The Role of Acellular Dermal Matrix in the Treatment of Capsular Contracture

Article (PDF Available)inClinics in plastic surgery 39(2):127-36 · April 2012with400 Reads
DOI: 10.1016/j.cps.2012.02.005 · Source: PubMed
Abstract
Capsular contracture is one of the most common complications following breast surgery with implants and is a common cause for reoperation. Many techniques have been described to treat or prevent recurrent capsular contracture with varying success. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM), in combination with periprosthetic capsulectomy, is a powerful tool to delay or prevent recurrent contracture. Excellent results have been obtained when this approach has been used in patients with capsular contracture, but at increased cost.
The Role of Acellular
Dermal Matrix in the
Treatment of Capsular
Contracture
James D. Namnoum, MD
a,
*
, Hunter R. Moyer,
MD
b
Capsular contracture remains the most frequent
device-related complication of breast surgery
with implants and has been an intractable problem
since the introduction of the silicone breast
implant in the 1960s. The ongoing, prospective
premarket approval trials of the 2 largest manufac-
turers of these devices Allergan (Irvine, CA, USA)
and Mentor (Santa Barbara, CA, USA) with
a follow-up rate of 67% to 92% have shown an
incidence of capsular contracture ranging from
Key Points
1. Capsular contracture is the most frequent cause for device-related reoperation in patients under-
going breast augmentation and revision augmentation, and the second most common reason for
reoperation following reconstruction.
2. Many established techniques have been described to reduce or prevent recurrent capsular contrac-
ture, but they are not effective in all cases.
3. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in combination with capsulectomy can prevent or delay recurrent
capsular contracture.
4. The mechanism by which recurrent contracture is inhibited is not clear but may involve a delay of
inflammatory cell infiltrate into the matrix (including myofibroblasts) modulating the foreign
body reaction around the implant or a biomechanical interruption of the spherical contracture
process.
5. More than 1 type of ADM has been shown to be effective at preventing recurrent capsular
contracture.
6. More data are needed to determine whether the inhibition of capsular contracture in the setting of
ADM and implants is permanent, and to identify the critical accompanying steps necessary to ensure
lasting success from recurrent contracture.
James D. Namnoum, MD is a shareholder and consultant, Allergan Corporation and Alure Medical.
Hunter R. Moyer has nothing to disclose.
a
Private Practice, Atlanta Plastic Surgery, Emory University, 975 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 100, Atlanta,
GA 30319, USA
b
Division of Plastic Surgery, Emory University, 975 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30342, USA
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jdnamnoum@atlplastic.com
KEYWORDS
Acellular dermal matrix
Capsular contracture
Silicone breast implants
Silicone gel
Breast augmentation
Breast reconstruction
Capsulectomy
Clin Plastic Surg 39 (2012) 127–136
doi:10.1016/j.cps.2012.02.005
0094-1298/12/$ see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
plasticsurgery.theclinics.com
9.8% to 14.8% for primary augmentation, 20.5%
to 22.4% for revision augmentation, and 13.7 to
15.9% for primary reconstruction. Capsular
contracture is the most common reason for reop-
eration in these patients (14.5% to 35.2%) and
appears to increase with time.
1,2
ETIOLOGY OF CAPSULAR CONTRACTURE
All implanted materials failing to acquire a blood
supply incite a prototypical foreign body reaction
characterized by the development of a scar inter-
face between the foreign body and its biologic
environment. Because breast implants are
compliant as opposed to other implanted devices
such as pacemakers or total joints, an exuberant
foreign body reaction that becomes contractile
around the implant will lead to deformity and
pain. The resulting capsular contracture may
prompt a need for reoperation, complicating the
result and leading to additional recovery and
expense.
Several factors have been associated with an
increased risk for capsular contracture, including:
Subclinical infection with biofilm
3
Silicone versus saline implants
4
Smooth versus textured surfaces
5,6
Subglandular versus subpectoral positioning
7
Postoperative hematoma
8
Silicone breast implant ruptures
9
Reoperative implant surgery
1,2
Radiation therapy proceeding or following
reconstruction with implants.
10–14
Pathogenesis of Capsular Contracture
Capsular contracture appears to appear at two
different times:
1. Early, thought to result from poor sterility or
surgical technique
2. Late, as a result of a chronic inflammatory
process.
In either case, the exact biologic processes
leading to the development of a thick, contracting
capsule is unclear. Evidence from a variety of sour-
ces has implicated the activation of the fibroblast
into a contractile myofibroblast as the critical event
in the contracture process.
Myofibroblasts
Myofibroblasts have been noted in the capsule s
around breast implants since the 19 70s.
15
Early
in vitro studies of capsular tissue demonstrated
a prototypica l response to smooth muscle
agonists and antagonists similar to that expected
from smooth muscle preparations.
16
In Hinz’s
description,
17
fibroblasts differentiate into acti-
vated myofbroblasts with potent contractil e
prop erties conferred from a smooth muscle actin
(SMA) in a 2- step process under the direction of
transforming growth factor beta (TGFb1), special-
ized extra cellular matrix (ECM) proteins like fibro-
nectin, and the mechanical microenvironment.
Smad Signaling
Sma d signaling is the major pathway through
which TGFb1 regulates expression of a-SMA in
fibroblasts. In an experimental model compa ring
wild-type and knockout mice lacking Smad, irra-
diation caused thick, distorted capsules in the
wild-type mouse but not the knockout mice,
presumably due to inhibition of TGFb.
18
Zinman
and collegues
19
demonstrated that rats treated
with the angiotension-converting enz yme inhib-
itor enalapril, a potent inhibitor of TGFb1, had
significantly less peri-prosthetic fibrosis than
untreated animals p resumably due in part to the
role TGFb1 plays in activation of fibroblasts to
myofibroblasts.
Stress Shielding
The mechanical microenvironment also plays
a role in myofibroblast differentiation due to alter-
ation in ECM stiffness. According to Hinz,
17
fibro-
blasts residing in intact tissues are stress
shielded by normal ECM. With trauma or repetitive
injury, increasing ECM stiffness provides a strong
mechanical signal, inducing the formation of a
SMA negative stress fibers that persist until the
normalization of matrix compliance. Factors that
antagonize TGFb1, normalize matrix compliance,
and improve cell-to-cell contact down-regulate
a–SMA in vitro; decreasing gel stress in vitro,
a model for stress shielding, causes myofibroblast
apoptosis.
Evidence that Acellular Dermal Matrix Plays
a Useful Role in the Treatment of Capsular
Contracture
Salzberg demonstrated an incidence of capsular
contracture of 0.4% in review of his direct-to-
implant immediate breast reconstruction in 466
breasts using ADM with 21 month follow-up
including 0% contracture following irradiation.
20
Maxwell showed a 0% incidence of capsular
contracture at 1 year postoperatively following
ADM use for revisionary breast surgery.
21
Stump demonstrated the absence of capsule
formation around implants covered in ADM in a pri-
mate model at 10 weeks with a significant decrease
in myofibroblast staining in the ADM-covered
Namnoum & Moyer
128
implants as compared with the capsules in im-
plants not covered with ADM.
22
Basu demonstrated significantly decreased in-
flammatory response in biopsies of ADM as com-
pared with native capsule around expanders at the
time of second-stage exchange, suggesting that
ADM potentially delayed the process of capsule
formation.
23
Technique for Correction of Capsular
Contracture with ADM
There is no consensus as to the required steps
to optimize the results for preventing or delaying
the recurrence of capsular contracture when
ADM is used. In a retrospective review, Collis
24
demonstrated a sig nificantly lower incidence of
recurrent subgla ndular contracture when total
capsulectomy was performed rather than anterior
capsulectomy only; this seems a reasonable
approach when possible, especially when con-
sidering the biofilm theory of capsular contracture
or retained foreign m aterial (as in ruptured sili-
cone gel devices) as causative for capsular
contracture.
All the following may play a role in enhancing
success.
25
Meticulous technique
Precise hemostasis
Conversion to a subpectoral plane
Use of textured devices
Ample washing with triple antibiotic
solutions.
By the same token, the ideal type (human versus
animal), thickness, size, or shape of ADM required
to create the optimal effect has not been demon-
strated. If ADM exerts its effects through stress
shielding of myofibroblasts or a delay in the inflam-
matory response due to the slow repopulation of
the matrix, it stands to reason that larger and thick-
er pieces might perform better than smaller and
thinner ones.
After capsulectomy, the ADM may be inset anteri-
orly with interrupted or running absorbable sutures
or fixed in place using parachute sutures that are
exited through the skin, tied loosely, covered with
an occlusive dressing and removed one week later.
Drains are a necessity and are discontinued when
thedrainage is less than 20 ccs overa 24 hour period.
Case 1
A 38-year-old patient who was 5 ft 8 in and 125 lbs underwent subpectoral augmentation with smooth-
walled silicone gel devices and circumvertical mastopexy. At 1 year postoperatively, she developed
a grade 3 capsular contracture of the right breast with high riding implant. At reoperation, a dense
capsule was noted on the right. A total periprosthetic capsulectomy was performed; 6 16 cm piece
of thick ADM was inset with running sutures to the anterior flap, and new implants were placed.
Two years following revisionary surgery, a grade 1 capsule was present on the right (Case 1, Figs. 1–4).
Fig. 1. Preoperative view.
PATIENT EXAMPLES
129
ADM for Capsular Contracture Treatment
Fig. 2. 1.5 years postoperative subpectoral augmentation with smooth walled silicone gel implants and cir-
cumvertical mastopexy. Grade 3 capsular contracture right breast.
Fig. 3. (A, B) Operative plan: total periprosthetic capsulectomy and acellular dermal matrix placement;
implant exchange.
Fig. 4. (A, B) 2 years following revisionary surgery. Grade 1 capsule right breast; grade 2 capsule left breast.
Namnoum & Moyer
130
Case 2: Capsular contracture
This case involved a 28-year-old, 5 ft 4 in, 115 lb patient. One year following subpectoral augmentation
with smooth-walled silicone gel devices, she developed a grade 4 capsular contracture of left breast. At
operation, a dense capsule was noted on the left; a total periprosthetic capsulectomy was performed
and 4 16 cm pieces of thick ADM were placed bilaterally. Implants were exchanged. Grade 1 capsules
are present bilaterally at 2 years (Case 2, Figs. 5–8).
Fig. 5. (A, B) Intraoperative view: grade 4 capsular contracture left breast.
Fig. 8. (A–C) Appearance of breasts 2 years postoperatively. Grade 1 capsules bilaterally.
Fig. 6. Following total periprosthetic capsulectomy.
Acellular dermal matrix draped over breasts and
parachuted into position. Internal running sutures.
Fig. 7. Apperance at completion of revisionary
surgery. Smooth implants exchanged for textured
surface devices.
ADM for Capsular Contracture Treatment
131
Case 3: Capsular contracture and poor tissue coverage
This case involved a 42-year-old patient with prior history of breast augmentation following bilateral
nipple sparing mastectomies (right prophylactic, left breast cancer) and silicone gel implant reconstruc-
tion. She underwent postoperative radiation of the left breast. A grade 4 capsular contracture of left
breast ensued with rippling and poor tissue coverage of the right breast. She desired smaller implants.
Operative plan included near total capsulectomy of the right breast, with ADM placement (6 16 cm,
thick), downsizing of implants bilaterally, conversion to textured devices, and ADM placement on the
right to correct rippling. At 2 years postoperatively, grade 2 capsule is present on the left, and a grade
1 capsule is present on the right (Case 3, Figs. 9–11).
Fig. 9. ( A, B) 42-year-old following bilateral nipple sparing mastectomies (right prophylactic, left breast
cancer) and postoperative radiation of left breast. Grade 4 capsular contracture left breast. Rippling medially
and thin coverage right breast.
Fig. 10. (A, B) Before revisionary surgery. Plan near to total periprosthetic capsulectomies, acellular dermal
matrix placement, pocket reshaping, implant exchange (downsize).
Fig. 11. (A, B) 2 years following revisionary surgery with acellular dermal matrix. Grade 2 capsule left; grade 1
capsule right.
132
Case 4: Ruptured saline device and capsular contracture
This case involved a 51-year-old, 5 ft 10 in 145 lb patient with pectus excavatum deformity. She under-
went right breast augmentation subpectorally with a single silicone gel device in the 1970s. Subse-
quently, the patient had replacement with saline devices bilaterally in the 1990s. She presented with
a ruptured saline device on the right right breast, and grade 3 capsular contracture of left breast. Intra-
operative photos demonstrate planned placement of ADM and parachute sutures tied after devices
were exchanged and drains placed. Fat was grafted to the upper pole of the right breast, and ADM
was placed to correct step off (Case 4, Figs. 12–16).
Fig. 12. (A, B) 51-year-old pectus deformity with deflation right saline breast implant and grade 3 capsular
contracture left implant.
Fig. 13. (A–C) Before revisionary surgery. Plan total periprosthetic capsulectomies, acellular dermal matrix
(ADM) placement left breast (breast plastic surgery [BPS] contour 2); ADM chest wall implant and fat grafting
right upper chest step-off deformity. Bilateral implant exchange.
Fig. 14. Intraoperative view showing planned place-
ment of acellular dermal matrix left.
Fig. 15. Intraoperative view stacked acellular dermal
matrix for correction contour deformity upper right
chest; parachute sutures exiting skin and tied loosely
on left.
133
ADM for Capsular Contracture Treatment
Fig. 16. At completion of revisionary surgery.
Case 5: Bilateral breast distortion with capsular contractures
This case involved a 67-year old 5 ft 3 in, 120 lb woman. This patient underwent bilateral mastectomies
and reconstruction in the 1970s with expanders and silicone gel devices. She developed marked breast
distortion bilaterally with grade 4 capsular contractures. Appearance 6 months after bilateral total peri-
prosthetic capsulectomy, ADM placement (BPS contour 2), bilateral implant exchange with placement of
textured wall devices, and fat grafting of breasts (Case 5, Figs. 17–21).
Fig. 17. (A, B) 67-year-old patient 30 years following bilateral mastectomies and expander/implant reconstruc-
tion. Profound distortion of breasts due to grade 4 capsular contractures.
Fig. 18. Before revisionary surgery.
134
SUMMARY
ADM for the prevention or correction of capsular
contracture is effective in a variety of cases and
appears to have a beneficial effect for up to 3
years. Adjunctive procedures for treating the
capsule as well as the size, type, and thickness
of the ADM required for optimal effectiveness
Fig. 21. (A–C) Appearance 6 months postoperatively.
Fig. 19. Intraoperative view. Acellular dermal matrix
(BPS contour 2) before inset with parachute sutures.
Fig. 20. Acellular dermal matrix inset into pocket.
ADM for Capsular Contracture Treatment
135
have not been established. The longevity of
correction has not been established. The mecha-
nism by which ADM prevents or delays recurrent
capsular contracture is at present unclear.
REFERENCES
1. Spear SL, Murphey DK, Slicton A, et al. Inamed sili-
cone bre ast implant core stu dy results at 6 years.
Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;120(Suppl 1):S8–16.
2. Cunningham B, McCue J. Safety and effectiveness
of Mentor’s MemoryGel implants at 6 years.
Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009;33:440–4.
3. Pajkos A, Deva AK, Vickery K, et al. Detection of
subclinical infection in significant breast implant
capsules. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;111:1605–11.
4. El-Sheikh Y, Tutino R, Knight C, et al. Incidence of
capsular contractufre in silicone versus saline
cosmetic augmentation mamammoplasty: a meta-
analysis. Can J Plast Surg 2008;16:211–5.
5. Wong CH, Samuel M, Tan BK, et al. Capsular
contracture in subglandular breast augmentation
with textured versus smooth breast implants:
a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118:
1224–36.
6. Barnsley GP, SIgurdson LJ, Barnsley SE. Textured
surface breast implants in the prevention of capsular
contracture among breast augmentation patients:
a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:2182–90.
7. Gutkowski KA, Mesna GT, Cunningham B, et al.
Saline filled breast implants: a plastic surgery
educational foundation multicenter outcomes study.
Plast Reconstr Surg 1997;100:1019–27.
8. Embrey M, Adams EE, Cuningham B, et al. A review
of the literature on the etiology of capsular contrac-
ture and a pilot study to determine the outcome of
capsular contracture interventions. Aesthetic Plast
Surg 1999;23:197–206.
9. Holmich LR, Lipworth L, McLaughlin JK, et al. Breast
implant rupture and connective tissue disease:
a review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg
2007;120(Suppl 7):S62–9.
10. Cordiero PG, McCarthy CM. A single surgeon’s
12-year experience with tissue-expander breast
reconstruction: part II. An analysis of long-term com-
plications, aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfac-
tion. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118:832–9.
11. McCarthy CM, Pusic AL, Disa JJ, et al. Unilateral
postoperative chest wall radiotherapy in bilateral
expander/implant reconstruction patients: a prospec-
tive outcomes analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;
116:1642–7.
12. Evans GR, Schusterman MA, Kroll S, et al. Recon-
struction of the radiated breast: is there a role for
implants? Plast Reconstr Surg 1995;96:1111–5.
13. Spear SL, Onyewu C. Staged breast reconstruction
with saline-filled implants in the irradiated breast:
recent rends and therapeutic implications. Plast Re-
constr Surg 2000;105:930–42.
14. Kronowitz SL, Robb GL. Radiation and breast recon-
struction: a critical review of the literature. Plast Re-
constr Surg 2009;124:395–408.
15. Rudolph R, Abraham J, Vecchione T, et al. Myofibro-
blasts and free silicon around breast implants. Plast
Reconstr Surg 1978;62:185.
16. Baker JL, Chandler ML, Levier RR. Occurrence and
activity of myofibroblasts in human capsular tissue
surrounding mammary implants. Plast Reconstr
Surg 1981;68(6):905–12.
17. Hinz B. Formation and functiom of the myofibroblast
during tissue repair. J Invest Dermatol 2007;127:
526–37.
18. Katzel EB, Koltz PF, Tierney R, et al. The impact of
Smad3 loss of function on TGF- b signaling and
radiation-induced capsular contracture. Plast Re-
constr Surg 2011;127(6):2263–9.
19. Zinman OA, Toblli J, Stella I, et al. The effects of
angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on the
fibrous envelope around mammary implants. Plast
Reconstr Surg 2007;120(7):2025–33.
20. Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Koch RM, et al. An 8-year
experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast
reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix
(AlloDerm). Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127(2):514–37.
21. Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. Use of acellular dermal
matrix in revisionary aesthetic breast surgery. Aesth
Surg J 2009;29(6):485–93.
22. Stump A, Holton LH, Connor J, et al. The use of acel-
lular dermal matrix to prevent capsule formation
around implants in a primate model. Plast Reconstr
Surg 2008;124(1):82–91.
23. Basu CB, Leong M, Hicks MJ. Acellular cadaveric
dermis decreases the inflammatory response in
capsule formation in reconstructive breast surgery.
Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;126(6):1842–7.
24. Collis N, Sharpe DT. Recurrence of subglandular breast
implant capsular contractur e: anterior versus total cap-
sulectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106(4):792–7.
25. Adams WP Jr. Capsular contracture: what is it? What
causes it? How can it be prevented and managed?
Clin Plast Surg 2009;36(1):119–26.
Namnoum & Moyer
136
    • "et shape. [19] Further experience with ADM's revealed their resistance to radiation, of particular benefit to reconstruction patients. [20] Another observation was a much lower than expected incidence of capsular contracture in reconstruction patients, [21] leading to the use of ADM's in revision breast surgery for established capsular contracture. [22,23] In this application, the material may afford protection against recurrent contracture, possibly related to altered inflammatory aspects of capsule formation. [24] Importantly, ADM's serve to replace tissue support and implant coverage after capsulectomy. This ability to provide instant, predictable, and durable tissue thickness remai"
    Article · Jan 2016
    • "At present, the pathogenic mechanism underlying capsular contracture is still unknown [2]. It is certainly a multifactorial process, resulting from human body reaction, biofilm activation, bacteremic seeding, or silicone exposure [3,4]. In such a scenario, the debate continues as to whether the second stage of breast reconstruction should be performed before or after post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Post-mastectomy breast reconstruction with expanders and implants is recognized as an integral part of breast cancer treatment. Its main complication is represented by capsular contracture, which leads to poor expansion, breast deformation, and pain, often requiring additional surgery. In such a scenario, the debate continues as to whether the second stage of breast reconstruction should be performed before or after post-mastectomy radiation therapy, in light of potential alterations induced by irradiation to silicone biomaterial. This work provides a novel, multi-technique approach to unveil the role of radiotherapy in biomaterial alterations, with potential involvement in capsular contracture. Following irradiation, implant shells underwent mechanical, chemical, and microstructural evaluation by means of tensile testing, Attenuated Total Reflectance Fourier Transform InfraRed spectroscopy (ATR/FTIR), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), high resolution stylus profilometry, and Time of Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (ToF-SIMS). Our findings are consistent with radiation-induced modifications of silicone that, although not detectable at the microscale, can be evidenced by more sophisticated nanoscale surface analyses. In light of these results, biomaterial irradiation cannot be ruled out as one of the possible co-factors underlying capsular contracture.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background: Augmentation mammaplasty and augmentation mastopexy are associated with a substantial primary and secondary revision rate. Capsular contracture (CC), implant malposition, ptosis, asymmetry, and rippling are the main reasons for revisionary surgery in these patients. Traditional corrective techniques have not been completely reliable in preventing or treating these complications. Recently, acellular dermal matrices (ADM) have been used to assist with revisionary surgery with promising results. Objective: The authors review their 6-year experience using ADM for revisionary surgery in aesthetic patients and evaluate long-term outcomes with this approach. Methods: Patients who underwent revisionary breast augmentation or augmentation mastopexy with ADM in conjunction with standard techniques over a 6-year period between October 2005 and December 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Only patients with at least 1 year of follow-up were included in the analysis. Results: A total of 197 revisions were performed (197 patients). Reasons for revision included CC (61.8%), implant malposition (31.2%), rippling (4.8%), ptosis (4.8%), implant exposure (1.6%), and breast wound (0.5%). The mean ± SD follow-up period was 3.1 ± 1.1 years (range, 0.1–6.1 years). The complication rate was 4.8%, including Baker grade III/IV CC (1.6%), infection (1.6%), implant malposition (0.5%), hematoma (0.5%), and seroma (0.5%). Most (98%) revisions were successful, with no recurrence of the presenting complaint. Conclusions: The use of ADM in conjunction with standard techniques for the reinforcement of weak tissue in revision augmentation and augmentation mastopexy patients appears to be effective. Level of Evidence: 4
    Article · Feb 2013
Show more

    Recommended publications

    Discover more