| Literature DB >> 35352159 |
Franco Bassetto1, Laura Pandis1, Gian Paolo Azzena1, Eleonora De Antoni1, Alberto Crema1, Leonardo Scortecci1, Tito Brambullo1, Chiara Pavan2, Massimo Marini2, Federico Facchin3,4, Vincenzo Vindigni1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Capsular contracture (CC) represents one of the most common complications in breast reconstruction surgery, impairing final result and patients' well-being. The role of acellular dermal matrixes (ADM) has been widely described for the treatment and prevention of contracture. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of complete implant coverage with porcine-derived ADM in preventing CC limiting complications. In addition, patients' reported outcomes were evaluated in order to define the role of ADM in improving sexual, physical and psychosocial well-being and satisfaction.Entities:
Keywords: Acellular dermal matrix; Breast implant; Breast reconstruction; Capsular contracture
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35352159 PMCID: PMC9512749 DOI: 10.1007/s00266-022-02826-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg ISSN: 0364-216X Impact factor: 2.708
Fig. 1Study design. (CC = capsular contracture, ADM = acellular dermal matrix, BL = bilateral, BMI = body mass index, RT = radiotherapy, CT = chemotherapy)
Fig. 2Intraoperative image of Braxon® ADM wrapped around the prosthesis
Fig. 3Insetting of the prosthesis covered with Braxon® ADM
Description of the cohort: patient demographics and breast characteristics
| Case Group | Control Group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients ( | 18 | 24 | ||
| Breasts ( | 22 | 24 | ||
| Age yo (mean ± SD) | 57 ± 7 (range 45-72) | 55 ± 8 (range 48-75) | 0.917 | |
| BMI (mean ± SD) | 24 ± 4 kg/m2 (range 18-32) | 26 ± 4 kg/m2 (range 20-35) | 0.066 | |
| Laterality for each patient | Monolateral ADM revisions for CC treatment | 14 (77.8%) | 24 (100%) | |
| Bilateral surgery | 4 (22.2%) ADM revisions for CC treatment | 12 (50%) Controlateral symmetrization | ||
| Weight distribution | Normal weight/overweight | 16 (94.4%) | 23 (96.68%) | 0.609 |
| Obese | 1 (5.6%) | 3(12.5%) | ||
| Comorbidities | Diabetes | 1 (5.6%) | 2 (8.33%) | 0.533 |
| Rheumatic disease | 4 (22.2%) | 2 (8.33%) | 0.045 | |
| Hypertension | 3 (16.7%) | 6 (25%) | 0.624 | |
| Asthma | 2 (11.1%) | 1 (4.18%) | 0.223 | |
| Vascular diseases | 4 (22.2%) | 2 (8.33%) | 0.008 | |
| Smoking habit | Current smokers | 3 (16.7%) | 7 (29.1%) | 0.111 |
| Ex-smokers or no-smokers | 19 (84.3%) | 30 (70.9%) | ||
| ASA scale | 1 | 0 | 1 (4.18%) | 0.522 |
| 2 | 18 (100%) | 23 (95.82%) | ||
| 3 | 0 | |||
| Hx of chemotherapy | 12 (66.7%) | 14 (58.3%) | 0.351 | |
| Hx of breast RT | 15 (68.2%) | 15 (68.2%) | 0.065 | |
| Pinch test (on the breast flap) < 1cm | 16 (72.7%) | 9 (37.5%) | 0.08 | |
| Previous devices for each breast | Primary expanders | 6 (27.3%) | 1 (4.18%) | 0.377 |
| Primary implants | 2 (9.1%) | 6 (25%) | ||
| Secondary prosthesis | 10 (45.5%) | 14 (58.3%) | ||
| Tertiary prosthesis or more | 4 (18.2%) | 3 (12.5%) |
No statistical significant differences were observed between the two groups
Surgery details and post-operative recovery
| ADM group | Control group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of incision | Lateral | 19 (86.4%) | 23 (95.82%) | 0.215 |
| Inverted T | 1 (4.6%) | 0 | ||
| Periareolar | 1 (4.6%) | 0 | ||
| inframammary | 1 (4.6%) | 1 (4.18%) | ||
| Implant type | Medium height and moderate projection | 12 (54.5%) | 18 (75%) | 0.053 |
| Low height and moderate plus projection | 1 (4.6%) | 4 (16.6%) | ||
| Medium height and moderate plus projection | 9 (40.9%) | 1 (4.18%) | ||
| Round moderate projection | 0 | 1 (4.18%) | ||
| Implant volume(mean ± sd) | 363 ± 95cc | 336 ± 106cc | 0.387 | |
| Implant volume < 400cc | 17 (77.3%) | 14 (58.3%) | 0.320 | |
| Operative time(mean ± sd) | 90 ± 20 minutes | 110 ± 51 minutes | 0.120 | |
| Drainage removal < 7days | 16 (82.7%) | 17 (71.82%) | 0.574 |
No statistical significant differences were observed between the two groups
Fig. 4A, B Two clinical cases, pre-operative (above) and 1.3 years post-op (below) after breast exchange with complete implant wrapping with porcine-derived ADM and contralateral symmetrization
Fig. 5Clinical case of red breast syndrome
Fig. 6Clinical case of breast ulceration
Fig. 7Graphical representation of CC recurrence rate and complications rate in the two groups. * statistical significant difference
Breast Q reconstructive module scores (partial) paired sample t test value within the 2 groups
| M | SD | SE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSY | Before | 56.58 | 9.931 | 2.867 | − .757 | .465 |
| After | 59.33 | 13.473 | 3.889 | |||
| SEX | Before | 41.50 | 13.420 | 3.874 | − 1.641 | .129 |
| After | 48.83 | 12.328 | 3.559 | |||
| CHEST | Before | 41.33 | 25.134 | 7.255 | − 2.883 | .015* |
| After | 58.50 | 19.370 | 5.592 | |||
| BREAST | Before | 41.50 | 10.892 | 3.144 | − 4.709 | .001* |
| After | 56.17 | 9.861 | 2.847 | |||
| PSY | Before | 55.00 | 11.192 | 3.731 | − 1.818 | .107 |
| after | 58.00 | 11.683 | 3.894 | |||
| SEX | before | 37.00 | 11.281 | 3.760 | − 2.824 | .022* |
| after | 47.11 | 11.537 | 3.846 | |||
| CHEST | before | 52.33 | 16.718 | 5.573 | 1.349 | .214 |
| after | 47.67 | 16.971 | 5.657 | |||
| BREAST | before | 39.22 | 9.985 | 3.328 | − 1.818 | .108 |
| after | 46.44 | 6.002 | 2.001 |
PSY Psychosocial Well-Being Scale, SEX Sexual Well-Being Scale, CHEST Physical Well-Being of the Chest Scale, BREAST Satisfaction of Breast Scale. When there is a significant result at p < 0.05, * is indicated. (M = mean, N = sample size, SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, t = t value, p = p value) When there is a significant result at p<0.05, * is indicated