Peng Gao1, Zhongzhao Wang1, Xiangyi Kong1, Xiangyu Wang1, Yi Fang1, Jing Wang1. 1. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biological matrix can provide coverage of compromised muscle and augment the subpectoral pocket in the one-stage reconstruction. However, few studies compared one stage implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological matrix. The primary endpoint of our study was to assess the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on BREAST-Q version 2.0 and analyze complications between SIS matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) and no-matrix-assisted IBBR. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study was conducted from May 2015 to April 2019, and we analyzed 155 patients who underwent one-stage IBBR with at least 1 year of follow-up. Seventy-nine patients underwent one-stage IBBR with SIS matrix group and 76 patients underwent one-stage IBBR without SIS matrix group were evaluated of PROs with BREAST-Q version 2.0 (from 3 different domains) and compared with complications. Complications occurred in patients were divided into major complications and minor complications. RESULTS: In the satisfaction domain, the mean score for satisfaction with breasts was 60.27 (17.71) in the SIS matrix group and 54.49 (14.76) in the no-matrix group, p=0.045. The multivariate logistic regression for postoperative complications in the whole series pointed out a statistical significance for age>40 years old (odds ratio 3.314, 95% CI 1.012-10.854, p=0.048) and patients with endocrine therapy (odds ratio 0.260, 95% CI 0.092-0.736, p=0.011). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR yield better results in PROs of satisfaction with breasts. Other domains and complications between the two groups had no significant difference.
BACKGROUND: Biological matrix can provide coverage of compromised muscle and augment the subpectoral pocket in the one-stage reconstruction. However, few studies compared one stage implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological matrix. The primary endpoint of our study was to assess the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on BREAST-Q version 2.0 and analyze complications between SIS matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) and no-matrix-assisted IBBR. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study was conducted from May 2015 to April 2019, and we analyzed 155 patients who underwent one-stage IBBR with at least 1 year of follow-up. Seventy-nine patients underwent one-stage IBBR with SIS matrix group and 76 patients underwent one-stage IBBR without SIS matrix group were evaluated of PROs with BREAST-Q version 2.0 (from 3 different domains) and compared with complications. Complications occurred in patients were divided into major complications and minor complications. RESULTS: In the satisfaction domain, the mean score for satisfaction with breasts was 60.27 (17.71) in the SIS matrix group and 54.49 (14.76) in the no-matrix group, p=0.045. The multivariate logistic regression for postoperative complications in the whole series pointed out a statistical significance for age>40 years old (odds ratio 3.314, 95% CI 1.012-10.854, p=0.048) and patients with endocrine therapy (odds ratio 0.260, 95% CI 0.092-0.736, p=0.011). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR yield better results in PROs of satisfaction with breasts. Other domains and complications between the two groups had no significant difference.
Authors: Ahmed M S Ibrahim; Pieter G L Koolen; Oren Ganor; Mark K Markarian; Adam M Tobias; Bernard T Lee; Samuel J Lin; Marc A M Mureau Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 2.326
Authors: M D Barber; L Williams; E D C Anderson; G T Neades; C Raine; O Young; D Kulkarni; I Young; J M Dixon Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Colleen M McCarthy; Clara N Lee; Eric G Halvorson; Elyn Riedel; Andrea L Pusic; Babak J Mehrara; Joseph J Disa Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: D Gschwantler-Kaulich; P Schrenk; V Bjelic-Radisic; K Unterrieder; C Leser; A Fink-Retter; M Salama; C Singer Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Rika Ohkuma; Kate J Buretta; Raja Mohan; Gedge D Rosson; Ariel N Rad Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 2.740