M D Barber1, L Williams2, E D C Anderson3, G T Neades3, C Raine4, O Young3, D Kulkarni3, I Young3, J M Dixon3. 1. Edinburgh Breast Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: matthew.barber@luht.scot.nhs.uk. 2. Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, United Kingdom. 3. Edinburgh Breast Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Plastic Surgery, St John's Hospital, Livingston EH54 6PP, United Kingdom.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has transformed the technique of implant-based breast reconstruction. It offers the option of a one-stage procedure and is felt to have benefits in cosmetic outcome but the medium and long-term outcomes are unknown. METHODS: All cases where ADM was used in a breast reconstructive procedure in the Edinburgh Breast Unit from its initial use on 7/7/2008 to 31/7/2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Follow up was completed to 30/11/2012. RESULTS: 147 patients received 232 sheets of ADM (156 Strattice, 73 Permacol and 3 Alloderm). Mean follow up was 687 days. In 40 cases unplanned implant explantation occurred (17.2% or 27.2% of patients). 7 of 27 (25.9%) patients requiring adjuvant therapy had this delayed due to problems with the reconstruction. 30 of 80 patients (37.5%) undergoing unilateral surgery have undergone contralateral surgery. Implant loss varied significantly with smoking (34.6% loss rate in smokers vs 13.2% in non-smokers, p = 0.001), with radiotherapy (28.1% loss rate vs 13.8% with no radiotherapy, p = 0.001) and with incision type. There was no statistically significant variation by operating surgeon, type of ADM used, chemotherapy use, patient weight, breast weight or nipple preservation. Patients underwent a mean of 1.54 further operations (range 0-7). CONCLUSIONS: While offering potential cosmetic and financial benefits, the use of ADM with implant-based reconstructions has a significant rate of implant loss, further surgery and potential delay in adjuvant therapy. These must be considered when planning treatment and consenting patients.
INTRODUCTION: The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has transformed the technique of implant-based breast reconstruction. It offers the option of a one-stage procedure and is felt to have benefits in cosmetic outcome but the medium and long-term outcomes are unknown. METHODS: All cases where ADM was used in a breast reconstructive procedure in the Edinburgh Breast Unit from its initial use on 7/7/2008 to 31/7/2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Follow up was completed to 30/11/2012. RESULTS: 147 patients received 232 sheets of ADM (156 Strattice, 73 Permacol and 3 Alloderm). Mean follow up was 687 days. In 40 cases unplanned implant explantation occurred (17.2% or 27.2% of patients). 7 of 27 (25.9%) patients requiring adjuvant therapy had this delayed due to problems with the reconstruction. 30 of 80 patients (37.5%) undergoing unilateral surgery have undergone contralateral surgery. Implant loss varied significantly with smoking (34.6% loss rate in smokers vs 13.2% in non-smokers, p = 0.001), with radiotherapy (28.1% loss rate vs 13.8% with no radiotherapy, p = 0.001) and with incision type. There was no statistically significant variation by operating surgeon, type of ADM used, chemotherapy use, patient weight, breast weight or nipple preservation. Patients underwent a mean of 1.54 further operations (range 0-7). CONCLUSIONS: While offering potential cosmetic and financial benefits, the use of ADM with implant-based reconstructions has a significant rate of implant loss, further surgery and potential delay in adjuvant therapy. These must be considered when planning treatment and consenting patients.
Authors: Rajiv Dave; Rachel O'Connell; Tim Rattay; Zoe Tolkien; Nicola Barnes; Joanna Skillman; Paula Williamson; Elizabeth Conroy; Matthew Gardiner; Adrian Harnett; Ciara O'Brien; Jane Blazeby; Shelley Potter; Chris Holcombe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Julia R Henderson; Sandhir Kandola; Susan P Hignett; Rebecca L Teasdale; Ashley R Topps; Mandana Pennick; Meiju Hwang; Nicola Barnes; Cliona C Kirwan Journal: Eplasty Date: 2017-06-14
Authors: Shelley Potter; Elizabeth J Conroy; Paula R Williamson; Steven Thrush; Lisa J Whisker; Joanna M Skillman; Nicola L P Barnes; Ramsey I Cutress; Elizabeth M Teasdale; Nicola Mills; Senthurun Mylvaganam; Olivier A Branford; Katherina McEvoy; Abhilash Jain; Matthew D Gardiner; Jane M Blazeby; Christopher Holcombe Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2016-08-04
Authors: Senthurun Mylvaganam; Elizabeth Conroy; Paula R Williamson; Nicola L P Barnes; Ramsey I Cutress; Matthew D Gardiner; Abhilash Jain; Joanna M Skillman; Steven Thrush; Lisa J Whisker; Jane M Blazeby; Shelley Potter; Christopher Holcombe Journal: Breast Date: 2017-07-30 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Nadine S Hillberg; Patrick I Ferdinandus; Rieky E G Dikmans; Bjorn Winkens; Juliette Hommes; René R W J van der Hulst Journal: Eur J Plast Surg Date: 2018-04-24