D Gschwantler-Kaulich1, P Schrenk2, V Bjelic-Radisic3, K Unterrieder4, C Leser5, A Fink-Retter5, M Salama6, C Singer5. 1. Medical University of Vienna, Breast Cancer Center, Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: daphne.gschwantler@kaulich.at. 2. AKH Linz Breast Cancer Center, Krankenhausstrasse 9, 4021 Linz, Austria. 3. Medical University of Graz, Department of Gynaecology, Auenbruggerplatz 1, 8036 Graz, Austria. 4. Private Hospital Villach, Breast Cancer Center, Department of Gynaecology, Dr.-Walter-Hochsteiner-Straße 4, 9504 Villach, Austria. 5. Medical University of Vienna, Breast Cancer Center, Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. 6. Otto Wagner Hospital, Department of Surgery, Baumgartner Hoehe 1, 1140 Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comparative studies on the use of meshes and acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) have not yet been performed. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter pilot study was performed at four Austrian breast cancer centers. Fifty patients with oncologic or prophylactic indication for mastectomy and IBBR were randomized to immediate IBBR with either an ADM (Protexa(®)) or a titanized mesh (TiLOOP(®) Bra). Complications, failed reconstruction, cosmetic outcome, patients' quality of life and the thickness of the overlying tissue were recorded immediately postoperatively and 3 and 6 months after surgery. RESULTS:48 patients participated in the study (Protexa(®) group: 23; TiLOOP(®) Bra group: 25 patients). The overall complication rate was 31.25% with similar rates in both groups (Protexa(®) group: 9 versus TiLOOP(®) Bra group: 6; p = 0.188). There was a higher incidence of severe complications leading to failed reconstructions with implant loss in the Protexa(®) group than in the TiLOOP(®) Bra group (7 versus 2; p < 0.0001). An inverted T-incision technique led to significantly more complications and reconstructive failure with Protexa(®) (p = 0.037, p = 0.012, respectively). There were no significant differences in patients' satisfaction with cosmetic results (p = 0.632), but surgeons and external specialists graded significantly better outcomes with TiLOOP(®) Bra (p = 0.034, p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This pilot study showed use of TiLOOP(®) Bra or Protexa(®) in IBBR is feasible leading to good cosmetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. To validate the higher failure rates in the Protexa(®) group, data from a larger trial are required. NCT02562170.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Comparative studies on the use of meshes and acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) have not yet been performed. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter pilot study was performed at four Austrian breast cancer centers. Fifty patients with oncologic or prophylactic indication for mastectomy and IBBR were randomized to immediate IBBR with either an ADM (Protexa(®)) or a titanized mesh (TiLOOP(®) Bra). Complications, failed reconstruction, cosmetic outcome, patients' quality of life and the thickness of the overlying tissue were recorded immediately postoperatively and 3 and 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: 48 patients participated in the study (Protexa(®) group: 23; TiLOOP(®) Bra group: 25 patients). The overall complication rate was 31.25% with similar rates in both groups (Protexa(®) group: 9 versus TiLOOP(®) Bra group: 6; p = 0.188). There was a higher incidence of severe complications leading to failed reconstructions with implant loss in the Protexa(®) group than in the TiLOOP(®) Bra group (7 versus 2; p < 0.0001). An inverted T-incision technique led to significantly more complications and reconstructive failure with Protexa(®) (p = 0.037, p = 0.012, respectively). There were no significant differences in patients' satisfaction with cosmetic results (p = 0.632), but surgeons and external specialists graded significantly better outcomes with TiLOOP(®) Bra (p = 0.034, p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This pilot study showed use of TiLOOP(®) Bra or Protexa(®) in IBBR is feasible leading to good cosmetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. To validate the higher failure rates in the Protexa(®) group, data from a larger trial are required. NCT02562170.
Authors: Shelley Potter; Elizabeth J Conroy; Ramsey I Cutress; Paula R Williamson; Lisa Whisker; Steven Thrush; Joanna Skillman; Nicola L P Barnes; Senthurun Mylvaganam; Elisabeth Teasdale; Abhilash Jain; Matthew D Gardiner; Jane M Blazeby; Chris Holcombe Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 41.316
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
Authors: V L Negenborn; J M Smit; R E G Dikmans; H A H Winters; J W R Twisk; P Q Ruhé; M A M Mureau; S Tuinder; Y Eltahir; N A S Posch; J M van Steveninck-Barends; R R W J van der Hulst; M J P F Ritt; M-B Bouman; M G Mullender Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Gaik Si Quah; James R French; Annelise Cocco; Jeremy Hsu; Farid Meybodi; Elisabeth Elder Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2019-12-31