Comparison of one-stage direct-to-implant with acellular dermal matrix and two-stage immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-a cohort study

Gasless endoscopic transaxillary subcutaneous mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implants (GETSMIRI) for breast cancer: Lei's five-step method

Background

Endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM) is a promising procedure in the treatment of breast cancer, but the limitations of endoscopic tools and intrinsic technical complexity of the technique hinder its applicability. Here, we introduce a novel surgery, gasless endoscopic transaxillary subcutaneous mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implants (GETSMIRI), for breast cancer. and early effects.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 11 female patients, aged 50 (27-78) years, admitted to our hospital from January to December 2022, who underwent gasless endoscopic transaxillary subcutaneous mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implants (GETSMIRI), was conducted. This study was designed to assess patient satisfaction before and after breast reconstruction, early complications, and breast function.

Results

The tumors were all solitary, with a mean maximum diameter of 1.0 (0-2.0) cm and a mean distance of 2.3 (2-4) cm from the nipple, the mean intraoperative bleeding volume was 47.5 mL, and the mean hospital stay was 1.5 d. Postoperatively, 1 patient developed depigmentation of the nipple due to mild ischemia. There were no incisional complications, subcutaneous emphysema, infection, areola necrosis, skin flap necrosis, or removal of the prosthesis and/or patch. No tumor recurrence or metastasis was observed during the follow-up period. The difference between breast satisfaction and psychosocial health scores was not statistically significant (P = 0.680; P = 0.612).

Conclusion

GETSMIRI, immediate implantable breast reconstruction, is less invasive than other such procedures, and short-term follow-up results show good postoperative satisfaction, making it an alternative surgical method.

Less is more? One-stage versus two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Most breast reconstructions are implant-based and can be performed either in a one-stage, direct-to-implant or in a two-stage, expander-implant-based reconstruction. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the safety and patient satisfaction of the two reconstruction approaches.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on 27 September 2022 using various databases. Studies comparing one-stage and two-stage implant reconstructions and reporting the following outcomes were included: patient satisfaction, aesthetics, complications, and/or costs. Reviews, case reports, or series with less than 20 patients and letters or comments were excluded. Comparisons were made between the one-stage reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction groups. The data extracted from all articles were analysed using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 1381 records identified, a total of 33 articles were included, representing 21529 patients. There were no significant differences between the one-stage and two-stage groups, except for the costs. The one-stage operation without ADM had lower costs than the two-stage operation without ADM, although the use of an ADM substantially increased the price of the operation to more than a two-stage reconstruction.

DISCUSSION

Equal patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes, and complication rates with lower costs justify one-stage breast reconstruction in carefully selected patients. This review shows that there is no evidence-based superior surgical approach. Future research should focus on the costs of the ADM versus an additional stage and patient-reported outcomes.

Revision Rate of Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Is it Truly a Single-Stage Reconstruction? A Single-Surgeon Experience

INTRODUCTION

There has been increased interest in direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction in recent years. The goal of this study was to focus on the re-operation rate of DTI in comparison with two-stage tissue expander (TE) reconstruction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 165 consecutive patients (222 breasts) underwent skin sparing mastectomy and immediate implant-based reconstruction between January 2010 and December 2019. Patients were divided to TE procedure and DTI (42,180 breasts, respectively). Data collected included demographics, operative details and oncological medical treatment, complications classified according to Clavien-Dindo, capsular contracture Baker 3-4 and re-operation due to complication or due to patient's wish to improve aesthetic appearance.

RESULTS

There were significantly more prophylactic mastectomies and BRCA gene mutation in the DTI breast reconstruction group, and more smokers and diabetic patients in the TE group. No significant difference was found in the complication rates between the groups (DTI-26.1%, TE-40.5%). However, major complication and re-operation rate due to complications were significantly different ( DTI-16.7% and 10.6%, TE-26.2% and 31%, respectively, p= 0.035, p = 0.008). No significant differences were found in Clavien-Dindo stages between the groups except for Grade 3b. Re-operation due to desire for aesthetic improvement was significantly higher in the TE group (DTI-38%. TE-69%, p=0.0003).

CONCLUSION

DTI immediate breast reconstruction can provide a good alternative to the traditional two-stage TE/implant operation. Both patients and surgeons can be reassured that the majority of the cases are one-stage 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.

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.

Mastectomy with one-stage or two-stage reconstruction in breast cancer: analysis of early outcomes and patient's satisfaction

Aim of this study is to compare early post-operative outcomes and patient's satisfaction after skin-sparing and/or nipple-sparing mastectomy (SSM/SNSM) followed either by breast reconstruction with one-stage prepectoral implantation or two-stage technique for breast cancer (BC) or BRCA1/2 mutation.From January 2018 to December 2021, 96 patients (mean age of 51.12 ± 10.9) underwent SSM/SNSM and were divided into two groups: in group A (65 patients, 67.7%), mastectomy was followed by one-stage reconstruction; in group B (31 patients, 32.3%) by two-stage. Operative time was significantly longer in A vs. B (307.6 ± 95.7 vs. 254.4 ± 90.91; P < 0.05). Previous breast surgery was more common in B vs. A (29.0% vs. 7.7%; P < 0.05), while bilateral surgery was performed more frequently in A vs. B (40% vs. 6.5%; P = 0.001). All SSM/SNSM for BRCA1/2 mutation were followed by immediate prepectoral implantation. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of post-operative complications. At pathology, DCIS and invasive ST forms, such as multicentric/multifocal forms, were detected more frequently in B, while NST type in A (all P < 0.05). A multivariate analysis showed improved post-operative satisfaction at BREAST-Q survey in Group A (P = 0.001). Encouraging oncologic outcomes after SSM/SNSM for BC enabled the improvement of breast reconstructive techniques. One-stage reconstruction is characterized by better aesthetic outcomes and by greater patient's satisfaction. When SSM/SNSM is technically difficult to perform, as in multicentric/multifocal forms or previous breast surgery, mastectomy followed by two-stage reconstruction should be considered to achieve a radical surgery.

The Language of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: Can We Do Better?

The management of breast cancer has experienced tremendous changes in the last half-century. In today's multimodal approach to breast cancer, patients have the prospect of achieving a sense of normalcy after mastectomy thanks to advancements in oncology and breast reconstruction. Although the oncologic management of breast cancer has evolved over multiple centuries, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) has only been around since the 1960s. The last half century has seen the conception of multiple techniques, novel devices, and new possibilities in hopes of achieving outcomes that are similar to or even better than the patient's premorbid state. However, with all these changes, a new problem has arisen-inconsistencies in the literature on how IBBR is described. In this article, we will discuss potential sources of confusion in the IBBR literature and lexicon, highlighting specific terms that may have multiple meanings or interpretations depending on perspective, context, and/or intent. As a first step toward clarifying what we perceive as a muddied landscape, we propose a naming convention for IBBR that centers around four important variables especially pertinent to IBBR-the type of mastectomy performed, the timing of reconstruction, the type of device that is placed, and the pocket location for device placement. We believe that adoption of a more standardized, consistent, and descriptive lexicon for IBBR will help provide clearer communication and easier comparisons in the literature so that we may continue to deliver the best outcomes for our patients.

Biological Matrix-Assisted One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications

BACKGROUND

Biological matrix-assisted one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) could improve the inframammary fold to achieve good esthetic results. However, whether biological matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR yields better postoperative outcomes compared with two-stage IBBR remains unclear. We aimed to compare and analyze surgical complications and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire between biological matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR and traditional two-stage IBBR.

METHODS

From May 2015 to June 2019, eligible patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR or two-stage IBBR were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. PROs were measured with BREAST-Q version 2.0, which scored the health-related quality of life, satisfaction, and experience domains. Complications were divided into major complications (patients requiring reoperation) and minor complications (patients who could be treated in the dressing room). PROs and complications were compared between the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR and two-stage IBBR groups. A multivariate linear regression analysis was used to identify the social and surgical factors that affected PROs.

RESULTS

At our institution, 124 eligible patients were recruited. Seventy-nine patients (63.7%) underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR reconstruction, and 45 patients (36.3%) underwent tissue expander/implant reconstruction (two-stage IBBR). Postoperative BREAST-Q version 2.0 was completed by 68 of 79 patients (86.1%) in the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR group and by 35 of 45 patients (77.8%) in the two-stage IBBR group. In the satisfaction-related quality of life domain, satisfaction with breast was 9.27 points higher in the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR group (p = 0.012) compared with the two-stage IBBR group. The multivariate linear regression analysis showed that implant volume (p = 0.031) and postoperative radiotherapy (p = 0.036) significantly influenced the PRO of satisfaction with breast. However, patients in the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR group had a higher minor complication rate compared with patients in the two-stage IBBR group (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective study showed that although patients treated with biological matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR tended to have higher postoperative complication rates, this technique correlated with better PROs compared with two-stage IBBR.

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 .