Tabbed tissue expanders improve breast symmetry scores in breast reconstruction

The current use of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction: device design, features, and technical considerations

INTRODUCTION

The use of tissue expanders (TE) in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction is a widely accepted practice, especially in patients desiring implant-based breast reconstruction. It has become the standard of care to perform a two-staged breast reconstruction using tissue expanders for the past 50 years due to its reliability, safety, cost-effectiveness, and versatility. Due to its popularity, there are numerous types and features of breast tissue expanders and various surgical approaches available for plastic surgeons.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we will review the role of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction, the types and features of breast tissue expanders, and technical considerations.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction offers significant advantages of preserving the breast skin envelope and reestablishing the breast mound. With evolving approaches to breast reconstruction, tissue expander design, and application underwent several refinements and modifications. Due to these advances, studies on its long-term efficacy and safety profile typically fall behind and more studies with higher levels of evidence are needed to better evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of tissue expanders. With increased understanding, reconstructive surgeons can minimize complications and maximize reconstructive, aesthetic outcomes with high patient satisfaction.

Breast Surgery with Smooth Anatomical Implants with Fixation System: A Review of the World's Largest Series of Cases

BACKGROUND

Anatomical implants continue to be a particularly useful tool in breast surgery, offering an excellent result for certain indications. However, to ensure fixation and prevent rotation, traditional alternatives have medium to high surface roughness and have been controversial in recent years.

METHODS

A retrospective assessment of 122 prosthetic augmentation and reconstruction patients over a period of 5 years was conducted. Patients were treated with tabbed anatomical implants with a smooth surface and followed up for a period of 12 months. Demographics, complications, and patient satisfaction were captured. A subgroup of 101 patients were assessed with chest radiographs at 1-year follow-up. Technical recommendations are discussed.

RESULTS

Primary breast augmentation, revision augmentation, augmentation-mastopexy, and breast reconstruction were the main indications for surgery. All implants were inserted through an inframammary incision and placed in the subpectoral space using dual-plane techniques, except in one mastectomy case. Rotation of the implants was radiographically observed in only two cases of revision augmentation. None of the 122 patients developed capsular contracture, seroma, rupture, infection, hematoma, or malposition following breast surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Smooth anatomical implants with a fixation system offer reliable and satisfactory results for patients with various diagnoses and indications. The tab system and the fixation technique are essential to provide long-term stability, which was verified by radiographs because of the radiopaque lines present in the device for that purpose.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Smooth versus textured tissue expanders in breast reconstruction - A retrospective review of post-operative surgical site infections

BACKGROUND

Textured tissue expanders (TTEs) were introduced to limit migration and reduce capsular contracture, which were inherent to smooth tissue expanders (STEs). Previous reports suggest that textured devices have increased rates of bacterial contamination and biofilm formation in comparison with smooth devices. Recently, the relative increased association of anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) with textured versus smooth devices has led to increased adoption of smooth devices. The aim of our study is to evaluate the post-operative surgical site infection (SSI) rates of STEs versus TTEs.

METHODS

A retrospective case series was conducted at a single academic teaching hospital from April 2016 to December 2019. The primary outcome variable was the development of a post-operative SSI.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-seven breasts underwent reconstruction with TTEs and 109 breasts underwent reconstruction with STE. In total, 54 SSIs were recorded (n = 34 TTE; n = 20 STE), with the majority of infections occurring within the first 30 post-operative days (TTE 65%, STE 70%). There was no statistically significant difference in overall post-operative infection rates between TTE and STE groups when broken down into the following time points: <30 day, 30-60 days, and >90 days (p = 0.924). There was no statistically significant difference between infection type (superficial vs. deep, p = 0.932), infection management (medical, surgical, or both, p = 0.409) or salvage results (p = 0.078) seen in STE versus TTE cohort. On multivariate analysis, seroma history was associated with SSI development (OR 3.18, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in the rate of post-operative SSI following breast reconstruction with STE relative to TTE.

Judging an Expander by Its Cover: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Impact of Tissue Expander Surface Texture on First-Stage Breast Reconstruction Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is increased scrutiny of texturing on implants and a paucity of data looking at texturing on expanders. Because of the difficulty in controlling potential confounders with these comparative studies, the authors performed propensity matching between smooth and textured tissue expander cohorts to provide definitive insight into the impact of expander texture on breast reconstruction outcomes.

METHODS

A single-surgeon experience with immediate two-stage breast reconstruction was reviewed for 90-day postoperative complications after mastectomy and expander placement. Variables extracted included demographics, comorbidities, tissue expander texturing, mastectomy type, infection, seroma, skin flap necrosis, dehiscence, explantation, and overall complication rates. Subjects were 1:1 propensity matched using the nearest neighbor matching algorithm with caliper (maximum propensity score difference) of 0.2, and chi-square test was performed for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

After 1:1 propensity matching, 282 reconstructed breasts were analyzed (141 textured versus 141 smooth expanders). Textured expanders had higher minor infection rates than smooth expanders (5.0 percent versus 0 percent; p = 0.024). Smooth expanders had higher seroma rates than textured expanders (5.0 percent versus 0.7 percent; p = 0.031). Smooth expanders also had longer drain retention (20.4 days versus 16.8 days; p = 0.001). There was no difference in other complications, including major infection, explantation, or any complication, between textured and smooth expanders.

CONCLUSIONS

Textured expanders are associated with increased minor infection risk, whereas smooth expanders are associated with increased seroma formation. However, these differing complication profiles coalesce to equal explantation rates.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction in the Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Plane: An Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction is becoming an increasingly important and accessible component of breast cancer care. We hypothesize that prepectoral patients benefit from lower short-term complications and shorter periods to second-stage reconstruction compared with individuals receiving reconstruction in the subpectoral plane.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved retrospective review of all adult postmastectomy patients receiving tissue expanders (TEs) was completed for a 21-month period (n = 286).

RESULTS

A total of 286 patients underwent mastectomy followed by TE placement, with 59.1% receiving prepectoral TEs and 40.9% receiving subpectoral TEs. Participants receiving prepectoral TEs required fewer clinic visits before definitive reconstruction (6.4 vs 8.8, P <0.01) and underwent definitive reconstruction 71.6 days earlier than individuals with subpectoral TE placement (170.8 vs 242.4 days, P < 0.01). Anesthesia time was significantly less for prepectoral TE placement, whether bilateral (68.0 less minutes, P < 0.01) or unilateral (20.7 minutes less, P < 0.01). Operating room charges were higher in the prepectoral subgroup ($31,276.8 vs $22,231.8, P < 0.01). Partial necrosis rates were higher in the prepectoral group (21.7% vs 10.9%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing breast reconstruction using prepectoral TE-based reconstruction benefit from less anesthesia time, fewer postoprative clinic visits, and shorter time to definitive reconstruction, at the compromise of higher operating room charges.

Safety and Efficacy of Smooth Surface Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Traditional 2-stage breast reconstruction involves placement of a textured-surface tissue expander (TTE). Recent studies have demonstrated textured surface devices have higher propensity for bacterial contamination and biofilm formation.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of smooth surface tissue expanders (STE) in immediate breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive women who underwent STE breast reconstruction from 2016 to 2017 at 3 institutions. Indications and outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total 112 patients underwent STE reconstruction (75 subpectoral, 37 prepectoral placement), receiving 173 devices and monitored for a mean follow-up of 14.1 months. Demographics of patients included average age of 53 years and average BMI of 27.2 kg/m2, and 18.6% received postmastectomy radiation therapy. Overall complication rates were 15.6% and included mastectomy skin flap necrosis (10.4%), seroma (5.2%), expander malposition (2.9%), and infection requiring intravenous antibiotic therapy (3.5%). Six (3.5%) unplanned reoperations with explantation were reported for 3 infections and 3 patients requesting change of plan with no reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

STEs represent a safe and efficacious alternative to TTE breast reconstruction with at least equitable outcomes. Technique modification including tab fixation, strict pocket control, postoperative bra support, and suture choice may contribute to observed favorable outcomes and are reviewed. Early results for infection control and explantation rate are encouraging and warrant comparative evaluation for potential superiority over TTEs in a prospective randomized trial.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Latest Trends in Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction

There has been a shift in recent years toward a growing popularity of implant-based breast reconstruction, especially in the setting of increased frequency of concurrent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Advancements in implant safety and technology have also allowed for an expanding implant reconstruction practice across the country. The traditional approach is immediate two-stage implant reconstruction with placement of a tissue expander within a subpectoral pocket. The introduction of acellular dermal matrix has revolutionized implant-based breast reconstruction, allowing surgeons the opportunity to minimize morbidity while maximizing aesthetic outcomes. There have also been advances in the management of postoperative pain control as well as secondary revision surgery.

The role of fat grafting in prepectoral breast reconstruction

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has reemerged as a promising alternative to submuscular implants, as they place the patient at lower risk for pain, muscular impairment, and animation deformity. However, the thinner amount of overlying tissue in prepectoral reconstruction presents its own unique set of challenges. A "rippling" deformity is seen in some prepectoral patients, which is typically corrected with fat grafting. This report details our recommended technique for fat grafting in the prepectorally implanted patient.

Tissue expanders; review of indications, results and outcome during 15 years' experience

BACKGROUND

Tissue expanders (TE) are frequently used worldwide. In this study we surveyed outcome of our patients retrospectively during 15 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We had 1105 patients for whom 3059 TEs have been used. Demographic data, age, sex, indications, type of tissue expander devices, volume of devices, site of scar and site TE insertion, our technique for tissue expander insertion and flap design, complications and outcome were gathered. A complete and through technical points and tips will be discussed.

RESULTS

In 91% of patients overexpansion was done. (Expansion ratio=2.1-4.5). Re-expansion has been done in about 12% of patients. Complications were perforation of skin of pocket (11%) or exposure, infection (6%), dehiscence of the wound (1.5%), perforation of the port or disconnection of the tubes (2.1%), expansion of the scar itself (1%), saggy flap (3%), dog ear (5%), lack of adhesions of flap to its new site (4%).

OUTCOME

In 93% of the patients we could totally remove the scar. Around 9.1% of our patients had two sessions of expansion in the same area and 2.9% had three sessions of expansion. 51% of our patients were highly satisfied and 42% were satisfied of the results of expansion.

CONCLUSION

Our patients were satisfied with the results. In 12% cases we have done re-expansion. Re-expansion is possible as long as you have enough thickness of dermis in the skin. More than 50% of our patients were optimistic for 2nd or 3rd session of re-expansion.

Complication analysis of complete versus partial coverage of tissue expanders using serratus anterior musculofascial flaps in immediate breast reconstruction

PURPOSE

To prevent tissue expander (TE) exposure following mastectomy flap necrosis in immediate breast reconstruction, the TE is usually covered completely or partially with a musculofascial (MF) flap. This study compares the complications of the two coverage methods.

METHODS

We reviewed, retrospectively, 106 cases of immediate TE-based breast reconstruction. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether complete or partial TE coverage was done. In the complete coverage group, the serratus anterior MF flap was dissected and sutured to the pectoralis major muscle to cover the TE completely. In the partial coverage group, the serratus anterior MF flap was not dissected, and the lateral border of the pectoralis major muscle was sutured to the mastectomy skin flaps.

RESULTS

The TEs were covered completely in 60 breasts and partially in 46 breasts. The mastectomy flap necrosis rate was significantly higher in the complete coverage group (p < 0.01), but there was no incidence of TE exposure in either groups. The lateral migration rate was significantly higher in the partial coverage group (p = 0.033). There were no significant differences in the cranial migration rate (p = 0.133).

CONCLUSIONS

The complete coverage method is a better option if there is a high risk of mastectomy flap necrosis; however, surgeons should monitor carefully for cranial migration.

External validation of the breast reconstruction risk assessment calculator

INTRODUCTION

The Breast reconstruction Risk Assessment (BRA) Score estimates patient-specific risk for postsurgical complications using an individual's unique combination of preoperative variables. In this report, we externally validate the BRA Score models for surgical site infection, seroma, and explantation in a large sample of intra-institutional patients who underwent prosthetic breast reconstruction.

METHODS

We reviewed all initiated tissue expander/implant reconstructions by the senior authors from January 2004 to December 2015. BRA Score risk estimates were computed for each patient and compared against observed rates of complications. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, concordance statistic, and Brier score were used to assess the calibration, discrimination, and accuracy of the models, respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 1152 patients (1743 breasts) reviewed, 855 patients (1333 breasts) had complete data for BRA-score calculations and were included for analysis. Hosmer-Lemeshow tests for calibration demonstrated a good agreement between observed and predicted outcomes for surgical site infection (SSI) and seroma models (P-values of 0.33 and 0.16, respectively). In contrast, predicted rates of explantation deviated from observed rates (Hosmer-Lemeshow P-value of 0.04). C statistics demonstrated good discrimination for SSI, seroma, and explantation (0.73, 0.69, and 0.78, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this external validation study, the BRA Score tissue expander/implant reconstruction models performed with generally good calibration, discrimination, and accuracy. Some weaknesses in certain models were identified as targets for future improvement. Taken together, these analyses validate the clinical utility of the BRA score risk models in predicting 30-day outcomes.

Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction With Acellular Dermal Matrices: Achieving Predictability and Reproducibility

The use of acellular dermal matrices in the setting of prosthetic breast reconstruction has captured the attention of many plastic surgeons. The regenerative capacity of these materials has provided additional tissue support to the mastectomy skin flaps with the ultimate result of improving surgical and aesthetic outcomes. Despite the benefits, there remains a significant diversity with regard to outcomes with some surgeons reporting increased morbidity. The reasons for this are varied but ultimately related to differences in patient selection and surgical techniques. The purpose of this article is to provide strategies for using acellular dermal matrix to achieve success in a manner that is usually associated with outcomes that are predictable and reproducible.