Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix versus Latissimus Dorsi Flap for Breast Reconstruction: Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes

Comparison of nine methods of immediate breast reconstruction after resection of localized breast cancer: A cost-effectiveness Markov decision analysis of prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction without radiation therapy have reconstruction methods available with uncertain long-term costs associated with complications requiring surgery and revisions. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of nine methods of immediate breast reconstruction for women with localized breast cancer.

METHODS

Markov modeling was performed over 10-years for unilateral/bilateral breast reconstructions from healthcare/societal perspectives. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched to derive data from 13,744 patients in 79 prospective studies. Complications requiring surgery (mastectomy necrosis, total/partial flap necrosis, seroma, hematoma, infection, wound dehiscence, abdominal hernia, implant removal/explantation) and revisions (fat necrosis, capsular contracture, asymmetry, scars/redundant tissue, implant rupture/removal, fat grafting) were evaluated over yearly cycles. Reconstructions included: direct-to-implant (DTI), tissue expander-to-implant (TEI), latissimus dorsi flap-to-implant (LDI), latissimus dorsi (LD), pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM), free TRAM, deep inferior epigastric perforator/superficial inferior epigastric artery (DIEP/SIEA), thigh-based, or gluteal based flaps. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and net monetary benefits (NMB). Willingness-to-pay thresholds were $50,000 and $100,000.

RESULTS

From a healthcare perspective for unilateral reconstruction, compared to LD, the ICER for DTI was -$42,109.35/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), LDI was -$25,300.83/QALY, TEI was -$22,036.02/QALY, DIEP/SIEA was $8307.65/QALY, free TRAM was $8677.26/QALY, pedicled TRAM was $13,021.44/QALY, gluteal-based was $17,698.99/QALY, and thigh-based was $23,447.82/QALY. NMB of DIEP/SIEA was $404,523.47, free TRAM was $403,821.40, gluteal-based was $392,478.64, thigh-based was $387,691.70, pedicled TRAM was $376,901.83, LD was $370,646.93, DTI was $339,668.77, LDI was $334,350.30, and TEI was $329,265.84.

CONCLUSIONS

All nine methods of immediate breast reconstruction were considered cost-effective from healthcare/societal perspectives. LD provided the lowest costs, while DIEP/SIEA provided the greatest effectiveness and NMB.

Acellular Dermal Matrix Performance Compared with Latissimus Dorsi Myocutaneous Flap in Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction

Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap (LDMF) with tissue expander provides excellent results in breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has been used in expander-based reconstruction (EBR) with good results. This study assesses how ADM compares to LDMF in EBR.

Methods

The cohorts comprised 124 patients (218 breasts) who had EBR using ADM between 2006 and 2012, and 242 patients (266 breasts) who had EBR using LDMF between 1994 and 2012. Postoperative complications, reoperations, Breast-Q scores, and objectively assessed aesthetic outcomes were compared.

Results

Median age was 55 years for both ADM (range 23-84) and LDMF (range 26-88) groups. No statistically significant differences were noted between the groups in the rates of major postoperative complications (P > 0.3). Forty-nine of the 218 (22.5%) in the ADM group and 67 of 266 (25.2%) in the LDMF group had a total of 63 and 84 reoperations, respectively (P = 0.52), with no significant differences in the reoperations rate (P > 0.3). No significant differences were observed in the Breast-Q scores. Some categorical differences were noted in the aesthetic outcomes; however, the difference between the overall outcomes was not significant (P = 0.54).

Conclusion

Our study revealed no statistically significant differences in the complications or reoperation rates, patient satisfaction, or overall aesthetic outcomes when comparing the use of ADM to LDMF in EBR. In conclusion, this study supports the hypothesis that ADM performs as well as LDMF in EBR.