Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction compared with immediate one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction augmented with an acellular dermal matrix: an open-label, phase 4, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

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.

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 .

Patient-reported outcomes of mesh in minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) immediate subpectoral prosthesis breast reconstruction: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although there is increasing interest in minimally invasive prosthesis breast reconstruction (PBR), whether meshes application in minimally invasive PBR can improve complications and cosmetic effects remains controversial. The author retrospectively analyzed postoperative complications and evaluated patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in minimally invasive PBR with and without mesh.

METHODS

This study enrolled patients who underwent minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) followed by PBR. We used the TiLOOP bra for the mesh-assisted procedure. Patient demographics and postoperative complications data were compared between the procedures. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with the Breast-Q.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients underwent 160 minimally invasive NSM-PBR (with mesh, n = 64; without, n = 94). Postoperative complications were comparable in the mesh-assisted (5 [7.7%]) and non-mesh-assisted (5 [5.3%]) groups (p = 0.533). The most common complication in non-mesh-assisted group was infection, with four (4.2%) cases. In mesh-assisted group, implant exposure occurred in two (3.1%) patients. Removal of prosthesis was uncommon, with two (3.1%) and three (3.2%) cases in the mesh-assisted and non-mesh groups, respectively (p = 0.977). The BREAST-Q questionnaire was completed by 52 (81.3%) patients in the mesh-assisted group and 68 (72.3%) in the non-mesh-assisted group. Comparing the non-mesh group, patients in mesh-assisted group had improved scores on the BREAST-Q Satisfaction with breast (66.0) (p < 0.05), Physical Well-being (80.0), and Sexual Well-being (56.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh-assisted minimally invasive NSM-PBR has good aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the mesh-assisted and non-mesh-assisted groups.

X-Ray Visible Protein Scaffolds by Bulk Iodination

Protein-based biomaterial use is expanding within medicine, together with the demand to visualize their placement and behavior in vivo. However, current medical imaging techniques struggle to differentiate between protein-based implants and surrounding tissue. Here a fast, simple, and translational solution for tracking transplanted protein-based scaffolds is presented using X-ray CT-facilitating long-term, non-invasive, and high-resolution imaging. X-ray visible scaffolds are engineered by selectively iodinating tyrosine residues under mild conditions using readily available reagents. To illustrate translatability, a clinically approved hernia repair mesh (based on decellularized porcine dermis) is labeled, preserving morphological and mechanical properties. In a mouse model of mesh implantation, implants retain marked X-ray contrast up to 3 months, together with an unchanged degradation rate and inflammatory response. The technique's compatibility is demonstrated with a range of therapeutically relevant protein formats including bovine, porcine, and jellyfish collagen, as well as silk sutures, enabling a wide range of surgical and regenerative medicine uses. This solution tackles the challenge of visualizing implanted protein-based biomaterials, which conventional imaging methods fail to differentiate from endogenous tissue. This will address previously unanswered questions regarding the accuracy of implantation, degradation rate, migration, and structural integrity, thereby accelerating optimization and safe translation of therapeutic biomaterials.

Oncologic Safety of One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients With Positive Sentinel Lymph Nodes: A Single-Center Retrospective Study Using Propensity Score Matching

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the oncologic safety of one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (OIBR) following mastectomy in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs).

METHODS

We collected clinical and pathological data from breast cancer patients with positive SLNs who underwent OIBR or not after mastectomy between January 2015 and December 2018. A total of 194 patients were included, with 130 patients undergoing mastectomy alone (MA) and 64 patients receiving OIBR after mastectomy. The clinical and pathological features, as well as the postoperative oncologic outcomes, of the 2 groups were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to mitigate the effects of data bias and confounding factors.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 66 months for the OIBR group and 64 months for the MA group after PSM. The majority of reconstructive surgeries use an approach of prosthetic implantation (52.0%). This is followed by prosthetic implantation combined with a latissimus dorsi (LD) flap (32.0%), and acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-assisted implant placement (16.0%). During the follow-up period, a local recurrence was observed in 1 case, regional recurrence in 3 cases, and distant metastasis leading to death in 3 cases among the OIBR group patients. No significant difference was found between the OIBR and MA groups in disease-free survival (DFS) (P = .66), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (P = .91), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) (P = .44), and overall survival (OS) (P = .57).

CONCLUSION

OIBR is a safe option for breast cancer patients with positive SLNs and does not negatively impact cancer recurrence or overall survival.

Pharmacokinetics of Locally Applied Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Importance

Antibiotic irrigation of breast implants is widely used internationally, but no clinical study has investigated the pharmacokinetics of antibiotic prophylaxis in the breast implant pocket.

Objectives

To evaluate how long locally applied gentamicin, cefazolin, and vancomycin concentrations in the implant pocket remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for the most common bacterial infections and to measure systemic uptake.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study was performed at the Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, between October 25, 2021, and September 22, 2022, among 40 patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction who were part of the ongoing BREAST-AB trial (Prophylactic Treatment of Breast Implants With a Solution of Gentamicin, Vancomycin and Cefazolin Antibiotics for Women Undergoing Breast Reconstructive Surgery: a Randomized Controlled Trial). Patients were randomized to receive locally applied gentamicin, cefazolin, and vancomycin or placebo. Samples were obtained from the surgical breast drain and blood up to 10 days postoperatively.

Exposures

The breast implant and the implant pocket were irrigated with 160 μg/mL of gentamicin, 2000 μg/mL of cefazolin, and 2000 μg/mL of vancomycin in a 200-mL saline solution.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the duration of antibiotic concentrations above the MIC breakpoint for Staphylococcus aureus according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: gentamicin, 4 μg/mL; cefazolin, 2 μg/mL; and vancomycin, 2 μg/mL. Secondary outcomes included the time above the MIC for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other relevant bacteria, as well as systemic uptake.

Results

The study included 40 patients (median age, 44.6 years [IQR, 38.3-51.4 years]; median body mass index, 23.9 [IQR, 21.7-25.9]) with a median number of 3 drain samples (range, 1-10 drain samples) and 2 blood samples (range, 0-6 blood samples). Vancomycin and cefazolin remained above the MIC for S aureus significantly longer than gentamicin (gentamicin, 0.9 days [95% CI, 0.5-1.2 days] for blood samples vs 6.9 days [95% CI, 2.9 to 10.9 days] for vancomycin [P = .02] vs 3.7 days [95% CI, 2.2-5.2 days] for cefazolin [P = .002]). The gentamicin level remained above the MIC for P aeruginosa for 1.3 days (95% CI, 1.0-1.5 days). Only cefazolin was detectable in blood samples, albeit in very low concentrations (median concentration, 0.04 μg/mL [range, 0.007-0.1 μg/mL]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that patients treated with triple-antibiotic implant irrigation during breast reconstruction receive adequate prophylaxis for S aureus and other common implant-associated, gram-positive bacteria. However, the protection against P aeruginosa may be inadequate.

Safety of Augmenting Breast Volume in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction With Contralateral Breast Augmentation: Comparison With 2-Stage Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a standard method of implant-based reconstruction; however, the risk of skin necrosis and implant failure exists. During simultaneous contralateral augmentation, an implant larger than the resected tissue must be inserted to balance both sides, which may increase the risk of complications. This study examined the differences in the incidence of complications between the single-stage direct-to-implant reconstruction and 2-stage reconstruction when contralateral augmentation was performed simultaneously.

METHODS

This study included 99 patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction with contralateral augmentation between 2012 and 2020. A retrospective chart review was conducted and the patients were divided into 2 groups: the single-stage reconstruction (n = 61) and 2-stage reconstruction (TSR, n = 38) groups. Demographic data and surgical and oncological information were collected. Complications including skin necrosis and reconstruction failure were investigated as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Implant volume and contralateral implant volume were significantly greater in TSR group than in the single-stage reconstruction group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications and reconstruction failure rates between both groups. The nipple-sparing mastectomy was the risk factor for complications. Furthermore, the risk factors for mastectomy skin necrosis were implant volume and differences in the volume of both implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-stage reconstruction did not increase the risk of complications compared with TSR when implants that were larger than the resected tissue were inserted after mastectomy. Proper patient selection and selection of implants that are not excessively large could satisfy patients' cosmetic needs in a single operation.

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.

Interest of acellular dermal matrices in immediate breast reconstruction: Comparison of quality of life and complications with and without matrix

INTRODUCTION

Since 2001, acellular dermal matrices have been increasingly used in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) because they allow for the placement of the ideal-sized definitive implant in one step. They are used in both retropectoral and prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstructions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of dermal matrices on the quality of life and on complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two surveys were used to evaluate the quality of life: the BREAST-Q V2.0© and the QuickDASH. The surveys were sent to all patients who had an immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction at a University Hospital Center from 2010 to 2020. A case-control study was performed for comparison of responses between the "Matrix+" and "Matrix-" groups.

RESULTS

Seventeen IBR with matrix (23.6%) and 55 IBR without matrix (76.4%) were analyzed. Patients in the "Matrix+" group had a better quality of life in terms of sexual well-being (p = 0.038) and a significantly lower QuickDASH (p < 0.01). They had better breast satisfaction (p = 0.016) and better implant satisfaction (p < 0.01). The likelihood of encountering major complications later in time was more important in the group with matrix (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

We found a satisfactory quality of life with scores of sexual well-being and satisfaction with the breast and the implants, and a better satisfaction with care thanks to the use of the matrices. However, due to a higher number of major late complications and a lack of follow-up, we believe that immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction with matrix should be discussed according to the comorbidities, medical treatments, and the vitality of the skin flaps of each patient.

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.

The Impact of Adjuvant Radiotherapy on Immediate Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) rates have increased in recent years owing to improved cosmetic and psychological benefits. However, there is a lack of studies regarding complications rates following adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) among patients undergoing immediate prepectoral IBBR.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective monocentric analysis of a cohort of consecutively treated patients who underwent NSM following immediate prepectoral IBBR at our institution between March 2017 and November 2021. Patient demographics, quality of life, complication rates, and oncological safety were evaluated in the RT and non-RT groups. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Version 24 (IMB Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients were examined: 70 were assigned to have prepectoral IBBR without RT and 28 to the group who had prepectoral IBBR with RT. There was a statistically significant difference in overall capsular contracture rate between the RT and non-RT group (18% vs. 4.3%, p=0.04). The total implant loss in the cohort was 4% (10.7% vs. 1.4%, p=0.05). We obtained a high percentages of all BREAST-Q categories in both groups; however, satisfaction with the breast and sexual well-being was higher in the non-RT group. The three-year overall survivals were 97.4% in the RT group and 98.5% in the non-RT group.

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed that patients in the RT group had a higher rate of capsular contracture and implant loss than those in the non-RT group. However, complication rates were within acceptable range and with accurate preoperative information patients have more benefits from immediate reconstruction showing excellent overall quality of life irrespectively of radiation.

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 .

Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Risk-Reducing Mastectomy in BRCA Mutation Carriers: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Women with BRCA gene mutations have a higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Furthermore, cancer is usually diagnosed at a younger age compared to the wild-type counterpart. Strategies for risk management include intensive surveillance or risk-reducing mastectomy. The latter provides a significant reduction of the risk of developing breast cancer, simultaneously ensuring a natural breast appearance due to the preservation of the skin envelope and the nipple-areola complex. Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common technique after risk-reducing surgery and can be achieved with either a submuscular or a prepectoral approach, in one or multiple stages. This study analyzes the outcomes of the different reconstructive techniques through a retrospective review on 46 breasts of a consecutive, single-center case series. Data analysis was carried out with EpiInfo version 7.2. Results of this study show no significant differences in postoperative complications between two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction and direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, with DTI having superior aesthetic outcomes, especially in the prepectoral subgroup. In our experience, the DTI prepectoral approach has proven to be a safe and less time-consuming alternative to the submuscular two-stage technique, providing a pleasant reconstructed breast and overcoming the drawbacks of subpectoral implant placement.

Ptotic versus Nonptotic Breasts in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

In recent years, nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity due to improved cosmetic and psychological benefits. However, patients with ptotic breasts remain the main challenge for surgeons, owing to the potential risk of postoperative complications.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy and prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction between March 2017 and November 2021. Patient demographics, incidence of complications, and quality of life assessed using the BREAST-Q questionnaire were compared between the two different incisions [inverted-T for ptotic versus inframammary fold (IMF) for nonptotic breasts].

Results

A total of 98 patients were examined: 62 in the IMF cohort and 36 in the inverted-T cohort. The results demonstrated equivalence in the safety metrics between the two groups, including hematoma (p=0.367), seroma (p=0.552), infection (P = 1.00), skin necrosis (P = 1.00), local recurrence (P = 1.00), implant loss (P = 0.139), capsular contracture (P = 1.00), and nipple-areolar complex necrosis (P = 0.139). The BREAST-Q scores were equally high in both groups.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that inverted-T incision for ptotic breasts is a safe modality with similar complication rates and high aesthetic results compared with IMF incision for nonptotic breasts. A higher rate of nipple-areolar complex necrosis in the inverted-T group, although not significant, should be considered during careful preoperative planning and patient selection.

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.

Direct to implant reconstruction with adjustable permanent Becker implant expanders with ADM following de-epithelised skin reducing mastectomy in high-risk overweight and obese patients with severe ptosis

Overweight and obese patients with severe ptosis undergoing mastectomy and reconstruction present a challenge to the oncoplastic breast surgeon. This paper investigates early-to medium-term outcome of high-risk overweight and obese women with severe ptosis undergoing de-epithelised skin reducing mastectomy and direct to implant reconstruction with Becker implant expanders. From Nov 2016 and April 2021, 20 Wise pattern skin reducing mastectomies (SRM) were performed, 18 with Adjustable Permanent Becker Implant expanders (APBI) and 2 with fixed volume implants. Median age was 48 years (27-73), and median FU was 21 months (4-49). There were 8 smokers and 7 patients needed radiation treatment. In the ABPI group, there was one infection, 3 patients had threatened wounds which needed revision, and one patient lost her implant. There was no locoregional recurrence or distant metastasis. There was 1 week delay in adjuvant chemotherapy for a patient with wound issues following reconstruction. One patient is awaiting autologous reconstruction following deformity subsequent to radiation treatment. In conclusion the use of APBI following de-epithelised skin reduction surgery in this high-risk group is an option with acceptable early-to medium-term outcome.

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.

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.

Immediate surgical mesh-free implant-based breast reconstruction with fascial flap in breast cancer patients after mastectomy

PURPOSE

Surgical meshes are often used in retro-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) to improve lower pole expansion. However, using of surgical meshes is associated with increased complications and costs. To solve this problem, we have adopted a modified fascia-based IBBR technique using fasciae of pectoral major, serratus anterior, and external oblique muscles to form a sling covering the lower pole of prosthesis since 2014.

METHODS

Data of 788 retro-pectoral IBBR cases, including 250 fascia-based IBBR cases (fascial group) and 538 traditional IBBR cases (control group), treated between 2014 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The surgical outcomes of the fascial and control group were compared. The primary endpoint was the rate of post-operative complications requiring interventions. The secondary endpoint was the rate of explantation. The exploratory endpoint was the time from surgery to complication and explantation.

RESULTS

The fascial group had significantly lower rates of developing major post-operative complications (1.2 vs. 6.1%, p = 0.002) and losing prostheses (1.2 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.025), as compared with the control group. The median time from surgery to complication and explantation were 61 (range, 35-115) days and 92 (range, 77-134) days for the fascial group and 35 (range, 6-239) days and 63 (range, 23-483) days for the control group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Fascia-based IBBR technique had low rates of major post-operative complications and explantation. Fascia-based IBBR technique could be considered as an alternative reconstruction method in properly selected patients.

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.

Prophylactic treatment of breast implants with a solution of gentamicin, vancomycin and cefazolin antibiotics for women undergoing breast reconstructive surgery: protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (The BREAST-AB trial)

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic infection is one of the most severe complications following implant-based breast reconstruction affecting 5%-10% of the women. Currently, many surgeons apply antibiotics locally on the breast implant to reduce the risk of postoperative infection, but no randomised, placebo-controlled trials have tested the treatment's efficacy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The BREAST-AB trial (BREAST-AntiBiotics) is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of local treatment with gentamicin, vancomycin and cefazolin on breast implants in women undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction. The trial drug consists of 80 mg gentamicin, 1 g vancomycin and 1 g cefazolin dissolved in 500 mL of isotonic saline. The placebo solution consists of 500 mL isotonic saline. The trial drug is used to wash the dissected tissue pocket and the breast implant prior to insertion. The primary outcome is all-cause explantation of the breast implant within 180 days after the breast reconstruction surgery. This excludes cases where the implant is replaced with a new permanent implant, for example, for cosmetic reasons. Key long-term outcomes include capsular contracture and quality of life. The trial started on 26 January 2021 and is currently recruiting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee of the Capital Region (H-20056592) on 1 January 2021 and the Danish Medicines Agency (2020070016) on 2 August 2020. The main paper will include the primary and secondary outcomes and will be submitted to an international peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04731025.

Effectiveness of Single vs Multiple Doses of Prophylactic Intravenous Antibiotics in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis is widely used to prevent infection after implant-based breast reconstruction despite the lack of high-level evidence regarding its clinical benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis is superior to single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing surgical site infection (SSI) after implant-based breast reconstruction.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial was conducted at 7 hospitals (8 departments) in Sweden from April 25, 2013, to October 31, 2018. Eligible participants were women aged 18 years or older who were planned to undergo immediate or delayed implant-based breast reconstruction. Follow-up time was 12 months. Data analysis was performed from May to October 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Multiple-dose intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis extending over 24 hours following surgery, compared with single-dose intravenous antibiotic. The first-choice drug was cloxacillin (2 g per dose). Clindamycin was used (600 mg per dose) for patients with penicillin allergy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was SSI leading to surgical removal of the implant within 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the rate of SSIs necessitating readmission and administration of intravenous antibiotics, and clinically suspected SSIs not necessitating readmission but oral antibiotics.

RESULTS

A total of 711 women were assessed for eligibility, and 698 were randomized (345 to single-dose and 353 to multiple-dose antibiotics). The median (range) age was 47 (19-78) years for those in the multiple-dose group and 46 (25-76) years for those in the single-dose group. The median (range) body mass index was 23 (18-38) for the single-dose group and 23 (17-37) for the multiple-dose group. Within 6 months of follow-up, 30 patients (4.3%) had their implant removed because of SSI. Readmission for intravenous antibiotics because of SSI occurred in 47 patients (7.0%), and 190 women (27.7%) received oral antibiotics because of clinically suspected SSI. There was no significant difference between the randomization groups for the primary outcome implant removal (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 0.69-2.65; P = .53), or for the secondary outcomes readmission for intravenous antibiotics (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.65-2.15; P = .58) and prescription of oral antibiotics (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51-1.02; P = .07). Adverse events associated with antibiotic treatment were more common in the multiple-dose group than in the single-dose group (16.4% [58 patients] vs 10.7% [37 patients]; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.05-2.55; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this randomized clinical trial suggest that multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis is not superior to a single-dose regimen in preventing SSI and implant removal after implant-based breast reconstruction but comes with a higher risk of adverse events associated with antibiotic treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2012-004878-26.

Single Institution Evolution in Defining an Algorithm for Prevention and Management of Severe Complications in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Complications including infection and wound dehiscence are major concerns for direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction. However, the risk factors associated with severe complications and implant salvage remain unclear.

METHODS

Retrospective study of all patients undergoing unilateral DTI breast reconstruction from 2014 through 2019. The risk factors associated with complications and prosthesis explantation were identified using multivariate logistic regression modeling and interaction analyses.

RESULTS

Among 1027 patients enrolled, 90 experienced severe complications, 41of which underwent prosthesis explantation, while 49 were successfully salvaged. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with larger implant size (p=0.003), use of bovine mesh (p<0.001), adjuvant radiotherapy (p=0.047), low plasma albumin (p=0.013), and elevated blood glucose (p=0.006) were significantly more likely to suffer complications. Adjuvant radiation (OR: 7.44; 95%CI, 1.49-37.18; p = 0.014) and obesity (OR, 4.17; 95%CI, 1.17-14.88; p = 0.028) had significantly lower rates of implant salvage as well as surgical site infection (SSI) and wound dehiscence, while mastectomy skin flap necrosis was not associated with device explanation. There were no differences in complication and explantation rates between nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomies. However, the combined impact of SSI and wound dehiscence added over fourteen-fold higher risk of prosthesis explantation (95%CI, 9.97-19.53).

CONCLUSION

Success in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is multifactorial. Larger implant size, adjuvant radiation therapy, diabetes, and malnutrition demonstrate increased risk of complications in the DTI approach. Surgical site infections and wound dehiscence should be treated aggressively, but the combination of both complications portends poor salvage rates.

Air versus Saline: The Effect of Tissue Expander Fill on Outcomes of Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, saline is used for intraoperative/postoperative expansion in two-stage alloplastic breast reconstruction. Recently, intraoperative expansion with air has been proposed, to reduce pressure on the mastectomy skin flap in the immediate postoperative setting. The authors examined whether the intraoperative tissue expansion medium (i.e., air versus saline) affected postmastectomy complications in two-stage prepectoral reconstruction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 87 patients (144 breasts) undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction at the authors' institution. Patient data were abstracted from medical records. Stepwise, multivariable-adjusted logistic regression using robust variances was used to identify predictors of postmastectomy complications. Statistical and power analyses were completed.

RESULTS

Of the 87 study patients, 29 (33.3 percent) received intraoperative saline fill and 58 (66.7 percent) received air fill. Demographic/clinical data were well-matched between cohorts. Median follow-up was 165 days, and average patient age was 46.7 years. Initial tissue expander fill volumes were similar between study cohorts ( p = 0.2). The crude association between air versus saline fill on overall complication rates suggested that air-filled tissue expanders may be protective (OR = 0.4; p = 0.03), and the suggested protective effect was maintained with borderline significance even after potential confounders (i.e., American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or higher, body mass index, diabetes, mastectomy specimen weight, smoking status) were added to the model (OR = 0.4; p = 0.05). In addition, fewer complications requiring salvage reoperation were observed with air-filled tissue expanders (adjusted OR = 0.3; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The medium used for immediate intraoperative tissue expansion impacted postmastectomy outcomes in patients undergoing two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction. The results demonstrated that air-filled tissue expanders were associated with fewer postoperative complications/salvage reoperations relative to saline-filled tissue expanders.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Impact of diabetes on outcomes in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As rates of breast cancer and type II diabetes increase, so does the number of women with diabetes undergoing breast reconstruction (BR). Patients with diabetes are at increased risk of postoperative complications. This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the post-operative outcomes of women with diabetes who underwent BR following mastectomy.

METHOD

This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The EMBASE, PUBMED, and MEDLINE electronic databases were searched from inception to November 1, 2020 for studies published in English. Outcomes evaluated were overall complications, surgical complications, and longer hospital stay. Subgroup analysis investigated outcomes, such as implant/flap failure, infection, and necrosis.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria and 38 provided data to be included in the meta-analysis. A total of 151,585 patients were included, of which 9299 had diabetes. Women with diabetes were more likely to experience overall complications (11.6% vs 5.6%; p<0.0001) and surgical complications (7.7% vs 3.3%; p<0.0001), and were more likely to have a prolonged hospital stay (p = 0.04) than women without diabetes. Subgroup analysis showed that implant loss (2.5% vs 1.6%; p = 0.0003), infection (6.8% vs 2.5%; p<0.0001) and necrosis (23.8% vs 6.5; p = 0.001) were significantly higher in women with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that diabetes mellitus increases the risk of complications in patients with breast cancer undergoing BR after mastectomy. Prospective studies are required to establish whether diabetes that is well-controlled prior to reconstruction, including diabetes that is paired with adjuvant radiation therapy, reduces the perioperative risks.

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.

Risk of major postoperative complications in breast reconstructive surgery with and without an acellular dermal matrix; Development of a prognostic prediction model

Introduction

Acellular dermal matrices (ADM) have been suggested to allow for different approaches and reduce the risk of postoperative complications in implant-based breast surgery. Surgeons seem to embrace ADMs around the world, although a lack of consistent evidence regarding the factors that increase the risk of major postoperative complications remains.

Purpose

To develop and internally validate a model to predict the risk of a major postoperative complication in breast reconstructive surgery with and without an ADM.

Methodology

The DBIR is an opt-out registry that holds characteristics of all breast implant surgeries in the Netherlands since 2015. Using a literature-driven preselection of predictors, multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression modelling was used to develop the prediction model.

Results

A total of 2939 breasts were eligible, of which 11% underwent an ADM-assisted procedure (single-stage or two-stage). However, 31% underwent a two-stage procedure (with or without the use of ADM). Of all breasts, 10.2% developed a major postoperative complication. Age (OR 1.01), delayed timing (OR 0.71), and two-stage technique (OR 4.46) were associated with the outcome.

Conclusion

The data suggest that ADM use was not associated with a major postoperative complication, while two-stage reconstructions were strongly associated with an increased risk of major complications. Despite these findings, ADMs are not as popular in the Netherlands as in the USA. The predictive capabilities of the developed model are mediocre to poor, but because of the above findings, we believe that the role of the two-stage technique as a golden standard should be put up for debate.

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.

The Failed Breast Implant in Postmastectomy Reconstruction: A Systematic Literature Review of Complications of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most diagnosed malignant neoplasia of female patients worldwide in 2019. Survival has increased making it necessary to offer breast reconstructive procedures to improve quality of life and self-esteem. Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common approach, making it necessary to quantify the associated complications.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was performed. A total of 9608 citations were identified, and 44 studies met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Studies included reported the incidence of complications either per patient or per breast leading consequently to 2 complication rates depending on the type of reporting. A total of 14.3% of patient-related and 28.8% of breast-related complications while undergoing implant-based reconstruction were reported.Among total complications reported, 72.6% of patient-related and 48.5% of breast-related complications were classified as major complications.A total of 37.6% of patients respectively 15.1% of breasts required prosthesis explantation due to severe complications. Depending on reporting, 9.7% of patients and 4% of breasts required autologous flap reconstruction due to reconstructive failure.

CONCLUSIONS

High complication and failure rates are associated with implant-based breast reconstruction. Lacking randomized controlled trials, the choice between implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction has to be made individually for each patient.

Systematic Review of Breast-Q: A Tool to Evaluate Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review is to update and synthesize new evidence on BREAST-Q questionnaire’s ability to reflect patient-reported outcomes in women who have undergone breast reconstruction surgery (BRS) following mastectomy.

Methods

PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Clincaltrial.gov were searched for relevant studies from January 2009 to September 2021. Any interventional or observational studies that used BREAST-Q to assess patient-reported outcomes in the assessment of BRS following mastectomy were included.

Results

A total of 42 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Three were randomized controlled trials and 39 were observational studies. Compared with pre-operative scores, there was an improvement in all BREAST-Q outcome domains following BRS including ‘satisfaction with breasts’, “satisfaction with outcome” “psychosocial”, “physical”, and “sexual wellbeing”. Sexual well-being had the lowest BREAST-Q score both pre-and post-operatively (37.8–80.0 and 39.0–78.0, respectively). Autologous BRS reports higher satisfaction and overall wellbeing compared to implant-based BRS. BREAST-Q has a higher and narrow internal consistency of 0.81 to 0.96 compared with other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; EORTC-QLQ, FACT-B, BR-23, BCTOS). The BREAST-Q questionnaire is the only PROM which allows patients to reflect on their care, surgical outcomes, and satisfaction collectively.

Conclusion

This review highlights the fact that BREAST-Q can effectively and reliably measure satisfaction and wellbeing of breast cancer patients after BRS. Comparatively, sexual wellbeing shows poorer outcomes following BRS and more longitudinal studies are necessary to understand the basis for these findings. Compared to other PROMs, BREAST-Q is reliable and specific to breast cancer surgery. Overall, BREAST-Q can help clinicians improve their quality of service, understand patient experiences, and may be used as an auditing tool for surgical outcomes.

≠Risk of breast implant removal after one- versus two-stage breast reconstructive surgery

BACKGROUND

To date, both one- and two-stage techniques are used in immediate 'implant-based breast reconstruction' (IBBR) after mastectomy. Because it is still unknown what technique offers the best clinical outcomes, a multicenter retrospective study was conducted to compare both breast reconstruction techniques.

METHODS

All patients, who underwent a mastectomy followed by immediate one- or two-stage IBBR during 2010 - 2016 were included. Our primary outcome measure was explantation of the 'tissue expander' (TE) and/ or implants within 60 days after breast reconstruction. Secondary outcomes were overall complication rate and secondary corrections.

FINDINGS

Among a total of 383 women, TE/ implant explantation rate was higher in one-stage (19.9%) than in two-stage (11.3%) treated patients (p = 0.082). Overall complication rate (35.7% and 19.9% respectively, p = 0.008) and secondary corrections (29.8% and 20.3% respectively, p = 0.156) were also higher in one-stage compared to two-stage IBBR respectively. However, explantation (OR = 1.55; 95%CI = 0.67-3.58, p = 0.301) and complication (OR = 1.85; 95%CI = 0.92-3.37, p = 0.084) rates were comparable in one- and two-stage IBBR in our stratified multivariate logistic regression analyses, when controlling for history of smoking, nipple-sparing mastectomy, neoadjuvant radiation therapy, and removed breast tissue weight. A remarkable outcome in this study is that women treated with prophylactic surgery were more likely to have an explantation of the TE/ implant after a one-stage IBBR (OR = 4.49; 95%CI = 1.10-18.3, p = 0.037) than two-stage IBBR. In contrast, no association between type of IBBR and risk of TE/implants removal was found among women with a therapeutic mastectomy (OR = 0.82; 95%CI = 0.24-2.79, p =  = 0.74).

CONCLUSION

One- and two-stage IBBR showed a comparable explantation and complication rate in our retrospective study. In one-stage IBBR more secondary corrections were detected. In addition, women who have to decide on a prophylactic mastectomy should be aware of a significantly higher risk of explantation of their implant after one-stage IBBR.

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 .

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.

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.

Radiation therapy-associated toxicity: Etiology, management, and prevention

Radiation therapy (RT) is a curative treatment for many malignancies and provides effective palliation in patients with tumor-related symptoms. However, the biophysical effects of RT are not specific to tumor cells and may produce toxicity due to exposure of surrounding organs and tissues. In this article, the authors review the clinical context, pathophysiology, risk factors, presentation, and management of RT side effects in each human organ system. Ionizing radiation works by producing DNA damage leading to tumor death, but effects on normal tissue may result in acute and/or late toxicity. The manifestation of toxicity depends on both cellular characteristics and affected organs' anatomy and physiology. There is usually a direct relationship between the radiation dose and volume to normal tissues and the risk of toxicity, which has led to guidelines and recommended dose limits for most tissues. Side effects are multifactorial, with contributions from baseline patient characteristics and other oncologic treatments. Technological advances in recent decades have decreased RT toxicity by dramatically improving the ability to deliver RT that maximizes tumor dose and minimizes organ dose. Thus the study of RT-associated toxicity is a complex, core component of radiation oncology training that continues to evolve alongside advances in cancer management. Because RT is used in up to one-half of all patients with cancer, an understanding of its acute and late effects in different organ systems is clinically pertinent to both oncologists and nononcologists.

The frequency of medical reversals in a cross-sectional analysis of high-impact oncology journals, 2009-2018

Background

Identifying ineffective practices that have been used in oncology is important in reducing wasted resources and harm. We sought to examine the prevalence of practices that are being used but have been shown in RCTs to be ineffective (medical reversals) in published oncology studies.

Methods

We cross-sectionally analyzed studies published in three high-impact oncology medical journals (2009–2018). We abstracted data relating to the frequency and characterization of medical reversals.

Results

Of the 64 oncology reversals, medications (44%) represented the most common intervention type (39% were targeted). Fourteen (22%) were funded by pharmaceutical/industry only and 56% were funded by an organization other than pharmaceutical/industry. The median number of years that the practice had been in use prior to the reversal study was 9 years (range 1–50 years).

Conclusion

Here we show that oncology reversals most often involve the administration of medications, have been practiced for years, and are often identified through studies funded by non-industry organizations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08632-8.

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.

Acellular bovine pericardium matrix in immediate breast reconstruction compared with conventional implant-based breast reconstruction

Background

Acellular Bovine Pericardium Matrix (ABPM) is a new material in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Few studies have reported on its outcome and complications worldwide and most studies were without a control group. Our aim was to compare its use in IBBR with the other two conventional implant-based reconstruction methods.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing IBBR from January to December 2018 was performed. Patients were assigned to the ABPM-assisted IBBR (group A), latissimus dorsi-assisted IBBR (group B) and two-stage IBBR (group C). Patients’ post-operative complications, cost-effectiveness and Quality of Life were compared.

Results

100 patients with 100 breasts were included in the study. No complications occurred in group C (n = 11). No significant differences were noted between group A (n = 44) and group B (n = 45) in terms of overall complications (9.1% vs 11.1%, p = 0.973). Group B had the longest operative duration (310.8 ± 62.3 min, p<0.001). The cost of hospitalization forthe three groups was $8051.3 ± 849.2, $7566.0 ± 1172.7 and $7896.5 ± 1762.2, respectively (p = 0.128). The postoperative Breast-Q scores  were similar across the three groups.

Conclusions

ABPM demonstrated acceptable complication rates, cost-effectiveness and quality of life outcomes when compared to LD-assisted IBBR and two-stage IBBR.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh

BACKGROUND

Biological and synthetic meshes may improve the outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) by facilitating single-stage procedures and improving cosmesis. Supporting evidence is, however, limited. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of biological and synthetic mesh on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of IBBR 18 months after surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive women undergoing immediate IBBR between February 2014 and June 2016 were recruited to the study. Demographic, operative, oncological and 3-month complication data were collected, and patients received validated BREAST-Q questionnaires at 18 months. The impact of different IBBR techniques on PROs were explored using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for clinically relevant confounders, and including a random effect to account for clustering by centre.

RESULTS

A total of 1470 participants consented to receive the questionnaire and 891 completed it. Of these, 67 women underwent two-stage submuscular reconstructions. Some 764 patients had a submuscular reconstruction with biological mesh (495 women), synthetic mesh (95) or dermal sling (174). Fourteen patients had a prepectoral reconstruction. Compared with two-stage submuscular reconstructions, no significant differences in PROs were seen in biological or synthetic mesh-assisted or dermal sling procedures. However, patients undergoing prepectoral IBBR reported better satisfaction with breasts (adjusted mean difference +6.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.65 to11.61; P = 0.009). PROs were similar to those in the National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit 2008-2009 cohort, which included two-stage submuscular procedures only.

CONCLUSION

This study found no difference in PROs of subpectoral IBBR with or without biological or synthetic mesh, but provides early data to suggest improved satisfaction with breasts following prepectoral reconstruction. Robust evaluation is required before this approach can be adopted as standard practice.

Comparing Surgical Site Occurrences in 1 versus 2-stage Breast Reconstruction via Federated EMR Network

TriNetX (TriNetX Inc., Cambridge, Mass.) is a federated electronic medical record network. The TriNetX system conducts customized search queries of over 36 million electronic medical records, and returns results in just minutes. To our group’s knowledge, TriNetX has not been previously used in plastic surgery research. This study aimed to utilize a continuously updated federated network of 36,000,000 electronic medical records (TriNetX) for comparing 90-day postoperative outcomes between prosthetic breast reconstruction techniques.

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

Background

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in one-stage immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (BR) may offer advantages over the two-stage expander-to-implant technique, but literature shows conflicting results. The aim of the present study was to compare these two techniques for immediate implant-based BR regarding postoperative complications, aesthetic correction procedures and aesthetic outcome.

Methods

The study was designed as an observational cohort study with 44 participants admitted for immediate implant-based BR at Department of Plastic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. 21 patients underwent BR with a one-stage direct-to-implant technique using ADM and 23 patients underwent BR with a two-stage expander-to-implant technique. Follow-up time was 2 years.

Results

The risk of implant loss was equal between groups; one-stage group 16% and two-stage group 17% whereas the risk of implant exchange (but not loss of BR) was 13% in the one-stage group compared to 7% in the two-stage group. The risk of at least one major complication were equal between groups; 28% and 24% but the risk of at least one minor complication was significantly higher in the two-stage group (41%) compared to the one-stage group (3%). Number of aesthetic corrections were equally frequent in the two treatment groups (one-stage group 1.8, two-stage group 1.5). Patient and investigator assessed aesthetic outcome was very high in both groups as well as the degree of symmetry between breasts. No capsular contracture Baker grade 3 or 4 was observed.

Conclusions

The present study design sets limitations for drawing wide conclusions. This study did not reveal any significant differences between the two breast reconstructive techniques besides a higher risk of minor complications in the two-stage group, that did, however, not lead to a higher risk of implant loss. With equally high satisfaction with the aesthetic result and no significant difference in number of aesthetic corrections between the two groups we suggest, that the one-stage approach using ADM may be feasible and allows the patient to achieve an implant-based BR with a minimum of surgeries and outpatient visits. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04209010).

Comparisons of Therapeutic and Aesthetic Effects of One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with and without Biological Matrix

Background

Biological matrix can provide coverage of compromised muscle and augment the subpectoral pocket in the one-stage reconstruction. However, few studies compared one stage implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological matrix. The primary endpoint of our study was to assess the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on BREAST-Q version 2.0 and analyze complications between SIS matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) and no-matrix-assisted IBBR.

Methods

This retrospective single-center study was conducted from May 2015 to April 2019, and we analyzed 155 patients who underwent one-stage IBBR with at least 1 year of follow-up. Seventy-nine patients underwent one-stage IBBR with SIS matrix group and 76 patients underwent one-stage IBBR without SIS matrix group were evaluated of PROs with BREAST-Q version 2.0 (from 3 different domains) and compared with complications. Complications occurred in patients were divided into major complications and minor complications.

Results

In the satisfaction domain, the mean score for satisfaction with breasts was 60.27 (17.71) in the SIS matrix group and 54.49 (14.76) in the no-matrix group, p=0.045. The multivariate logistic regression for postoperative complications in the whole series pointed out a statistical significance for age>40 years old (odds ratio 3.314, 95% CI 1.012–10.854, p=0.048) and patients with endocrine therapy (odds ratio 0.260, 95% CI 0.092–0.736, p=0.011).

Conclusion

Patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR yield better results in PROs of satisfaction with breasts. Other domains and complications between the two groups had no significant difference.

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.