Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-02-2019 | Original Paper

Complications, long-term outcome and quality of life following Surgisis® and muscle-covered implants in immediate breast reconstruction: a case-control study with a 6-year follow-up

Authors: Håkan Hallberg, Richard Lewin, Madiha Bhatti Søfteland, Emmelie Widmark-Jensen, Ulrika Kogler, Jonas Lundberg, Emma Hansson

Published in: European Journal of Plastic Surgery | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Background

Matrices are now commonly used in breast reconstruction, but the scientific evidence is still scares. The main aim was to compare complications and the need for corrections in immediate breast reconstruction with the porcine-derived Surgisis^® with the traditional muscle-covered technique. The secondary aim was to compare long-term quality of life and satisfaction.

Methods

All consecutive patients who had their breast reconstructed with a Surgisis^® or muscle-covered tissue expander/implant were included. Patients were followed clinically and with BREAST-Q.

Results

During the study period, 116 reconstructions (71 patients) were operated in the Surgisis^® group and 132 reconstructions (90 patients) in the control group. The median follow-up time was 74 months (min 43–max 162). The total early complication rate was 37% in the Surgisis^® group and 27% in the control group. There were no differences in implant loss (p = 0.68) or total number of complications (p = 0.24) between the two groups. Risk factors for complications were mainly patient characteristics and the use of a tissue expander. There was a slightly higher capsular contracture frequency in the Surgisis^® patients (4.2% vs. 2.5%). The need for corrections and patient satisfaction and quality of life were similar in the two groups.

Conclusions

The use of Surgisis^® in implant-based reconstruction seems to result in an acceptable total early complication rate. The rate might be higher in tissue expander-based reconstruction. Risk factors are mainly patient characteristics. The capsular contracture rate and need for corrections, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of life, are similar in the Surgisis^® patients and muscle-covered controls.

Level of evidence: III

Nguyen J, Carey J, Wong A (2011) Use of human acellular dermal matrix in implant-based breast reconstruction: evaluating the evidence. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 64:1553–1561CrossRef

Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, Menon NG (2008) Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthet Plast Surg 32:418–425CrossRef

Vardanian AJ, Clayton JL, Roostaeian J, Shirvanian V, Da Lio A, Lipa JE et al (2011) Comparison of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 128:403e–410eCrossRef

Breuing KH, Colwell AS (2007) Inferolateral AlloDerm hammock for implant coverage in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 59:250–255CrossRef

Stump A, Holton LH 3rd, Connor J, Harper JR, Slezak S, Silverman RP (2009) The use of acellular dermal matrix to prevent capsule formation around implants in a primate model. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:82–91CrossRef

Sbitany H, Serletti JM (2011) Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg 128:1162–1169CrossRef

Chun YS, Verma K, Rosen H, Lipsitz S, Morris D, Kenney P, Eriksson E (2010) Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:429–436CrossRef

de Blacam C, Momoh AO, Colakoglu S, Slavin SA, Tobias AM, Lee BT (2012) Cost analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg 69:516–520CrossRef

Duncan DI (2001) Correction of implant rippling using allograft dermis. Aesthet Surg J 21:81–84CrossRef

10.

Breuing KH, Warren SM (2005) Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings. Ann Plast Surg 55:232–239CrossRef

11.

Hallberg H, Rafnsdottir S, Selvaggi G, Strandell A, Samuelsson O, Stadig I, Svanberg T, Hansson E, Lewin R (2018) Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 52:130–147CrossRef

12.

Chan JC, Burugapalli K, Huang YS, Kelly JL, Pandit A (2017) A clinically relevant in vivo model for the assessment of scaffold efficacy in abdominal wall reconstruction. J Tissue Eng 8:2041731416686532CrossRef

13.

Rice RD, Ayubi FS, Shaub ZJ, Parker DM, Armstrong PJ, Tsai JW (2010) Comparison of Surgisis, AlloDerm, and Vicryl Woven Mesh grafts for abdominal wall defect repair in an animal model. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:290–296CrossRef

14.

Madani A, Niculiseanu P, Marini W, Kaneva PA, Mappin-Kasirer B, Vassiliou MC, Khwaja K, Fata P, Fried GM, Feldman LS (2017) Biologic mesh for repair of ventral hernias in contaminated fields: long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Surg Endosc 31:861–871CrossRef

15.

Luo X, Kulig KM, Finkelstein EB, Nicholson MF, Liu XH, Goldman SM, Vacanti JP, Grottkau BE, Pomerantseva I, Sundback CA, Neville CM (2017) In vitro evaluation of decellularized ECM-derived surgical scaffold biomaterials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 105:585–593CrossRef

16.

Memon HU, El-Nashar SA, Thoreson AR, Weaver AL, Gebhart JB, Trabuco EC (2016) Comparison of graft-reinforced repairs and suture repair using a novel biomechanical test. Int Urogynecol J 27:47–53CrossRef

17.

Hunsicker LM, Ashikari AY, Berry C, Koch RM, Salzberg CA (2017) Short-term complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 78:35–40CrossRef

18.

Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ (2009) Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:345–353CrossRef

19.

Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL (2012) The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:293–302CrossRef

20.

Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W (2011) Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract 17:268–274CrossRef

21.

Lardi AM, Ho-Asjoe M, Mohanna PN, Farhadi J (2014) Immediate breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: factors affecting outcome. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67:1098–1105CrossRef

22.

Perez-Kohler B, Sotomayor S, Rodriguez M, Gegundez MI, Pascual G, Bellon JM (2015) Bacterial adhesion to biological versus polymer prosthetic materials used in abdominal wall defect repair: do these meshes show any differences in vitro? Hernia 19:965–973CrossRef

23.

Park TH, Chung SW, Song SY, Lew DH, Roh TS, Lee DW (2018) The use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction provides protection from postmastectomy radiation therapy: a clinicopathologic perspective. J Mater Sci Mater Med 29:27CrossRef

24.

Potter S, Browning D, Savovic J, Holcombe C, Blazeby JM (2015) Systematic review and critical appraisal of the impact of acellular dermal matrix use on the outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction. Br J Surg 102:1010–1025CrossRef

25.

Martin L, O’Donoghue JM, Horgan K, Thrush S, Johnson R, Gandhi A, Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (2013) Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) assisted breast reconstruction procedures: joint guidelines from the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Eur J Surg Oncol 39:425–429CrossRef

26.

Wu C, Cipriano J, Osgood G Jr, Tepper D, Siddiqui A (2013) Human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm^®) dimensional changes and stretching in tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66:1376–1381CrossRef

27.

Baldelli I, Cardoni G, Franchelli S, Fregatti P, Friedman D, Pesce M et al (2016) Implant-based breast reconstruction using a polyester mesh (Surgimesh-PET): a retrospective single-center study. Plast Reconstr Surg 137:931e–939eCrossRef

28.

Clarke-Pearson EM, Lin AM, Hertl C, Austen WG, Colwell AS (2016) Revisions in implant-based breast reconstruction: how does direct-to-implant measure up? Plast Reconstr Surg 137:1690–1699CrossRef

Title: Complications, long-term outcome and quality of life following Surgisis® and muscle-covered implants in immediate breast reconstruction: a case-control study with a 6-year follow-up
Authors: Håkan Hallberg
Richard Lewin
Madiha Bhatti Søfteland
Emmelie Widmark-Jensen
Ulrika Kogler
Jonas Lundberg
Emma Hansson
Publication date: 01-02-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Journal of Plastic Surgery / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0930-343X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-0130
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-018-1444-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Complications, long-term outcome and quality of life following Surgisis® and muscle-covered implants in immediate breast reconstruction: a case-control study with a 6-year follow-up

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Decision between contralateral and ipsilateral DIEP flap harvesting for unilateral breast reconstruction

The current UK perspective of breast surgeons on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL)

Facial reconstruction in Italy during the First World War

Proximal carpal crease incision for carpal tunnel release: a pilot study

Mycobacterium Ulcerans soft tissue defects: reconstructive challenges

Acknowledgment to reviewers—2018