Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Research Articles

Breast implant illness in women with implant-based reconstruction after breast cancer

Abstract Background This study investigated the association between silicone breast implants and health symptoms (Breast Implant Illness (BII)) in women with implant-based breast reconstruction after breast cancer. While there is increasing evidence of an association with BII in cosmetic breast augmentation cases, for women with implant-based breast reconstruction this is unknown. Methods Retrospective cohort study of 254 women who underwent implant-based reconstruction after breast cancer and a control group of 487 women who underwent breast-conserving therapy or simple mastectomy. We linked Dutch Breast Implant Registry data (2015-2019) and general practice electronic health records data (2014-2022) to study the occurrence of thirteen BII-related health symptoms in general practice and the number of consultations for these symptoms one year before to three years after breast surgery. Results Over the three years following implantation, no significant differences in symptom occurrence were observed compared to both the year before implantation and the control group. Women with breast implants did not have more consultations compared to the control group during follow-up. However, there was an increased likelihood of multiple consultations in the first and second years post-implantation compared to before implantation (≥3 consultations first year OR = 2.10, p = 0.005; second year OR = 1.70, p = 0.048; ≥5 consultations first year OR = 2.57, p = 0.02). Conclusions This study found no evidence for BII in women with implant-based reconstruction after breast cancer. Despite certain limitations in examining BII in this specific patient group, these findings add valuable information to the decision-making process of breast cancer patients considering reconstructive options. Key messages • This is the first study on BII that focused solely on women with breast implants for reconstruction after breast cancer. • No evidence of BII was found in this patient group.

Race and Ethnicity Impacts Patient-Reported Outcomes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Addressing social determinants of health is critical in achieving health equity, and of the many determinants, race and ethnicity are key contributors in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of race and ethnicity on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) and to provide reference values for each cohort. We identified all patients who underwent IBBR between January 2017 and August 2022 and completed the BREAST-Q longitudinally. Race and ethnicity were self-categorized as White, Asian, Black, or Hispanic. Reference values were established. Outcomes of interest were BREAST-Q scores preoperatively, and 6months, 1year, and 2years postoperatively. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was performed to assess race and ethnicity as independent predictors of BREAST-Q scores. Overall, 3281 patients were included, of whom 2479 (75.6%) were White, 296 (9.0%) were Asian, 239 (7.3%) were Black, and 267 (8.1%) were Hispanic. There were significant differences in Physical Well-being of the Chest at all timepoints; Satisfaction with Breasts and Psychosocial Well-being at preoperative, 6months, and 1year; and in Sexual Well-being at 1year. GEE modeling showed that relative to White patients, Asian subjects scored significantly lower on all BREAST-Q domains, while Black and Hispanic patients scored significantly lower on the Physical Well-being of the Chest domain. Racial and ethnic disparities persist within IBBR, with minority patients scoring lower on the BREAST-Q than White patients. This study suggests that more work is needed to understand and improve these PROs in minority patient populations. Individualized reference values may prove beneficial in assessing outcomes over time.

Revision Surgeries After Proton vs Photon Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) improves disease-free survival in breast cancer but reduces aesthetic satisfaction. Proton PMRT has gained popularity due to fewer systemic complications. There is a lack of data regarding revision surgeries for pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PP-IBBR) following radiation. To compare the revision surgeries in PP-IBBR with photon versus proton PMRT. A single-institution retrospective cohort study included breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and PP-IBBR with PMRT (January 2020-October 2022) The mean follow-up duration for the cohort was 1056.4 days (2.89 years). Revision surgeries evaluated were fat grafting, conversion to autologous flaps, implant replacement, implant removal, capsulectomy, and scar revision. 116 PP-IBBR were divided into two cohorts: photon (75, 64.66%) and proton (41, 35.34%) radiation cohorts. Overall corrective surgeries were higher with photon (27.5% overall; 32.4% photon vs 19.5% proton, p=0.132). The odds of any revision surgery were nearly double with photon (OR=1.98), and the conversion to an autologous flap was significantly more likely with photon (OR=4.55, p=0.025). Multivariable analysis showed an increased tendency for photon therapy patients to require any revision surgeries (OR=1.62, p=0.359), autologous flaps (OR=5.97, p=0.049), fat grafting (OR=1.52, p=0.664) and scar revision (OR=4.51, p=0.273). Compared to proton therapy, traditional photon therapy has a higher conversion rate to autologous flaps with PP-IBBR. Photon therapy had higher rates of overall revision surgeries, however not statistically significant. Proton therapy is safer, with fewer revision surgeries, warranting larger studies and broader utilization.

Outcomes of ADM-Assisted Implant-based Breast Reconstructions According to Division Types of the Pectoralis Major Muscle.

In implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR), several surgical techniques are based on the implant insertion planes. Ideal location for breast implants has become a popular topic in IBRs because each technique has advantages and disadvantages. Herein, we report the outcomes of three different division types of the pectoralis muscle and suggest an algorithm for selecting the division types. Charts of patients who underwent IBRs between October 2017 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were classified into three groups (prepectoral, high subpectoral, and subpectoral) according to the division types of the pectoralis muscle. Aesthetic outcomes were assessed in terms of animation deformity, rippling deformity, and visibility of the upper implant border. Total 104 cases were included. 25, 38, and 41 were in the prepectoral, high-subpectoral, subpectoral IBR groups, respectively. Animation deformities frequently appeared in the subpectoral group. Nipple displacement was most prominent in the subpectoral group. Skin rippling at rest was mostly detected in the prepectoral group, whereas ripping during contraction was commonly observed in the subpectoral group. Visibility of upper border was more prominent in the prepectoral group than the other groups. We propose an algorithm for selecting the division types of the pectoralis muscle. If the pectoralis muscle is thick, prepectoral plane is most preferred to avoid the animation deformity. In cases with thin pectoralis muscle, thickness of the mastectomy flap is considered next. If it is thicker than 1cm, prepectoral plane is better than the subpectoral plane; otherwise, high-subpectoral plane is preferable for better aesthetic outcomes. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Management of the Infected Tissue Expander.

Tissue expander (TE) infection is a critical postoperative complication in two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). We assessed risk factors associated with TE infection and reconstructive loss and examined reconstructive salvage rates. We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent IBBR with TE placement from 2017 to 2022. Included were patients with TE infection treated with admission and IV antibiotics, interventional radiology (IR) drainage, and/or operative management (washout with or without TE removal and TE replacement, TE removal and replacement with implant, and/or TE removal without replacement). Reconstructive success was defined as maintenance of breast reconstruction for 1 year after TE placement. Of 4,498 patients who underwent IBBR, 305 (338 TEs) met the inclusion criteria. Cox modeling showed higher body mass index, hypertension, radiation, bilateral TEs, acellular dermal matrix use, increasing mastectomy weight, and nipple sparing mastectomy were associated with increased hazard of TE infection. Patients with TE infection had a 54% reconstructive failure rate within 1 year; Cox modeling showed Black race and gram-negative cultures were associated with increased hazard of reconstructive failure within 1 year. Patients who underwent TE replacement with an implant had the most favorable success rate following infection. Overall, 46% of patients admitted with a periprosthetic infection had successful salvage. Patients with TE infection should be started on IV antibiotics with a low threshold for operative intervention based on exam and culture data. While IR can guide operative intervention of periprosthetic infections, our practice has shifted away from IR drainage towards definitive operative management.

Microbiology of periprosthetic infections following implant-based breast reconstruction surgery: a multicentric retrospective study.

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is the predominant breast reconstruction technique post-mastectomy, with bacterial infections being a significant complication affecting patient recovery and quality of life. The following study aimed to determine the microbiological features of the causative agents responsible for breast implant infections, with more attention paid to the comparative analysis of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and their presentation. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 214 patients who presented with periprosthetic infection and underwent implant removal following implant-based breast reconstruction at Humanitas Research Hospital and Istituto Europeo di Oncologia between January 2018 and March 2024. The study revealed that Gram-positive bacteria were more prevalent, with Staphylococcus species, particularly Staphylococcus aureus, being the most isolated pathogen in both institutions (∼39.96%). In contrast, Gram-negative bacteria were less frequent, with a higher proportion of these pathogens being multi-resistant strains. A significant difference was observed (p = 0.007), indicating that individuals with normal BMI have a higher prevalence of Gram-positive infections (88.46%), whereas obese and overweight patients had higher proportions of Gram-negative infections (23.53% and 28.89%, respectively). In addition, smoking status was also significantly associated with pathogen distribution (p = 0.032), with active and past smokers being related to higher percentages of polymicrobial infections. Furthermore, positive prophylactic MSSA/MRSA swabs were significantly more associated with Staphylococcus aureus infections compared to those with negative results (p = <0.001). Gram-positive bacteria, especially Staphylococcus species, dominate the microbiological landscape of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) infections. Our findings provide insights into this critical issue, facilitating a more precise choice of empiric antibiotic treatment and prevention strategies. This analysis underscores the necessity for prophylactic protocols and therapeutic approaches tailored to the predominant bacterial groups. Further research is needed to explore long-term trends and resistance mechanisms to improve patient management.

ASO Author Reflections: Immediate Implant-Based Versus Autologous-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy in Patients with Breast Cancer.

ASO Author Reflections: Immediate Implant-Based Versus Autologous-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy in Patients with Breast Cancer.

The Effects of the COVID-19 Mask Mandate on Complication Rates in Postmastectomy Tissue Expansion.

Tissue expansion is a commonly used breast reconstructive strategy. Although the procedure is regarded as safe, tissue expander to implant-based breast reconstruction is reported to have the highest rates of postoperative infection among plastic surgery operations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, face masks were required at all hospital facilities at our institution. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of COVID-19 mask mandate on in-office breast tissue expansion procedures. An institutional review board-approved, retrospective review was completed on all patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral tissue expansion following mastectomy at a single institution in 2017 (prior to the COVID-19 mask mandate) and 2021 (following implementation of the mandate). Variables included were demographics, procedure information, and postoperative outcomes. The analysis included 118 patients in the premandate group and 147 patients in the postmandate group. There was no difference in age, body mass index, smoking status, or diabetes mellitus between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). More patients in the postmandate group underwent bilateral reconstruction as opposed to unilateral when compared with the premandate group (70.7% vs 55.9%, P = 0.014). There were no differences in major complication rate (26.3% vs 30.6%, P = 0.495) or minor complication rate 30.5% vs 26.5%, P = 0.495) between the pre-mask and post-mask mandate groups. Our results demonstrated that the use of face masks did not play a significant role in complication rates relating to in-office tissue expansion procedures. It remains up to the discretion and comfortability of the provider if masks should be worn during the procedure.

Quality of life in breast reconstruction: a comparison of lightweight and conventional breast implants.

Due to the declining mortality rates of breast carcinoma and the rising incidence of risk-reducing mastectomies, enhancing the quality of life after breast reconstructions has become an increasingly important goal. The advantages of lightweight breast implants (B-Lite®) may significantly contribute to achieving this objective. This study aims to investigate whether lightweight implants are suitable for patients undergoing breast reconstruction and could improve the quality of life in comparison to conventional implants. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed 48 patients (38 implants in each group) who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction with either B-Lite® or conventional breast implants between 2019 and 2022 at the University Center for Plastic Surgery in Regensburg. As part of the postoperative follow-up, a clinical examination and a survey using the Breast-Q® questionnaire were conducted to evaluate the postoperative quality of life. The implants used were similar in weight and shape. On average, the B-Lite® implants had a higher implant volume and patients in this group had a slightly higher BMI. Patients who received B-Lite® implants showed a significantly better result regarding the sensation of sensitivity in the surgical area and the scar formation also appeared to be more favorable. However, patients with B-Lite® implants perceived their implants as more uncomfortable than those with conventional breast implants. In other terms concerning quality of life, both groups appeared similar. In summary, there are confounding factors that could influence the outcome of some aspects in this study, which could not be avoided due to the retrospective study design and the temporary suspension of B-Lite implants. Nevertheless, as the first of its kind, this study demonstrated that B-Lite implants could also be suitable for usage in breast reconstructions, thus providing an important foundation for further prospective studies to build upon.

National Trends and In-Hospital Outcomes for Immediate Implant-Based Versus Autologous-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Breast reconstruction consists primarily of two methods: autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). Each of these methods has its advantages and disadvantages. The current study used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), the largest inpatient database in the United States, to explore the trends, complications, and disparities in the use of IBR and ABR. The current study used the NIS database from 2016 to 2020, including the International Classification of Diseases, 10th version (ICD-10) codes. A propensity score-matching (1:1) analysis was used to match the IBR and ABR groups. The percentage of breast reconstruction increased from 58.8% in 2016 to 63.4% by 2020. The trend of ABR was upward, and the trend of IBR was downward. In addition, the ABR group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.29), respiratory complications (OR, 4.26), vascular complications requiring surgery (OR, 7.82), blood transfusions (OR, 3.44), vasopressor need (OR, 1.409), and acute kidney injury (OR, 1.68). However, the ABR group had significantly lower rates of wound infection (OR, 0.430), wound dehiscence (OR, 0.213), wound seroma (OR, 0.602), and sepsis (OR, 0.252). A significant disparity was found in using ABR for different subgroups based on age, hospital teaching status, racial background, socioeconomic status, and hospital bed size. The current study showed an upward trend in the utilization of ABR and a downward trend for IBR. Although ABR had a higher rate of pulmonary, cardiovascular, vascular, and bleeding complications, it had a lower rate of wound-related complications.

Does the use of Acellular Dermal Matrices (ADM) in women undergoing pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction increase operative success versus non-use of ADM in the same setting? A systematic review

BackgroundBreast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in the UK. Reconstruction – of which implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most common – forms a core part of surgical management of breast cancer. More recently, pre-pectoral IBBR has become common as technology and operative techniques have evolved. Many surgeons use acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in reconstruction however there is little evidence in literature that this improves surgical outcomes. This review will assess available evidence for surgical outcomes for breast reconstructions using ADM versus non-use of ADM.MethodsA database search was performed of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2012–2022). Studies were screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Risk of Bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale and ROBIS tools. Analysis and meta-analysis were performed.ResultsThis review included 22 studies (3822 breast reconstructions). No significant difference between overall complications and failure rates between ADM and non-ADM use was demonstrated. Capsular contracture, wound dehiscence and implant rippling had significant differences however these results demonstrated high heterogeneity thus wider generalisation may be inaccurate. Patient quality of life scores were not recorded consistently or comparably between papers.ConclusionsThis review suggests a lack of significant differences in most complications between ADM use and non-use for pre-pectoral IBBR. If no increase in complications exists between groups, this has significant implications for surgical and legislative decision-making. There is, however, inadequate evidence available on the topic and further research is required.

Long-term outcomes of 1,989 immediate implant-based breast reconstructions: an analysis of risk factors for failure and revision surgery.

Nipple- or skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is potentially associated with long-term unfavorable outcomes such as revision surgery and reconstruction failure. This large patient cohort study aimed to provide long-term data on the incidence of these outcomes and identify predictive risk factors. Between 2012 and 2019 1,989 mastectomies with IBR were performed in 1,512 women in our institute. A direct-to-implant (DTI) method was used in 93% and a two-staged method with tissue-expander in 7%. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify patient- and treatment-related risk factors associated with revision surgery or reconstructive failure. Mean follow-up was 62.2 months. IBR failed in 6.7% of all breasts, thus a breast was present in 93.3%. Age older than 44 years old yielded a 2.6- and radiotherapy a 1.7-fold increased risk for reconstruction failure. Revision surgery was performed in 60% of all breasts. Mean number of revisions of all IBRs is 1.2 (range, 0-8; SD 1.37). Factors associated with significant higher rates of revision surgeries were age>44 years (OR=1.23), smoking (OR=1.53), specimen weight>492 grams (OR=1.39), implant volume>422 grams (OR=1.95) and radiotherapy (OR=1.51). Nipple preservation was protective for both outcomes (OR=0.71 and OR=0.42, respectively). DTI did not require any surgical revision in 43%. Despite the necessity of revision surgery in the majority of IBRs, nearly half of the breasts did not require any revision surgery, and long-term reconstruction failure rates are extremely low. Therefore, IBR should be offered to all eligible women undergoing mastectomy while understanding the risks.

Does prepectoral placement delay adjuvant therapies compared to retropectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction? A retrospective analysis

BackgroundPrepectoral (PP) immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is becoming increasingly popular compared to retropectoral reconstruction (RP). This study compares the timing of different adjuvant therapies (ATs) administration after PP or RP IBBR. Patients and MethodsA monocentric retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing mastectomy and IBBR from January 2018 to December 2023. Preoperative characteristics, mastectomy procedure type, PP or RR implant placement, postoperative outcomes, AT type, time between surgery and AT administration were collected and analyzed. Results167 patients (206 breasts) were included. 123 underwent PP IBBR and 44 RP IBBR. The mean time between surgery and first AT administration was similar in PP group (45.7 days, SD 39.3) compared to the RP group (37.4 days, SD 33.1) (p-value 0.2100). No significant differences were found in the timing of endocrine therapy (ET), chemotherapy (CT), or radiotherapy (RT) initiation between the PP and RP groups. Patients with seroma had a delayed initiation of CT (83.67 days, SD 123.7) versus those without seroma (42.1 days, SD 29.7) (p-value 0.0298). ConclusionsAverage time between surgery and administration of first AT following PP IBBR was similar compared to RP IBBR. Postoperative seromas were associated with delayed CT in overall population.

Conventional versus Robot-Assisted Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Reconstructive Outcome and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

In this study, the authors compared conventional and robot-assisted mastectomy and breast reconstruction. To the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to report the results of robot-assisted mastectomy and breast reconstruction and provide a comparison of patient-reported outcomes. This retrospective study included 473 breasts of 423 patients who underwent conventional mastectomy and breast reconstruction and 164 breasts of 153 patients who underwent robot-assisted mastectomy and breast reconstruction from July of 2019 to October of 2021. Demographic and oncologic data, reconstructive outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q) were evaluated. The results of implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction were evaluated separately. Skin necrosis requiring surgical débridement occurred significantly more frequently in the conventional group (8.0%) than in the robot-assisted group (2.0%) in implant-based reconstruction ( P = 0.035). At 6 to 12 months, patients who underwent robot-assisted breast reconstruction showed a higher Sexual Well-being score for implant-based reconstruction and a higher Physical Well-being score for autologous breast reconstruction than conventional breast reconstruction according to the BREAST-Q questionnaire. Robot-assisted mastectomy and breast reconstruction was associated with less skin necrosis and better patient-reported outcomes (Sexual Well-being for implant-based reconstruction and Physical Well-being for autologous breast reconstruction) than the conventional option. Robotic surgery could be a good option for mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Therapeutic, III.

Cortiva versus AlloDerm in Prepectoral and Partial Submuscular Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Several acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are used for soft-tissue support in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Little high-level evidence supports the use of one ADM over another. The authors sought to compare Cortiva 1-mm Allograft Dermis with AlloDerm RTU (ready to use), the most studied ADM in the literature. A single-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing Cortiva with AlloDerm in prepectoral and subpectoral immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction was performed at 2 academic hospitals from March of 2017 to December of 2021. Reconstructions were direct to implant (DTI) or tissue expander (TE). Primary outcome was reconstructive failure, defined as TE explantation before planned further reconstruction, or explantation of DTI reconstructions before 3 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were additional complications, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and cost. There were 302 patients included: 151 AlloDerm (280 breasts), 151 Cortiva (277 breasts). The majority of reconstructions in both cohorts consisted of TE (62% versus 38% DTI), smooth device (68% versus 32% textured), and prepectoral (80% versus 20% subpectoral). Reconstructive failure was no different between ADMs (AlloDerm 9.3% versus Cortiva 8.3%; P = 0.68). There were no additional differences in any complications or PROs between ADMs. Seromas occurred in 7.6% of Cortiva but 12% of AlloDerm cases, in which the odds of seroma formation were two-fold higher (odds ratio, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.01 to 3.67]; P = 0.047). AlloDerm variable cost was 10% to 15% more than Cortiva, and there were no additional cost differences. When assessing safety, clinical performance, PROs, and cost, Cortiva is noninferior to AlloDerm in immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction, and may be less expensive, with lower risk of seroma formation. Therapeutic, I.

“Prepectoral tissue expanders without mesh as a bridge to delayed autologous breast reconstruction: Experience at a single academic center”

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a useful adjunct in implant-based breast reconstruction. The benefits of using ADM with an expander as a temporary bridge to delayed autologous reconstruction are unknown. Placing prepectoral tissue expanders, without ADM, as a bridge to delayed autologous reconstruction could yield cost savings, shorten operating time and decrease complications. This investigation seeks to demonstrate the safety of placing prepectoral tissue expanders without ADM at the time of mastectomy as the first stage of autologous breast reconstruction. A retrospective, chart review was performed at our major academic institution between 2015 and 2020. Included were female patients, 18 years or older at the time of reconstruction, who underwent mastectomy with prepectoral tissue expander placement followed by autologous breast reconstruction at a delayed second stage. Excluded were patients of male gender, younger than 18, patients with lumpectomy only, subpectoral reconstruction, or immediate autologous reconstruction. Data on ADM, patient demographics, comorbidities, and cancer treatment were collected. There were 189 reconstructed breasts of which 56 (29.6 %) used ADM, 131 (69.3 %) did not use ADM, and 2 patients (1.1 %) of unknown ADM use. Expanders were in place for a mean time of 8.9±6.2 months. There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates between the ADM and no-ADM groups. Therefore, not wrapping prepectoral tissue expanders in ADM, at the time of mastectomy, has an equivalent rate of complications compared to ADM wrapping among patients who go on to have second stage autologous breast reconstruction.

Racial disparity in peripheral nerve block usage in breast reconstruction: A nationwide analysis

Peripheral nerve block (PNB) usage in plastic surgery is associated with reduction in post-operative opioid consumption and pain demonstrating benefits in breast reconstruction (BR). This retrospective study explored whether racial-ethnic disparities exist with PNB use for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing BR. Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, women who underwent BR from 2012-2021 and received "regional" in addition to general anesthesia were included in the study. Patients without race and ethnicity dataand who received other additional anesthesia were excluded. Unweighted rates of PNB use were compared between racial-ethnic groups and BR modality. Multivariate logistic regression assessed whether race and ethnicity were independently associated with receiving PNBs. A total of 25,188 patients underwent BR and 9429 patients (37.4%) received PNB for postoperative analgesia. Patient demographics reached statistical, but not clinical, significance in age and BMI. Comorbidities were not significantly different between groups. Black patients were less likely to receive PNBs (p<0.001), while Asian and Other patients were more likely to receive PNBs compared to White patients (p<0.001). Black patients were less likely to receive PNB in immediate implant-based and autologous BR, as well as delayed autologous (p<0.05). Asian patients were more likely to receive PNB for all implant-based BR compared to White patients (p<0.001). Ethnicity had no significant impact on receipt of PNB. As a conclusion, racial disparity exists in use of PNBs for postoperative analgesia in BR. Equitable access to PNBs should be championed to not augment baseline racial disparity in BR.

Establishing an equipoise: Does the use of acellular dermal matrices in pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction improve outcomes?

IntroductionBreast cancer is the most common malignancy among females in the United Kingdom (UK). Surgical management commonly comprises mastectomy and reconstruction, of which implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) are most prevalent. Acellular dermal matrices (ADM) are widely used in pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction, however there is limited high-quality evidence supporting their efficacy. This study aims to establish equipoise via an expert consensus survey. MethodsAn online survey was designed with a steering group of experts. Questions covered participant information, opinions regarding surgical outcomes with ADM use in pre-pectoral IBBR and opinions regarding available scientific evidence on the topic. The survey was advertised via national and international professional organisations. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed. ResultsThirty-two participants from the UK, Italy and Australia completed the survey. Key findings of this study include disagreement among participants regarding surgical outcomes associated with ADM use. Participants who believed that ADM reduced the risk of short-term complications and implant failure/explantation comprised a minority – 21.9%. Participants who felt that ADM use improved cosmetic outcomes and reduced long-term complications made up a relative majority – 43.8% and 40.6%, respectively. 56.3% of participants felt there was scarce scientific evidence on the topic. ConclusionsThis study provides an insight from international surgeons; establishing a lack of consensus on surgical outcomes, efficacy and evidence-base supporting the use of ADMs in pre-pectoral IBBR. Given this clinical equipoise, alongside the growing burden of breast-cancer associated morbidity and the need for reconstruction, the implications of this study are that large-scale, prospective, randomised-controlled data are needed to establish whether ADM use in pre-pectoral breast reconstruction improves outcomes.

Protective role of transforming growth factor-Β3 (TGF-Β3) in the formation of radiation-induced capsular contracture around a breast implant: In vivo experimental study

Postmastectomy radiotherapy causes capsular contracture due to fibroproliferation of the capsular tissue around the implant. In fibrosis, unlike normal wound healing, structural and functional disorders are observed in the tissues caused by excessive/irregular accumulation of extracellular matrix proteins. It has been reported that transforming growth factor-β3 (TGF-β3) prevents and reverses fibrosis in various tissues or provides scarless healing with its antifibrotic effect. Additionally, TGF-β3 has been shown to reduce fibrosis in radiotherapy-induced fibrosis syndrome. However, no study in the literature investigates the effects of exogenously applied TGF-β3 on capsular contracture in aesthetic or reconstructive breast implant application. TGF-β3, which has a very short half-life, has low bioavailability with parenteral administration. Within the scope of this study, free TGF-β3 was loaded into the nanoparticles to increase its low bioavailability and extend its duration of action by providing controlled release. The aim of this study is to investigate the preventive/improving effects of radiation induced capsular contracture using chitosan film formulations containing TGF-β3 loaded poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)-b-poly(ethylene glycol) (PLGA-b-PEG) nanoparticles in implant-based breast reconstruction. In the characterization studies of nanoparticles, the particle size and zeta potential of the TGF-β3-loaded PLGA-b-PEG nanoparticle formulation selected to be used in the treatment group were found to be 123.60 ± 2.09 nm and −34.87 ± 1.42 mV, respectively. The encapsulation efficiency of the formulation was calculated as 99.91 %. A controlled release profile was obtained in in vitro release studies. Chitosan film formulations containing free TGF-β3 or TGF-β3-loaded PLGA-b-PEG nanoparticles were used in in vivo studies. In animal studies, rats were randomly distributed into 6 groups (n = 8) as sham, implant, implant + radiotherapy, implant + radiotherapy + chitosan film containing unloaded nanoparticles, implant + radiotherapy + chitosan film containing free TGF-β3, implant + radiotherapy + chitosan film containing TGF-β3 loaded nanoparticle. In all study groups, a 2 cm incision was made along the posterior axillary line at the thoracic vertebral level in rats to reach the lateral edge of the latissimus dorsi. The fascial attachment to the chest wall was then bluntly dissected to create a pocket for the implants. In the treatment groups, the wound was closed after films were placed on the outer surface of the implants. After administering prophylactic antibiotics, rats were subjected to irradiation with 10 Gy photon beams targeted to each implant site. Each implant and the surrounding excised tissue were subjected to the necessary procedures for histological (capsule thickness, cell density), immunohistochemical, and biochemical (α-SMA, vimentin, collagen type I and type III, TGF-β1 and TGF-β3: expression level/protein level) examinations. It was determined that the levels of TGF-β1 and TGF-β3 collagen type III, which decreased as a result of radiotherapy, were brought to the control level with free TGF-β3 film and TGF-β3 nanoparticle film formulations. Histological analyses, consistent with biochemical analyses, showed that thick collagen and fibrosis, which increased with radiotherapy, were brought to the control level with free TGF-β3 film and TGF-β3 nanoparticle film treatments.In biochemical analyses, the decrease in thick collagen was compatible with the decrease in the collagen type I/type III ratio in the free TGF-β3 film and TGF-β3 nanoparticle film groups. Changes in protein expression show that TGF-β3 loaded nanoparticles are more successful than free TGF-β3 in wound healing. In line with these results and the literature, it is thought that the balance of TGF-β1 and TGF-β3 should be maintained to ensure scarless wound healing with no capsule contracture.

Acellular Dermal Matrix: Imaging Features With Histopathology Correlation.

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is an immunologically inert graft, typically from cadaveric skin, often used in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Created from decellularized dermal tissues that have been treated to remove DNA and antigenic donor cells (leaving extracellular matrix), ADM is often used as a structural scaffold or sling to reinforce and support the structure and position of a breast implant during postoperative integration in implant-based breast reconstruction; ADM can also be used to fill cosmetic defects. Advantages of ADM use include improved cosmesis and reduced capsular contracture rates. On US, ADM can be seen as a subtle band with variable echogenicity adjacent to the implant. When folded on itself or redundant, ADM may present as a palpable oval mass with indistinct or circumscribed margins and variable echogenicity. On mammography, ADM can be seen as a circumscribed oval equal density mass when redundant and folded on itself; a layered appearance may be evident on tomosynthesis. On MRI, presence and absence of enhancement have been documented. Imaging findings likely vary depending on the degree of host tissue remodeling and incorporation, and when biopsied, histopathologically, ADM may be difficult to distinguish from scarring. Successful imaging diagnosis of ADM is aided by clinical knowledge of the intraoperative use and configuration of ADM, which may help differentiate ADM from new or recurrent malignancy and avoid unnecessary biopsy.