Immediate-implant-based-breast-reconstruction with two-stage expander-implant reconstruction versus one-stage-reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: analysis of patients’ satisfaction

Main Article Content

Alessandro Innocenti
Dario Melita
Marco Affortunati
Tommaso Susini
Marco Innocenti

Keywords

breast reconstruction; immediate breast reconstruction; breast cancer; ADM; breast implant;

Abstract

Background


The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the patient-reported outcome after immediate ADM-assisted implant- based breast reconstruction.


Material and Methods


Patients underwent breast reconstruction from 2015 to 2019 have been retrospectively divided into group A (partial subpectoral implant and ADM and group B (expander/implant). For each patient we evaluated retrospectively postoperative complications and patients’ satisfaction.


Results


26 patients from the case group and 40 from the control group completed the BREAST-Q. The incidence of complications in the cases was 18.4%, while in the control group was 20.4%.  We found no statistical difference in most of the domains and in the mean score of the questionnaire (mean score cases=69.0±14.4 vs controls=68.4±15.7; p=0.888). A significant difference results only in the domains Q2a and Q2b, sensation of rippling.


Conclusions. The use of ADM in one-stage reconstruction allows to perform breast reconstruction in only one surgery, with similar complication rates and patient satisfaction.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 66 | PDF Downloads 29

References

1. World Health Organisation, Breast Cancer; 24.11.21019. https://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/diagnosis-screening/breast-cancer/en/
2.Veronesi U, Saccozzi R, Del Vecchio M, et al., Comparing radical mastectomy with quadrantectomy, axillary dissection, and radiotherapy in patients with small cancers of the breast. N Engl J Med 1981; 305: 6-11.
3.Bernard Fisher, M.D., Stewart Anderson, Ph.D., John Bryant, et al., Twenty-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial Comparing Total Mastectomy, Lumpectomy, and Lumpectomy plus Irradiation for the Treatment of Invasive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1233-1241
4.Sabel MS, Kraft CT, Griffith KA, et al. Differences between breast conservation-eligible patients and unilateral mastectomy patients in choosing contralateral prophylactic mastectomies. Breast J. 2016; 22:607–615.
5. Salzberg CA.Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann Plast Surg. 2006 Jul;57(1):1-5.
6. Nicolò Bertozzi, Marianna Pesce, Pierluigi Santi, and Edoardo Raposio. One-Stage Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Concise Review. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:64868597.
7. Eicheler C, Efremova J, Brunnert K, et al. A Head to Head Comparison Between Surgimend®-Fetal Bovine Acellular Dermal Matrix and Tutomesh®- A Bovine Pericardium Collagene Membrane in Breast Reconstruction in 45 Cases. In vivo 31: 677-682 (2017).
8. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM et al., The BREAST-Q: further validation in indipendent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Feb;129(2):293-302
9. Parisi D, Ciancio F, Portincasa A, Innocenti A. Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction without the Use of an Acellular Dermal Matrix Is Cost Effective and Oncologically Safe. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6):820e-821e
10. Duncan DI. Correction of implant rippling using allograft dermis. Aesth Surg J 2001;21:81-4.
11. Breuing KH, Warren SM. Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings. Ann Plast Surg 2005; 55:232-9.
12. Annacontini L, Ciancio F, Parisi D, Innocenti A, Portincasa A. Management of nipple-areolar complex complications in skin-sparing mastectomy with prosthetic reconstruction A case report. Ann Ital Chir. 2016 Jan 29;87(ePub). pii: S2239253X16024440.
13. Razdan SN, Cordeiro PG, Albornoz CR, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of breast reconstruction options in the setting of postmastectomy radiotherapy using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Mar;137(3):510e-517e
14. Wei CH, Scott AS, Price AN, et al. Psychosocial and sexual well-being following nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction. Breast J. 2016; 22:10–17.
15. Susini T., Renda I., Giani M., Vallario A., Nori J., Vanzi E., Innocenti A., Lo Russo G., Bianchi S. Changing Trends in Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction. Analysis of a Single-institution Experience Between 2004-2016. Anticancer Res. 2019 Oct;39(10):5709-5714. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.13770.
16. SA Macadam, PA Lennox. Acellular dermal matrices: Use in reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery. Can J Plast Surg 2012;20(2):75-90.
17. G. Ho, T. J. Nguyen, A. Shahabi, et al., “A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction,” Annals of Plastic Surgery, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 346–356, 2012.
18. Basta MN, Gerety PA, Serletti JM, et al. A Systematic Review and Head-to-Head Meta Analysis of Outcomes following Direct-to-Implant versus Conventional Two-Stage Implant Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2015 Dec;136(6):1135-44
19. Ciancio F, Parisi D, Portincasa A, Innocenti A. Innovative Management of Implant Exposure in ADM/Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017 Oct;41(5):1237-1238
20. El Hage Chehade H, Headon H, Wazir U, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy using a hemi-periareolar incision with or without minimal medial-lateral extensions; clinical outcome and patient satisfaction: A single centre prospective observational study. Am J Surg. 2017 Jun;213(6): 1116-1124.
21. Headon H, Kasem A, Manson A, et al. Clinical outcome and patient satisfaction with the use of bovine-derived acellular dermal matrix (SurgiMend™) in implant based immediate reconstruction following skin sparing mastectomy: a prospective observational study in a single centre. Surg Oncol 2016; 25: 104-110.
22. Srinivasa DR, Garvey PB, Qi J, Hamill JB, Kim HM, Pusic AL, Kronowitz SJ, Wilkins EG, Butler CE, Clemens MW. Direct-to-Implant versus Two-Stage Tissue Expander/Implant Reconstruction: 2-Year Risks and Patient-Reported Outcomes from a Prospective, Multicenter Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 November ; 140(5): 869–877.
23. Negenborn V, Young-Afat D, Dikmans R, et al., Quality of life and patient satisfaction after one-stage implant -based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage breast breconstruction (BRIOS): primary outcome of a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Sep;19(9):1205-1214.