ADM and non-ADM breast reconstruction, suggesting that the use of ADM may not be necessary in all cases given their additional cost. However, there is a paucity of data for patient-reported outcomes, and further research is required to determine whether ADM use affects patient-reported outcomes.

Statistical fragility of outcomes in acellular dermal matrix literature: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is commonly used in plastic and reconstructive surgery. With the abundance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting P-values for ADM outcomes, this study used the fragility index (FI), reverse fragility index (rFI), and fragility quotient (FQ) to evaluate the statistical stability of the outcomes in ADM RCTs.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Medline, and Cochrane databases were reviewed for ADM RCTs (2003-present) reporting a dichotomous, categorical outcome. FI and rFI (event reversals influencing outcome significance) and FQ (standardized fragility) were calculated and reported as median. Subgroup analysis was performed based on intervention types.

RESULTS

Among the 127 studies screened, 56 RCTs with 579 outcomes were included. The median FI stood at 4 (3-5) and FQ was 0.04 (0.03-0.07). Only 101 outcomes were statistically significant with a median FI of 3 (1-6) and FQ of 0.04 (0.02-0.08). The nonsignificant outcomes had a median FI of 4 (3-5) and FQ of 0.04 (0.03-0.07). Notably, 26% of the outcomes had several patients lost to follow up equal to or surpassing the FI. Based on the intervention type, the median FIs showed minor fluctuations but remained low.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes from ADM-related RCTs were statistically fragile. Slight outcome reversals or maintenance of patient follow-up can alter the significance of results. Therefore, future researchers are recommended to jointly report FI, FQ, and P-values to offer a comprehensive view of the robustness in ADM literature.

The Usage of Mesh and Relevant Prognosis in Implant Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although mesh-based implant breast reconstruction surgery is emerging as the primary surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, mesh use remains controversial in implant breast reconstruction surgery, especially in terms of how to select the ideal mesh. Our aim is to elaborate relevant prognosis in the mesh-based implant breast reconstruction surgery.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane library searches. Extracted data included study type, basic characteristics, mesh information, complications, etc. We analyzed the included cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that reported mesh-related implant breast reconstruction complications and breast quality scale scores.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies including 7475 subjects were included. The results showed that the overall complication rate was 2.07 times higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (risk ratio [RR]: 2.07, 95% CI 1.14-3.78). The risk of seroma was 4.50 times higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (RR: 4.50, 95% CI 2.27-8.95). In terms of comparing breast quality scale scores, the mesh group had scores that were 1.49 (95% CI 0.19-2.78) higher than the non-mesh group for "physical well-being" and 2.05 (95% CI 0.08-4.02) higher for "sexual well-being."

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that the risk of total complications was higher with biological mesh than with synthetic mesh in implant breast reconstruction surgery. Based on short-term cost, healthcare burden, and healthcare benefits, synthetic meshes are superior to biological meshes.

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 .

[Update and Trends in Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy]

Due to refinements in operating techniques, autologous breast reconstruction has become part of standard care. It has become more difficult to advise patients due to the expansion of oncologic options for mastectomy, radiation therapy and the variety of reconstructive techniques. The goal of reconstruction is to achieve oncologically clear margins and a long-term aesthetically satisfactory result with a high quality of life. Immediate reconstruction preserves the skin of the breast and its natural form and prevents the psychological trauma associated with mastectomy. However, secondary reconstructions often have a higher satisfaction, since here no restitutio ad integrum is assumed. Alloplastic, i. e., implant-based, breast reconstruction and autologous breast reconstruction are complementary techniques. This article provides an overview of current options for breast reconstruction including patients' satisfaction and quality of life following breast reconstruction. Although immediate reconstruction is still the preferred choice of most patients and surgeons, delayed reconstruction does not appear to compromise clinical or patient-reported outcomes. Recent refinements in surgical techniques and autologous breast reconstruction include stacked-flaps, as well as microsurgical nerve coaptation to restore sensitivity, which lead to improved outcomes and quality of life. Nowadays Skin-sparing and nipple-sparing mastectomy, accompanied by improved implant quality, allows immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction as well as reemergence of the prepectoral implantation. The choice of breast reconstruction depends on the type of mastectomy, necessary radiation, individual risk factors, as well as the patient's habitus and wishes. Overall, recent developments in breast reconstruction led to an increase in patient satisfaction, quality of life and aesthetic outcome with oncological safety.

Acellular dermal matrix in reconstructive surgery: Applications, benefits, and cost

Modern tissue engineering has made substantial advancements that have revolutionized plastic surgery. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is an example that has gained considerable attention recently. ADM can be made from humans, bovines, or porcine tissues. ADM acts as a scaffold that incorporates into the recipient tissue. It is gradually infiltrated by fibroblasts and vascularized. Fortunately, many techniques have been used to remove cellular and antigenic components from ADM to minimize immune system rejection. ADM is made of collagen, fibronectin, elastin, laminin, glycosaminoglycans, and hyaluronic acid. It is used in critical wounds (e.g., diabetic wounds) to protect soft tissue and accelerate wound healing. It is also used in implant-based breast reconstruction surgery to improve aesthetic outcomes and reduce capsule contracture risk. ADM has also gained attention in abdominal and chest wall defects. Some studies have shown that ADM is associated with less erosion and infection in abdominal hernias than synthetic meshes. However, its higher cost prevents it from being commonly used in hernia repair. Also, using ADM in tendon repair (e.g., Achilles tendon) has been associated with increased stability and reduced rejection rate. Despite its advantages, ADM might result in complications such as hematoma, seroma, necrosis, and infection. Moreover, ADM is expensive, making it an unsuitable option for many patients. Finally, the literature on ADM is insufficient, and more research on the results of ADM usage in surgeries is needed. This article aims to review the literature regarding the application, Benefits, and costs of ADM in reconstructive surgery.

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.

A Nationwide Analysis Evaluating the Safety of Using Acellular Dermal Matrix with Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction

Background  In March 2021, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication cautioned against the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) products in breast reconstruction and reiterated that the FDA does not approve ADM use in breast surgery. This study aims to assess the safety of ADM use in breast reconstruction. Methods  Women who underwent ADM and non-ADM assisted tissue expander (TE)-based breast reconstruction were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2012-2019). Trends of ADM use over time, and 30-day outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI), dehiscence, and unplanned reoperation were assessed. Results  Of the 49,049 TE-based breast reconstructive cases, 42.4% were ADM assisted and 57.6% non-ADM assisted. From 2012 to 2019, the use of ADM increased from 26.1 to 55.6% (relative risk [RR] =1.10; p  < 0.01). Higher rates of SSI (3.9 vs. 3.4%; p  = 0.003) and reoperation (7.4 vs. 6.0%; p  < 0.001) were seen in the ADM cohort. There was no significant difference seen in dehiscence rates (0.7 vs. 0.7%; p  = 0.73). The most common reoperation within 30 days for the ADM group (17.6%) was removal of TE without insertion of implant (current procedural terminology: 11,971). ADM-assisted breast reconstruction was associated with increased relative risk of SSI by 10% (RR = 1.10, confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.21; p  = 0.03) and reoperation by 15% (RR = 1.15, CI: 1.08-1.23; p  < 0.001). Conclusions  ADM-assisted breast reconstruction more than doubled from 2012 to 2019. There are statistically higher complication rates of SSI (0.5%) and reoperation (1.4%) with ADM use in TE-based breast reconstruction, suggesting that reconstruction without ADM is safe when comparing immediate postoperative outcomes.

Long-term outcomes of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without radiotherapy: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy (RT) is a risk factor for impaired outcomes after implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Large studies including long-term follow-up are relatively scarce. The purpose of this analysis was to assess long-term effects of RT in implant-based IBR, distinguishing between implant removal because of postoperative complications versus patient preference.

METHODS

This population-based cohort study included all patients with breast cancer who underwent implant-based IBR in Stockholm between 2005 and 2015. Data were collected through national registers and medical charts. The main endpoint was implant removal owing to postoperative complications (wound breakdown, infection, bleeding) or patient preference (dissatisfaction, pain, capsular contracture), with or without conversion to autologous reconstruction.

RESULTS

Some 1749 implant-based IBRs in 1687 women were included. Median follow-up was 72 (range 1-198) months. Reconstructions were divided according to receipt of RT: No RT (n = 856, 48.9 per cent), adjuvant RT (n = 749, 42.8 per cent), and previous RT (n = 144, 8.2 per cent). Implant removal occurred after 266 reconstructions (15.2 per cent); 68 (7.9 per cent) in the no RT, 158 (21.1 per cent) in the adjuvant RT, and 40 (27.8 per cent) in the previous RT group. Implant removal was because of postoperative complications in 152 instances (57.1 per cent) and was most common in the first 3 years. This was especially observed in the previous RT group, where 15 of 23 implant removals occurred during the first 6 months. Implant removal owing to patient preference (114 of 266, 42.9 per cent) became more common with increasing follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Implant removal after implant-based IBR is significantly associated with RT. The reason for implant removal shifts over time from postoperative complications to patient preference.

[The Value of Synthetic and Biologic Meshes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction]

Implant based breast reconstruction (IBBR) keeps evolving and has been influenced heavily by the use of synthetic and biologic meshes in the last years. In both, subpectoral as well as prepectoral approaches the use of synthetic and biologic meshes has made it possible to place implants precisely according to the breast's footprint and strengthen soft-tissue coverage, particularly in the lower pole of the breast with lower complication rates and better cosmesis. Various mesh options that differ in material, processing, size and cost are currently in clinical use. This review aims to define the role of biologic and synthetic meshes in IBBR regarding the advantages and disadvantages of their use.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has recently been introduced to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic outcomes in women having implant-based procedures. High-quality evidence to support the practice of PPBR, however, is lacking. Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b study that aimed to establish the safety, effectiveness, and stability of PPBR before definitive evaluation in an RCT. The short-term safety endpoints at 3 months after surgery are reported here.

METHODS

Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating UK centres between July 2019 and December 2020 were invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology, and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss at 3 months. Other outcomes of interest included readmission, reoperation, and infection.

RESULTS

Some 347 women underwent 424 immediate implant-based reconstructions at 40 centres. Most were single-stage direct-to-implant (357, 84.2 per cent) biological mesh-assisted (341, 80.4 per cent) procedures. Conversion to subpectoral reconstruction was necessary in four patients (0.9 per cent) owing to poor skin-flap quality. Of the 343 women who underwent PPBR, 144 (42.0 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication. Implant loss occurred in 28 women (8.2 per cent), 67 (19.5 per cent) experienced an infection, 60 (17.5 per cent) were readmitted for a complication, and 55 (16.0 per cent) required reoperation within 3 months of reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates following PPBR are high and implant loss is comparable to that associated with subpectoral mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. These findings support the need for a well-designed RCT comparing prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.

Immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: Evaluation of complications and safety

OBJECTIVE

Immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is the method of choice for many plastic surgeons and patients, but the use of ADM remains a controversial subject in the literature. This study aimed to investigate complications, reconstructive failure and possible risk factors in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with ADM (primarily Strattice™).

METHODS

We retrospectively examined all patients undergoing immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with ADM, during a five-year period (2014-2019) at a university clinic. Study outcomes were all complications and explantations. Complications were stratified within and after 6 months postoperatively and subcategorized by type of intervention. Explantations were subcategorized into loss of implant or salvage with immediate insertion of a tissue expander, the same or a new implant.

RESULTS

We included 154 patients and 232 breasts. Complications within 6 months per patient included hematoma (4%), seroma (8%), infection (9%), necrosis, wound dehiscence and delayed wound healing (19%). The total complication rate per patient was 34%. Explantation occurred in 20 patients (13%) of which 9 (6% of all) had implant loss. Preoperative radiotherapy was a significant predictor of explantation (adjusted OR 4.9, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-23.5; p = 0.045), and smoking was also associated with risk of explantation, although only borderline significant (adjusted OR 4.0, 95% CI, 1.0-15.8; p = 0.050).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates acceptable rates of re-operations and implant loss compared to other studies but highlights the importance of proper patient selection with regards to risk factors to minimize complications.

Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Best-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10081873.

Acellular Dermal Matrix-Associated Contracture: A Clinical and Histologic Analysis of Patients Undergoing Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Capsular contracture is a well-recognized complication following prosthetic breast reconstruction. It has been the authors' observation that some patients undergoing breast reconstruction experience contracture specifically of the acellular dermal matrix placed at the time of their tissue expander insertion. The goal of the authors' study was to identify clinical and histologic findings associated with the development of acellular dermal matrix-associated contracture.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing bilateral implant-based breast reconstruction performed by the senior author (M.S.A.). Patients were excluded if they had radiation therapy to the breast. Patients with suspected acellular dermal matrix-associated contracture were identified by clinical photographs and review of operative notes. Histologic analysis was performed on specimens taken from two patients with acellular dermal matrix contracture.

RESULTS

The authors included a total of 46 patients (92 breasts), of which 19 breasts had suspected acellular dermal matrix-associated contracture. Acellular dermal matrix contracture was less common in direct-to-implant reconstruction (4.2 percent versus 26.5 percent; p = 0.020) and more common in breasts that had seromas (0 percent versus 15.8 percent; p = 0.001) or complications requiring early expander replacement. Contracted acellular dermal matrix had less vascularity and a lower collagen I-to-collagen III ratio, and was twice as thick as noncontracted acellular dermal matrix.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors have described a distinct phenomenon of acellular dermal matrix-associated contracture that occurs in a small subset of breasts where acellular dermal matrix is used. This merits further investigation. Future work will be required to better characterize the clinical factors that make acellular dermal matrix-associated contracture more likely to occur.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Effect of Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy With and Without Acellular Dermal Matrix Among Women With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) is established practice. Existing evidence validating ADMs proposed advantages, including improved cosmetics and more single-stage IBBRs, is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether IBBR with ADM results in fewer reoperations and increased health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared with conventional IBBR without ADM.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was an open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of women with primary breast cancer who planned for mastectomy and immediate IBBR, with a 2-year follow-up for all participants. Participants were enrolled at 5 breast cancer units in Sweden and the United Kingdom between 2014 and May 2017. Exclusion criteria included previous radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Data were analyzed until August 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were allocated to immediate IBBR with or without ADM.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary trial end point was number of reoperations at 2 years. HRQoL, a secondary end point, was measured as patient-reported outcome measures using 3 instruments from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

From start of enrollment on April 24, 2014, to close of trial on May 10, 2017, a total of 135 women were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 50.4 [9.5] years); 64 were assigned to have an IBBR procedure with ADM and 65 to the control group who had IBBR without ADM. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the primary outcome. Of 129 patients analyzed at 2-year follow-up, 44 of 64 (69%) had at least 1 surgical event in the ADM group vs 43 of 65 (66%) in the control group. In the ADM group, 31 patients (48%) had at least 1 reoperation on the ipsilateral side vs 35 (54%) in the control group. The overall number of reoperations on the ipsilateral side were 42 and 43 respectively. Within the follow-up time of 24 months, 9 patients (14%) in the ADM group had the implant removed compared with 7 (11%) in the control group. We found no significant mean differences in postoperative patient-reported HRQoL domains, including perception of body image (mean difference, 3; 99% CI, -11 to 17; P = .57) and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome (mean difference, 8; 99% CI, -6 to 20; P = .11).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Immediate IBBR with ADM did not yield fewer reoperations compared with conventional IBBR without ADM, nor was IBBR with ADM superior in terms of HRQoL or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes. Patients treated for breast cancer contemplating ADM-supported IBBR should be informed about the lack of evidence validating ADM's suggested benefits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061527.

Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: predictive factors of adverse surgical outcomes in Asian patients

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) provides reliable outcomes; however, the use of ADM is associated with a higher risk of complications. We analyzed our experiences of post-NSM DTI without ADM and identified the predictive factors of adverse surgical outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent NSM and immediate DTI or two-stage tissue expander (TE) breast reconstruction from 2009 to 2020 were enrolled. Predictors of adverse endpoints were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 100 DTI and 29 TE reconstructions. The TE group had a higher rate of postmastectomy radiotherapy (31% vs. 11%; P=0.009), larger specimens (317.37±176.42 g vs. 272.08±126.33 g; P=0.047), larger implants (360.84±85.19 g vs. 298.83±81.13 g; P=0.004) and a higher implant/TE exposure ratio (10.3% vs. 1%; P=0.035). In DTI reconstruction, age over 50 years (odds ratio [OR], 5.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-19.74; P=0.010) and a larger mastectomy weight (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.08-2.51; P=0.021) were associated with a higher risk of acute complications. Intraoperative radiotherapy for the nipple-areolar complex increased the risk of acute complications (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 1.07-15.27; P=0.039) and the likelihood of revision surgery (OR, 5.57; 95% CI, 1.25-24.93; P=0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate DTI breast reconstruction following NSM is feasible in Asian patients with smaller breasts.

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.

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.

Breast and axillary surgery in malignant breast disease: a review focused on literature of 2018 and 2019

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There have been fundamental changes in the surgical approach to breast cancer management over the last decades. The primary objective of achieving locoregional control, however, remains unchanged.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to strategies optimizing systemic treatment and radiotherapy, current discussions focus on improving the surgical approach to breast cancer. Especially in view of the increasingly pivotal role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy NAT/NAC (NACT), gauging the extent of tissue removal in the breast and the width of resection margins in breast-conserving surgery is highly important, as is the extent of axillary surgery. Although sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive patients always underwent axillary lymph node dissection in the past, this paradigm has been challenged in recent years. Targeted axillary dissection (TAD) has emerged as a new staging option in biopsy-proven node-positive patients who convert to clinical node negativity (cN0) after NACT. TAD combines the removal of the SLN and of the target lymph node marked prior to NACT. The accuracy of axillary staging both before and after NACT plays an important role for prognostication and multidisciplinary treatment plans, while its extent has significant effects on patients' arm morbidity and quality of life.

SUMMARY

The current review focuses on recent evidence regarding surgical management of the breast and axilla in patients with primary breast cancer based on a PubMed and EMBASE literature search for publication years 2018 and 2019.

Biological and synthetic mesh assisted breast reconstruction procedures: Joint guidelines from the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons

These guidelines have been produced with the involvement of the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Recommendations have been derived after a review of published data regarding the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), biological and synthetic mesh in breast reconstruction. The guidelines represent a consensus opinion on the optimal management of patients having biological or synthetic mesh assisted breast reconstruction informed by peer-review publications. The Guidelines should be used to inform clinical decision making. Ultimately, members of the MDT remain responsible for the treatment of patients under their care.

Decellularized xenografts in regenerative medicine: From processing to clinical application

Decellularized xenografts are an inherent component of regenerative medicine. Their preserved structure, mechanical integrity and biofunctional composition have well established them in reparative medicine for a diverse range of clinical indications. Nonetheless, their performance is highly influenced by their source (ie species, age, tissue) and processing (ie decellularization, crosslinking, sterilization and preservation), which govern their final characteristics and determine their success or failure for a specific clinical target. In this review, we provide an overview of the different sources and processing methods used in decellularized xenografts fabrication and discuss their effect on the clinical performance of commercially available decellularized xenografts.

The Use of Absorbable Mesh in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A 7-Year Review

Breast reconstruction is most frequently performed using implants or expanders. Adjunctive materials such as acellular dermal matrix and synthetic meshes are used to support the implant or expander. A paucity of large studies exist on the use of synthetic mesh for breast reconstruction.

The application possibility of acellular dermal matrix decorated with nano-silver in the reconstruction of contaminated abdominal wall

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a biomaterial, which commonly used for repair of tissue defects; however, infection is the main factor underlying the failure of treatments involving ADM. To enhance the anti-infection ability of ADM, we constructed a new form of ADM that was decorated with nano-silver ('NS-ADM'). The introduction of nano-silver did not destroy the decellularized structure of ADM, and no significant difference was detected with regards to the maximum tensile force when compared between NS-ADM and ADM (P = 0.351). NS-ADM was not cytotoxic to cell growth when the concentration of nano-silver solution ≤ 25 ppm and exhibited strong antibacterial activity in vitro. Besides, when rats were inoculated with 10⁴ CFU/mL, there were significantly lower bacterial counts in the NS-ADM group than in the ADM group when assessed seven days after surgery (P = 0.047); no significant differences were detected on days 14 and 28. Although there were no significant differences in bacterial counts on days 7, 14, or 21 between the two groups (rats were inoculated with 10⁶ CFU/mL), the number of rats showing reduced bacterial counts or clearing was higher in the NS-ADM group than in the ADM group. Rats that were inoculated with 10⁸ CFU/mL showed repair failure. Overall, NS-ADM is a promising antibacterial biomaterial for repairing contaminated soft-tissue defects, in which antibacterial properties are superior to ADM. The antibacterial activity of NS-ADM was limited for severe infections, and further in vivo studies are needed to evaluate its efficacy and biosafety.

First-year complications after immediate breast reconstruction with a biological and a synthetic mesh in the same patient: A randomized controlled study

Background

Even though meshes and matrices are widely used in breast reconstruction, there is little high‐quality scientific evidence for their risks and benefits. The aim of this study was to compare first‐year surgical complication rates in implant‐based immediate breast reconstruction with a biological mesh with that of a synthetic mesh, in the same patient.

Methods

This study is a clinical, randomized, prospective trial. Patients operated on with bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were randomized to biological mesh on one side and synthetic mesh on the other side.

Results

A total of 48 breasts were randomized. As the synthetically and the biologically reconstructed breasts that were compared belonged to the same woman, systemic factors were exactly the same in the two groups. The most common complication was seroma formation with a frequency of 38% in the biological group and 3.8% in the synthetical group (p = .011). A higher frequency of total implant loss could be seen in the biologic mesh group (8.5% vs. 2%), albeit not statistically significant (p = .083).

Conclusions

In the same patient, a synthetic mesh seems to yield a lower risk for serious complications, such as implant loss, than a biological mesh.

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.

Quality of life and patient satisfaction after implant-based breast reconstruction with or without acellular dermal matrix: randomized clinical trial

Background

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant‐based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) aims to improve cosmetic outcomes. Six‐month data are presented from a randomized trial evaluating whether IBBR with ADM provides higher health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient‐reported cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional IBBR without ADM.

Methods

In this multicentre open‐label RCT, women with breast cancer planned for mastectomy with immediate IBBR in four centres in Sweden and one in the UK were allocated randomly (1 : 1) to IBBR with or without ADM. HRQoL, a secondary endpoint, was measured as patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) using three validated instruments (EORTC‐QLQC30, QLQ‐BR23, QLQ‐BRR26) at baseline and 6 months.

Results

Between 24 April 2014 and 10 May 2017, 135 women were enrolled, of whom 64 with and 65 without ADM were included in the final analysis. At 6 months after surgery, patient‐reported HRQoL, measured with generic QLQ‐C30 or breast cancer‐specific QLQ‐BR23, was similar between the groups. For patient‐reported cosmetic outcomes, two subscale items, cosmetic outcome (8·66, 95 per cent c.i. 0·46 to 16·86; P = 0·041) and problems finding a well‐fitting bra (−13·21, −25·54 to −0·89; P = 0·038), yielded higher scores in favour of ADM, corresponding to a small to moderate clinical difference. None of the other 27 domains measured showed any significant differences between the groups.

Conclusion

IBBR with ADM was not superior in terms of higher levels of HRQoL compared with IBBR without ADM. Although two subscale items of patient‐reported cosmetic outcomes favoured ADM, the majority of cosmetic items showed no significant difference between treatments at 6 months. Registration number: NCT02061527 ( www.clinicaltrials.gov).

The Prepectoral, Hybrid Breast Reconstruction: The Synergy of Lipofilling and Breast Implants

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Breast reconstruction modalities are based on autologous tissue transfer, implants, or a combination of both. The aim of an allogeneic breast reconstruction is to minimize the impact of the implant on surrounding tissues to achieve an aesthetically pleasing result. Accurate tissue coverage, proper implant selection, and implant location are the absolute concerns in planning an implant-based reconstruction.

One for two, ipsilateral reduction and contralateral reconstruction mammoplasty: A case report

•

There is a considerable debate regarding implant or autologous reconstruction of breast.

•

Single session reduction mammoplasty with contralateral autologous reconstruction is feasible.

•

A novel procedure has been presented.

•

Dividing the contralateral breast and creating a myocutaneous flap for reconstruction.

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to introduce a novel procedure for concomitant contralateral reduction and ipsilateral reconstruction mammoplasty by dividing the contralateral breast and creating a pectoralis myocutaneous flap for reconstruction.

Presentation of case

A 34-year-old female, with a history of left side mastectomy presented for reconstruction. Under general anesthesia, the scar of the previous operation was resected in an elliptical shaped incision, the right breast was divided in middle, leaving the flap (pectoralis myocutaneous flap) with pectoralis branch of thoracoacromial artery. The superiomedial part of right breast (the flap) was rotated under the bridge of intermammary skin into the left incision. Ten days after the operation, the flap was viable and healthy.

Discussion

The aim of breast reconstruction is to provide psychosocial support and improve quality of life in the long term by restoring the shape of the breast surgically. New techniques have emerged constantly, and each comes with its list of advantages and risks. The benefits of reconstruction are clear, yet often it is not found as a part of breast cancer treatment routinely.

Conclusion

In single session reduction mammoplasty in one breast and using the resected piece as a flap to reconstruct the contralateral breast is possible whenever indication.

Complication rates of acellular dermal matrix in immediate breast reconstruction with radiation: A single-institution retrospective comparison study

BACKGROUND

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) continues to rise despite ongoing concerns with respect to increased complication rates. While the indications for radiation continue to broaden, it is essential to critically evaluate ADM's performance in its context. The purpose of this study was to review complication rates between patients reconstructed with and without ADM, who underwent IBR and radiation.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for patients undergoing IBR and radiation from 2010 to 2019. Postoperative outcomes were compared between patients with and without ADM.

RESULTS

Over a 9-year period, 130 patients underwent IBR and radiation (42% preoperatively and 59% postoperatively). For patients with preoperative radiation (36 ADM and 18 non-ADM), the average follow-up was 312 and 296 days, respectively. In this group, there was no difference in minor complications (25% ADM, 22% non-ADM, and p = 1.00) or major complications (31% ADM, 22% Non-ADM, and p = 0.52). For patients with postoperative radiation (53 ADM and 23 non-ADM), the average follow-up was 544 and 748 days, respectively. There was no difference in minor complications (21% ADM, 26% non-ADM, and p = 0.11) or major complications (21% ADM, 26% non-ADM, and p = 0.61). Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed no difference between ADM and non-ADM groups (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.22-3.08, and p = 0.78).

CONCLUSION

Despite increasing literature supporting the use of ADM in breast reconstruction, postoperative outcomes following radiation remain poorly understood. In the present study, we report no difference in overall complication rates between breasts reconstructed with and without ADM in an irradiated field. Nevertheless, the complication rate remains high, and future studies will be required to determine whether ADM-associated complications in an irradiated field outweigh the purported benefits.

Breast reconstruction using a laparoscopically harvested pedicled omental flap after endoscopic mastectomy for patients with breast cancer: an observational study of a minimally invasive method

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction is typically performed using autologous tissue from a laparoscopically harvested omental flap. Because open surgery and another abdominal wall incision for a subcutaneous tunnel cannot be avoided, minimal scars typically cannot be achieved. This study explored a minimally invasive method of pedicled omental flap breast reconstruction in which omentum harvesting, mastectomy, and subcutaneous tunnel establishing were performed laparoscopically and endoscopically, and large incisions on the thoracic and abdominal wall were unnecessary.

METHODS

Ten patients with breast cancer were enrolled. They underwent endoscopic subcutaneous mastectomy (ESM) and single-stage breast reconstruction using a laparoscopically harvested pedicled omental flap (LHPOF), which was pulled through a subcutaneous tunnel that was created under laparoscopic vision. The incisions made on the abdominal wall were no wider than 12 mm, and the thoracic wall incisions were no wider than 30 mm. Three of the patients had a prosthetic implant placed for reconstruction at the same time because of the large breast volume, and the omental flaps were used to cover the prostheses.

RESULTS

All patients underwent successful single-stage breast reconstruction surgery, and laparotomy was not required. Eight of the patients (80%) had satisfactory aesthetic results (five had excellent results and three had good results). The incisions at the thoracic wall and in the donor site area were short and hidden. The mean operation time was 367.6 min and the mean time for harvesting the omental flap was 62.9 min, similar to previous studies. The total mean blood loss was 37.0 mL. No serious donor-site complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

LHPOF breast reconstruction combined with ESM is minimally invasive, and satisfactory aesthetic results are achievable. In patients who undergo ESM combined with prosthetic implant reconstruction, the pedicled omental flap can be used to cover the prosthesis instead of using acellular dermal matrix.

Submuscular and Pre-Pectoral ADM Assisted Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Literature Review

Background and objectives: Breast cancer treatment has deeply changed in the last fifty years. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) were introduced for breast reconstruction, with encouraging results, but with conflicting reports too. The present paper aims to summarize the current data on breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the literature regarding the use of ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction. Results: The main techniques were analyzed and described. Conclusions: Several authors have recently reported positive results. Nevertheless, an increased complications' rate has been reported by other authors. Higher cost compared to not-ADM-assisted breast reconstruction is another concern.

In Vitro Characterization of a Novel Human Acellular Dermal Matrix (BellaCell HD) for Breast Reconstruction

In the past, acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used in implant-based breast reconstruction. Various factors affect the clinical performance of ADMs since there is a lack of systematic characterization of ADM tissues. This study used BellaCell HD and compared it to two commercially available ADMs—AlloDerm Ready to Use (RTU) and DermACELL—under in vitro settings. Every ADM was characterized to examine compatibility through cell cytotoxicity, proliferation, and physical features like tensile strength, stiffness, and the suture tensile strength. The BellaCell HD displayed complete decellularization in comparison with the other two ADMs. Several fibroblasts grew in the BellaCell HD with no cytotoxicity. The proliferation level of fibroblasts in the BellaCell HD was higher, compared to the AlloDerm RTU and DermACELL, after 7 and 14 days. The BellaCell HD had a load value of 444.94 N, 22.44 tensile strength, and 118.41% elongation ratio, and they were higher than in the other two ADMs. There was no significant discrepancy in the findings of stiffness evaluation and suture retention strength test. The study had some limitations because there were many other more factors useful in ADM’s testing. In the study, BellaCell HD showed complete decellularization, high biocompatibility, low cytotoxicity, high tensile strength, high elongation, and high suture retention strengths. These characteristics make BellaCell HD a suitable tissue for adequate and safe use in implant-based breast reconstruction in humans.

Perceived barriers to randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction: obstacle to trial initiation or opportunity to resolve? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed breast reconstruction technique worldwide but the technique is evolving rapidly. High-quality evidence is needed to support practice. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence but can be challenging to conduct. iBRA is a four-phased study which aimed to inform the feasibility, design and conduct of an RCT in IBBR. In phase 3, the randomisation acceptability study, an electronic survey and qualitative interviews were conducted to explore professionals' perceptions of future trials in IBBR. Findings from the interviews are presented here.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 31 health professionals (HPs) who completed the survey to explore their attitudes to the feasibility of potential RCTs in more detail. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently until data saturation was achieved.

RESULTS

Almost all HPs acknowledged the need for better evidence to support the practice of IBBR and most identified RCTs as generating the highest-quality evidence. Despite highlighting potential challenges, most participants supported the need for an RCT in IBBR. A minority, however, were strongly opposed to a future trial. The opposition and challenges identified centred around three key themes; (i) limited understanding of pragmatic study design and the value of randomisation in minimising bias; (ii) clinician and patient equipoise and (iii) aspects of surgical culture and training that were not supportive of RCTs.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for well-designed, large-scale RCTs to support the current practice of IBBR but barriers to their acceptability are evident. The perceived barriers to RCTs in breast reconstruction identified in this study are not insurmountable and have previously been overcome in other similar surgical trials. This may represent an opportunity, not only to establish the evidence base for IBBR, but also to improve engagement in RCTs in breast surgery in general to ultimately improve outcomes for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN37664281.

Considerations for patient selection: Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

Background

In recent years, breast implants have been frequently placed in the subcutaneous pocket, in the so-called prepectoral approach. We report our technique of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR), as well as its surgical and aesthetic outcomes, in comparison with subpectoral IBR. We also discuss relevant considerations and pitfalls in prepectoral IBR and suggest an algorithm for the selection of patients for IBR based on our experiences.

Methods

We performed 79 immediate breast reconstructions with a breast implant and an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) sling, of which 47 were subpectoral IBRs and 32 were prepectoral IBRs. Two-stage IBR was performed in 36 cases (20 subpectoral, 16 prepectoral), and direct-to-implant IBR in 43 cases (27 prepectoral, 16 subpectoral). The ADM sling supplemented the inferolateral side of the breast prosthesis in the subpectoral group and covered the entire anterior surface of the breast prosthesis in the prepectoral group.

Results

The postoperative pain score was much lower in the prepectoral group than in the subpectoral group (1.78 vs. 7.17). The incidence of seroma was higher in the prepectoral group (31.3% vs. 6.4%). Other postoperative complications, such as surgical site infection, flap necrosis, implant failure, and wound dehiscence, occurred at similar rates in both groups. Animation deformities developed in 8.5% of patients in the subpectoral group and rippling deformities were more common in the prepectoral group (21.9% vs. 12.8%).

Conclusions

The indications for prepectoral IBR include moderately-sized breasts with a thick well-vascularized mastectomy flap and concomitant bilateral breast reconstruction with prophylactic mastectomy.

Acellular Dermal Matrix Sterility: Does It Affect Microbial and Clinical Outcomes Following Implantation?

The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in breast reconstruction is a controversial topic. Recent literature has investigated the effects of ADM sterilization on infectious complications, although with varying conclusions. Previous work by our group showed no difference between aseptic and sterilized products immediately out of the package. In this study, we investigate the microbiologic profiles of these agents after implantation.