The Effects of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Expander-Implant Breast Reconstruction after Total Skin-Sparing Mastectomy

Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.99). 06/2012; 129(6):901e-908e. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824ec447
Source: PubMed


Neither outcome after total skin-sparing mastectomy and expander-implant reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix nor a strategy for optimal acellular dermal matrix selection criteria has been well described.
Prospective review of three patient cohorts undergoing total skin-sparing mastectomy with preservation of the nipple-areola complex and immediate expander-implant reconstruction from 2006 to 2010 was performed. Cohort 1 (no acellular dermal matrix) comprised 90 cases in which acellular dermal matrix was not used. Cohort 2 (consecutive acellular dermal matrix) included the next 100 consecutive cases, which all received acellular dermal matrix. Cohort 3 (selective acellular dermal matrix) consisted of the next 260 cases, in which acellular dermal matrix was selectively used based on mastectomy skin flap thickness. Complication rates were compared using chi-square analysis.
The study included 450 cases in 288 patients. Mean follow-up was 25.5 months. Infection occurred in 27.8 percent of the no-acellular dermal matrix cases, 20 percent of the consecutive cases, and 15.8 percent of the selective cases (p = 0.04). Unplanned return to the operating room was required in 23.3, 11, and 10 percent of cases, respectively (p = 0.004). Expander-implant loss occurred in 17.8, 7, and 5 percent of cases, respectively (p = 0.001). Additional analysis of the odds ratios of developing complications after postmastectomy radiation therapy demonstrated a specific protective benefit of acellular dermal matrix in irradiated patients.
Acellular dermal matrix use in expander-implant reconstruction after total skin-sparing mastectomy reduced major postoperative complications in this study. Maximal benefit is achieved with selected use in patients with thin mastectomy skin flaps and those receiving radiation therapy.
Therapeutic, III.

1 Follower
16 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Total skin-sparing mastectomy (TSSM), a technique comprising removal of all breast and nipple tissue while preserving the entire skin envelope, is increasingly offered to women for therapeutic and prophylactic indications. However, standard use of the procedure remains controversial as a result oft concerns regarding oncologic safety and risk of complications. Outcomes from a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing TSSM and immediate breast reconstruction from 2001 to 2010 were reviewed. Outcome measures included postoperative complications, tumor involvement of the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) on pathologic analysis, and cancer recurrence. TSSM was performed on 657 breasts in 428 patients. Indications included in situ cancer [111 breasts (16.9 %)], invasive cancer [301 breasts (45.8 %)], and prophylactic risk-reduction [245 breasts (37.3 %)]. A total of 210 patients (49 %) had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 78 (18.2 %) had adjuvant chemotherapy, and 114 (26.7 %) had postmastectomy radiotherapy. Nipple tissue contained in situ cancer in 11 breasts (1.7 %) and invasive cancer in 9 breasts (1.4 %); management included repeat excision (7 cases), NAC removal (9 cases), or radiotherapy without further excision (4 cases). Ischemic complications included 13 cases (2 %) of partial nipple loss, 10 cases (1.5 %) of complete nipple loss, and 78 cases (11.9 %) of skin flap necrosis. Overall locoregional recurrence rate was 2 % (median follow-up 28 months), with a 2.4 % rate observed in the subset of patients with at least 3 years' follow-up (median 45 months). No NAC skin recurrences were observed. In this large, high-risk cohort, TSSM was associated with low rates of NAC complications, nipple involvement, and locoregional recurrence.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 04/2012; 19(11):3402-9. DOI:10.1245/s10434-012-2362-y · 3.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increased rates of complications can occur when postmastectomy radiation therapy is required after immediate expander-implant breast reconstruction. The sequence and timing of tissue expansion and implant exchange with regard to postmastectomy radiation therapy may impact complication rates. A prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction was queried for patients who underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy. The authors' protocol is to complete tissue expansion before radiation, irradiate the fully inflated expander, and then perform expander-implant exchange. Starting in 2009, the authors refined their protocol by increasing the time interval between completion of radiation therapy and expander-implant exchange from 3 months to 6 months as a strategy to reduce surgical complications. For analysis, patients were divided into two cohorts based on whether expander-implant exchange was performed less than 6 months or more than 6 months after radiation. The primary outcome was expander-implant failure, defined as device removal without concurrent replacement. Eighty-eight patients met selection criteria; 49 (55.7 percent) had expander-implant exchange within 6 months of completing radiation therapy (mean, 3.4 months; range, 1.2 to 5.8 months), and the rest had at least a 6-month interval (mean, 8.6 months; range, 6.1 to 17.1 months). Risk factors for postoperative complications were equivalent between cohorts. Overall expander-implant failure was 15.9 percent; failure was significantly higher in the cohort with less than 6 months' time before exchange (22.4 percent versus 7.7 percent, p = 0.036). Delaying expander-implant exchange for at least 6 months after the completion of postmastectomy radiation therapy can significantly reduce expander-implant failure.
    Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 09/2012; 130(3):503-9. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dbf15 · 2.99 Impact Factor
  • 11/2012; 1(3):139-41. DOI:10.3978/j.issn.2227-684X.2012.10.04
Show more