Clinical experience with Surgimend in breast reconstruction: an overview

A Long-term Evaluation of Acellular Dermal Matrix for Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction following Risk-reducing Mastectomy

Background

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are sometimes used in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBR), but long-term ADM-related evaluations are scarce. In this study, we evaluated early and late complications and patient-related outcomes (PROs) over an 8-year postoperative period in women who had undergone immediate IBR following risk-reducing mastectomy with bovine ADM (SurgiMend).

Methods

This prospective observational single-center analysis involved 34 women at high risk for breast carcinoma. Complications were prospectively recorded during the first year, followed by 4 years of postoperative retrospective chart reviews. Long-term evaluations were done using a questionnaire. Preoperative, 1 year, and 5- to 8-year postoperative PRO assessments were obtained based on results from the BREAST-Q questionnaire.

Results

In 56 breasts, complications after a mean of 12.4 months follow-up included implant loss (7.1%), implant change (1.8%), hematoma (7.1%), breast redness (41.1%), and seroma (8.9%). Most breasts (80.3%) were graded Baker I/II, which indicated a low capsular contracture incidence. After a mean of 6.9 years, the total implant explantation rate was 33.9%, and the revision surgery rate was 21.4%. Two cases of breast cancer were reported during the long-term evaluation. BREAST-Q results indicated significantly decreased satisfaction with outcome (P = 0.024). A positive trend regarding psychosocial well-being and declining trend regarding satisfaction with both breast physical- and sexual well-being parameters were reported.

Conclusions

The observed complication rates agree with previous findings concerning ADM-assisted IBR. A high demand for revision surgery exists, and PROs remain relatively stable over time.

Complete Implant Wrapping with Porcine-Derived Acellular Dermal Matrix for the Treatment of Capsular Contracture in Breast Reconstruction: A Case-Control Study

Background

Capsular contracture (CC) represents one of the most common complications in breast reconstruction surgery, impairing final result and patients’ well-being. The role of acellular dermal matrixes (ADM) has been widely described for the treatment and prevention of contracture. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of complete implant coverage with porcine-derived ADM in preventing CC limiting complications. In addition, patients’ reported outcomes were evaluated in order to define the role of ADM in improving sexual, physical and psychosocial well-being and satisfaction.

Methods

42 patients who underwent surgical treatment of 46 contracted reconstructed breasts from May 2018th to May 2019th were collected in the two groups (ADM group vs. Control group).

Results

The ADM group showed lower rate of CC recurrence and a higher rate of implant losses and minor complications. A significant difference was observed in red breast syndrome (27.3% in the ADM group vs. absent in control the group) and skin ulceration rates (18.2% in the ADM group vs. 4.18% in the control group). As for patients’ perceived outcomes, the ADM group showed a statistically significant higher postoperative Satisfaction of Breast Scale score compared to the control group. In addition, a significant difference was observed in the improvement of Physical Well-Being of the Chest Scale and the Satisfaction of Breast Scale after surgery, in favor to the ADM group.

Conclusion

Complete implant coverage with ADM may reduce the risk of CC recurrence in breast reconstruction. An accurate patient selection allows minimizing complications improving patient well-being and satisfaction.

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.

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

Background

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Level of Evidence V

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

Electronic supplementary material

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