Alessia M Lardi1, Mark Ho-Asjoe2, Klaus Junge3, Jian Farhadi4. 1. Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Guy's and St. Thomas Hospital, London, UK; ; Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Guy's and St. Thomas Hospital, London, UK. 3. Premier research statistics, Darmstadt, Germany. 4. Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Guy's and St. Thomas Hospital, London, UK; ; Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; ; Center for Plastic Surgery, Clinic Pyramide at the Lake, Zürich, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Irradiation of implant-based breast reconstructions (BR) is known to increase capsular contracture (CC) rates on average by 4-fold over non-irradiated reconstructions. The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has been associated with lower CC rates in non-irradiated reconstructions (0-3%). Experimental and clinical studies suggest that ADM may also reduce CC rates in irradiated breasts. The aim of this study was to evaluate CC rates in non-irradiated and irradiated one- and two-stage BRs performed with the assistance of porcine ADM (PADM). METHODS: A single centre, retrospective, cohort study was designed from December 2008 to October 2012. A total of 200 immediate implant-based BRs were performed using PADM for inferior pole reinforcement. We included non-irradiated BR with a minimum follow up of 6 month from primary surgery (one stage) or from explantation of expander and implantation of the definitive implant (two stage). Of the postoperatively irradiated BR we included patients with 1 year or more follow up time from termination of radiotherapy. CC was graded using the conventional Spear-Baker classification and modified version for irradiated BR. According to the literature Grade III and IV CC were defined as clinically significant CC. RESULTS: Of 200 BRs with PADM, 122 were included in this study (84 non-irradiated and 38 irradiated). Sixty-five BR were one stage and 57 were two stage BR. Grade III/IV CC was remarkable low in non-irradiated (6%) and irradiated BR (13%). There was a non-significant trend to increased Grade III and IV CC in irradiated BR vs. non-irradiated BR (13% vs. 6%, P=0.216). In this study follow up time (P<0.001) and the stage of ADM reconstruction (two vs. one stage, P=0.022) were significant risk factors for occurrence of grade III/IV CC on univariate analysis and remained significant for the follow up time (P=0.013) and remarkable for the stages (P=0.093) in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the current clinical evidence that ADM use in implant-based BR is associated with a reduced risk of CC when compared to the standard submuscular techniques in literature. The reduced risk is maintained in the setting of radiotherapy. Two stage procedures in our study population showed increased grade III/IV CC compared to one stage procedures with or without exposure to radiation.
BACKGROUND: Irradiation of implant-based breast reconstructions (BR) is known to increase capsular contracture (CC) rates on average by 4-fold over non-irradiated reconstructions. The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has been associated with lower CC rates in non-irradiated reconstructions (0-3%). Experimental and clinical studies suggest that ADM may also reduce CC rates in irradiated breasts. The aim of this study was to evaluate CC rates in non-irradiated and irradiated one- and two-stage BRs performed with the assistance of porcine ADM (PADM). METHODS: A single centre, retrospective, cohort study was designed from December 2008 to October 2012. A total of 200 immediate implant-based BRs were performed using PADM for inferior pole reinforcement. We included non-irradiated BR with a minimum follow up of 6 month from primary surgery (one stage) or from explantation of expander and implantation of the definitive implant (two stage). Of the postoperatively irradiated BR we included patients with 1 year or more follow up time from termination of radiotherapy. CC was graded using the conventional Spear-Baker classification and modified version for irradiated BR. According to the literature Grade III and IV CC were defined as clinically significant CC. RESULTS: Of 200 BRs with PADM, 122 were included in this study (84 non-irradiated and 38 irradiated). Sixty-five BR were one stage and 57 were two stage BR. Grade III/IV CC was remarkable low in non-irradiated (6%) and irradiated BR (13%). There was a non-significant trend to increased Grade III and IV CC in irradiated BR vs. non-irradiated BR (13% vs. 6%, P=0.216). In this study follow up time (P<0.001) and the stage of ADM reconstruction (two vs. one stage, P=0.022) were significant risk factors for occurrence of grade III/IV CC on univariate analysis and remained significant for the follow up time (P=0.013) and remarkable for the stages (P=0.093) in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the current clinical evidence that ADM use in implant-based BR is associated with a reduced risk of CC when compared to the standard submuscular techniques in literature. The reduced risk is maintained in the setting of radiotherapy. Two stage procedures in our study population showed increased grade III/IV CC compared to one stage procedures with or without exposure to radiation.
Authors: Adelyn L Ho; Esta S Bovill; Sheina A Macadam; Scott Tyldesley; Janice Giang; Peter A Lennox Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Maurizio B Nava; Angela E Pennati; Laura Lozza; Andrea Spano; Milvia Zambetti; Giuseppe Catanuto Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: W Grant Stevens; Jennifer Harrington; Kaveh Alizadeh; Lewis Berger; David Broadway; T Roderick Hester; Donald Kress; Rosalyn d'Incelli; JoAnn Kuhne; Maggi Beckstrand Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Scott L Spear; Mitchel Seruya; Mark W Clemens; Steven Teitelbaum; Maurice Y Nahabedian Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Hani Sbitany; Sven N Sandeen; Ashley N Amalfi; Mark S Davenport; Howard N Langstein Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Hillary Nepon; Tyler Safran; Edward M Reece; Amanda M Murphy; Joshua Vorstenbosch; Peter G Davison Journal: Semin Plast Surg Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 2.195
Authors: Alexandra O Luby; Chitra Subramanian; Lauren K Buchman; Jeremy V Lynn; Kevin M Urlaub; Noah S Nelson; Alexis Donneys; Mark S Cohen; Steven R Buchman Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 1.763
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