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

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 .

Trends and issues in clinical research on satisfaction and quality of life after mastectomy and breast reconstruction: a 5-year scoping review

Breast reconstruction (BR) aims to improve the satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) of breast cancer survivors. Clinical studies using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can therefore provide relevant information to the patients and support decision-making. This scoping review was conducted to analyze recent trends in world regions, methods used, and factors investigated. The literature search was conducted in August 2022. Databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched for relevant English-language studies published from 2017 to 2022. Studies involving women with breast cancer who underwent BR after mastectomy and investigated PROs after BR using BR-specific scales were included. Data on the country, publication year, study design, PRO measures (PROMs) used, time points of surveys, and research themes were collected. In total, 147 articles met the inclusion criteria. BREAST-Q was the most widely used, contributing to the increase in the number and diversification of studies in this area. Such research has been conducted mainly in North America and Europe and is still developing in Asia and other regions. The research themes involved a wide range of clinical and patient factors in addition to surgery, which could be influenced by research methods, time since surgery, and even cultural differences. Recent BR-specific PROMs have led to a worldwide development of research on factors that affect satisfaction and QOL after BR. PRO after BR may be influenced by local cultural and social features, and it would be necessary to accumulate data in each region to draw clinically useful conclusion.

Comparing Complications of Biologic and Synthetic Mesh in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background  In breast reconstruction, synthetic meshes are frequently used to replace acellular dermal matrix (ADM), since ADM is expensive and often leads to complications. However, there is limited evidence that compares the types of substitutes. This study aimed to compare complications between materials via a network meta-analysis. Methods  We systematically reviewed studies reporting any type of complication from 2010 to 2021. The primary outcomes were the proportion of infection, seroma, major complications, or contracture. We classified the intervention into four categories: ADM, absorbable mesh, nonabsorbable mesh, and nothing used. We then performed a network meta-analysis between these categories and estimated the odds ratio with random-effect models. Results  Of 603 searched studies through the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases, following their review by two independent reviewers, 61 studies were included for full-text reading, of which 17 studies were finally included. There was a low risk of bias in the included studies, but only an indirect comparison between absorbable and non-absorbable mesh was possible. Infection was more frequent in ADM but not in the two synthetic mesh groups, namely the absorbable or nonabsorbable types, compared with the nonmesh group. The proportion of seroma in the synthetic mesh group was lower (odds ratio was 0.2 for the absorbable and 0.1 for the nonabsorbable mesh group) than in the ADM group. Proportions of major complications and contractures did not significantly differ between groups. Conclusion  Compared with ADM, synthetic meshes have low infection and seroma rates. However, more studies concerning aesthetic outcomes and direct comparisons are needed.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications Following Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Biological Matrix-Assisted Direct-to-Implant and Latissimus Dorsi Flap

Background

Implant-based breast reconstruction is increasingly becoming the most common method of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in use today. As the traditional autologous reconstruction technique, latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) is employed by surgeons for reconstruction after breast cancer surgery, including partial mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, and others. The authors aim to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications between the SIS matrix-assisted direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction and the autologous LDF breast reconstruction.

Methods

Patients undergoing the SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction or mastectomy with LDF reconstruction or partial mastectomy with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) reconstruction were enrolled in a single institution from August 2010 to April 2019. Patients were included for analysis and divided into three groups: those who underwent LDF reconstruction, those who underwent MLDF reconstruction, and patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted DTI breast reconstruction. PROs (using the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire) and complications were evaluated.

Results

A total of 135 patients met the inclusion criteria: 79 patients (58.5%) underwent SIS matrix-assisted DTI, 29 patients (21.5%) underwent LDF breast reconstruction, and 27 patients (20%) underwent MLDF breast reconstruction. PROs and complication rates between LDF reconstruction group and MLDF reconstruction group showed no statistically significant differences. Furthermore, BREAST-Q responses found that patients in the whole autologous LDF reconstruction group had better psychosocial well-being, showing a mean score of 84.31 ± 17.28 compared with SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction, with a mean score of 73.52 ± 19.96 (p = 0.005), and expressed higher sexual well-being (69.65 ± 24.64 vs. 50.95 ± 26.47; p = 0.016). But there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for postoperative complications.

Conclusion

This retrospective study showed no statistically significant differences between LDF breast reconstruction and MLDF breast reconstruction. However, patients in the whole autologous LDF reconstruction group yielded superior PROs than patients in the SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction group in the psychosocial well-being and sexual well-being domains.

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 .