First-year complications after immediate breast reconstruction with a biological and a synthetic mesh in the same patient: A randomized controlled study

Emma Hansson, Ann-Chatrin Edvinsson, Anna Elander, Lars Kölby, Håkan Hallberg, Emma Hansson, Ann-Chatrin Edvinsson, Anna Elander, Lars Kölby, Håkan Hallberg

Abstract

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.

Keywords: TIGR; Veritas; acellular dermal matrix; complications; immediate breast reconstruction; synthetic mesh.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.

© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Surgical Oncology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort diagram [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 2
Figure 2
Fully integrated synthetic mesh during the exchange to a permanent implant. Photo: Åsa Bell and Niclas Löfgren, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 3
Figure 3
Fully integrated biological mesh during the exchange to a permanent implant. Photo: Åsa Bell and Niclas Löfgren, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

References

    1. Duncan DI. Correction of implant rippling using allograft dermis. Aesthet Surg J. 2001;21(1):81‐84.
    1. Logan Ellis H, Asaolu O, Nebo V, Kasem A, Kasem A. Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14:121.
    1. Macadam SA, Lennox PA. Acellular dermal matrices: use in reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery. Can J Plast Surg. 2012;20(2):75‐89.
    1. Hallberg H, Rafnsdottir S, Selvaggi G, et al. Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2018;52(3):130‐147.
    1. Mazari FAK, Wattoo GM, Kazzazi NH, et al. The comparison of strattice and SurgiMend in acellular dermal matrix‐assisted, implant‐based immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(2):283‐293.
    1. Dikmans REG, Negenborn VL, Bouman MB, et al. 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. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(2):251‐258.
    1. Lohmander F, Lagergren J, Roy PG, et al. Implant based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: safety data from an open‐label, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in the setting of breast cancer treatment. Ann Surg. 2019;269(5):836‐841.
    1. Gschwantler‐Kaulich D, Schrenk P, Bjelic‐Radisic V, et al. Mesh versus acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant‐based breast reconstruction—a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(5):665‐671.
    1. Hansson E, Burian P, Hallberg H. Comparison of inflammatory response and synovial metaplasia in immediate breast reconstruction with a synthetic and a biological mesh: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2019;53:1‐6.
    1. Nguyen JoAnna, Carey T,JN, Wong AK. Use of human acellular dermal matrix in implant‐ based breast reconstruction: evaluating the evidence. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(12):1553‐1561.
    1. Hallberg H, Elander A, Kölby L, Hansson E, Hansson E. A biological or a synthetic mesh in immediate breast reconstruction? A cohort‐study of long‐term Health related Quality of Life (HrQoL). Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:1812‐1816.
    1. Hallberg H, Lewin R, Søfteland MB, et al. Complications, long‐term outcome and quality of life following surgisis and muscle covered implants in immediate breast reconstruction: a case‐control study with a six year follow‐up. Eur J Plastic Surg. 2019;42:33‐42.
    1. Hallberg H, Lewin R, Elander A, Hansson E, Hansson E. TIGR((R)) matrix surgical mesh—a two‐year follow‐up study and complication analysis in 65 immediate breast reconstructions. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2018;52(4):253‐258.
    1. Luo X, Kulig KM, Finkelstein EB, et al. In vitro evaluation of decellularized ECM‐derived surgical scaffold biomaterials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2017;105(3):585‐593.
    1. Mofid MM, Meininger MS, Lacey MS. Veritas(R) bovine pericardium for immediate breast reconstruction: a xenograft alternative to acellular dermal matrix products. Eur J Plast Surg. 2012;35(10):717‐722.
    1. Gaertner WB, Bonsack ME, Delaney JP. Experimental evaluation of four biologic prostheses for ventral hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11(10):1275‐1285.
    1. Hjort H, Mathisen T, Alves A, Clermont G, Boutrand JP, Boutrand JP. Three‐year results from a preclinical implantation study of a long‐term resorbable surgical mesh with time‐dependent mechanical characteristics. Hernia. 2012;16(2):191‐197.
    1. Castagnetti F, Bertani C, Foroni M, et al. The bovine pericardium matrix in immediate implant‐based breast reconstruction [published online ahead of print February 28, 2020]. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 10.1007/s00266-020-01651-z
    1. Cuffolo G, Holford NC, Contractor K, Tenovici A, Tenovici A. TIGR matrix for implant‐based breast reconstruction—a long‐term resorbable mesh. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018;15(9):689‐691.
    1. Pompei S, Evangelidou D, Arelli F, Ferrante G, Ferrante G. The use of TIGR matrix in breast aesthetic and reconstructive surgery: is a resorbable synthetic mesh a viable alternative to acellular dermal matrices? Clin Plast Surg. 2018;45(1):65‐73.
    1. Dawson A, Ramsay G, McKay C, Chaturvedi S, Chaturvedi S. Immediate implant‐based breast reconstruction using bovine pericardium (Veritas((R))) for optimal tissue regeneration. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2013;95(3):222.
    1. Quah GS, French JR, Cocco A, et al. Veritas in immediate implant‐based breast reconstruction is associated with higher complications compared with TiLOOP. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(12):e2533.
    1. Fischer JP, Wes AM, Tuggle CT, Serletti JM, Wu LC, Wu LC. Risk analysis of early implant loss after immediate breast reconstruction: a review of 14,585 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(6):983‐990.
    1. Lardi AM, Ho‐Asjoe M, Mohanna PN, Farhadi J, Farhadi J. Immediate breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: factors affecting outcome. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67(8):1098‐1105.
    1. Gfrerer L, Mattos D, Mastroianni M, et al. Assessment of patient factors, surgeons, and surgeon teams in immediate implant‐based breast reconstruction outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(2):245e‐252e.
    1. Eriksson M, Anveden L, Celebioglu F, et al. Radiotherapy in implant‐based immediate breast reconstruction: risk factors, surgical outcomes, and patient‐reported outcome measures in a large Swedish multicenter cohort. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;142(3):591‐601.
    1. Srinivasa DR, Garvey PB, Qi J, et al. 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;140(5):869‐877.
    1. Corban J, Shash H, Safran T, Sheppard‐Jones N, Fouda–Neel O, Fouda–Neel O. A systematic review of complications associated with direct implants vs. tissue expanders following Wise pattern skin‐sparing mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(9):1191‐1199.
    1. Chun YS, Verma K, Rosen H, et al. Implant‐based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(2):429‐436.
    1. Sbitany H, Serletti JM. Acellular dermis‐assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(6):1162‐1169.
    1. Heidemann LN, Gunnarsson GL, Salzberg CA, Sørensen JA, Thomsen JB, Thomsen JB. Complications following Nipple‐Sparing mastectomy and immediate acellular dermal matrix implant‐based breast reconstruction—a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(1):e1625.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit