Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Plastic Surgery
Published in: European Journal of Plastic Surgery 5/2019

01-10-2019 | Mastectomy | Original Paper

Outcomes of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with Braxon® acellular dermal matrix—a single-centre experience

Authors: Mihir Chandarana, Soni Soumian, Sadaf Jafferbhoy, Sekhar Marla, Sankaran Narayanan

Published in: European Journal of Plastic Surgery | Issue 5/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Single-stage direct-to-implant reconstruction is the most common method of reconstruction in the UK after a mastectomy. Prepectoral implant placement with full implant coverage using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a relatively new technique. We report on long-term outcomes of prepectoral immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) using Braxon® ADM from a single institution.

Methods

All patients operated for a mastectomy with IBR using Braxon® from January 2016 to March 2018 were included in the study. The demographic details, treatment details and short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Factors affecting complication rates were analysed. Patient-reported outcome measures were studied using BREAST-Q questionnaires.

Results

One hundred and sixteen reconstructions performed in 98 patients were included in the study. The median age was 50 years with a mean body mass index of 27.33 kg/m2. The median follow-up period was 440 days. The implant-related major complication rate was 17%, with an unplanned readmission rate of 22.4% and a return to theatre rate of 21.4%. Early complications were significantly higher in patients with node-positive disease. Delayed complications were seen in nine patients. The implant loss rate was 4.3%. The mean BREAST-Q scores were 78 for satisfaction with treatment and 64 for satisfaction with breast domains. The outcomes were comparable to reported national data.

Conclusions

Prepectoral implant-based reconstruction with Braxon has comparable complication rates with good long-term aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes. Further studies with larger cohort and longer follow-up are needed.
Level of Evidence—Level III, therapeutic study.
Literature
1.
Mennie JC, Mohanna P-N, O’Donoghue JM, Rainsbury R, Cromwell DA (2017) National trends in immediate and delayed post-mastectomy reconstruction procedures in England: a seven-year population-based cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(1):52–61CrossRefPubMed
2.
Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW (2009) Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33(1):44–48CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O’Connor EA (2015) Treatment of Breast Animation Deformity in Implant-Based Reconstruction with Pocket Change to the Subcutaneous Position. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(6):1540–1544
4.
5.
Baker BG, Irri R, MacCallum V, Chattopadhyay R, Murphy J, Harvey JRA (2018) Prospective comparison of short-term outcomes of subpectoral and prepectoral Strattice-based immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 141(5):1077–1084CrossRefPubMed
6.
Berna G, Cawthorn SJ, Papaccio G, Balestrieri N (2017) Evaluation of a novel breast reconstruction technique using the Braxon® acellular dermal matrix: a new muscle-sparing breast reconstruction. ANZ J Surg 87(6):493–498CrossRefPubMed
7.
Kobraei EM, Cauley R, Gadd M, Austen WG, Liao EC (2016) Avoiding breast animation deformity with pectoralis-sparing subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4(5):e708CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
9.
Raghavan V, Jaume M, Simon C, Giorgio B, Fernando B, Alexander G et al (2017) Evaluation of the effectiveness of the prepectoral breast reconstruction with Braxon dermal matrix: first multicenter European report on 100 cases. Breast J 23(6):670–676CrossRef
10.
Jafferbhoy S, Chandarana M, Houlihan M, Parmeshwar R, Narayanan S, Soumian S, Harries S, Jones L, Clarke D (2017) Early multicentre experience of pre-pectoral implant based immediate breast reconstruction using Braxon®. Gland Surg 6(6):682–688CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Casella D, Bernini M, Bencini L, Roselli J, Lacaria MT, Martellucci J, Banfi R, Calabrese C, Orzalesi L (2014) TiLoop® bra mesh used for immediate breast reconstruction: comparison of retropectoral and subcutaneous implant placement in a prospective single-institution series. Eur J Plast Surg 37(11):599–604CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
13.
Martin L, O’Donoghue JM, Horgan K, Thrush S, Johnson R, Gandhi A (2013) Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgeons. 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 39:425–429CrossRefPubMed
14.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
16.
Berna G, Cawthorn SJ (2017) Long term follow-up on prepectoral ADM-assisted breast reconstruction: evidences after 4 years. Eur J Plast Surg 40(3):255–258CrossRef
17.
Browne J, Pereira J, Caddy C, Sheppard C, Nurse BC. British association of plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons
18.
19.
Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, Hwang BH, Chan LS, Wong AK (2012) A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 68:346–356
20.
21.
Negenborn VL, Dikmans REG, Bouman M-B, Wilschut JA, Mullender MG, Salzberg CA (2018) Patient-reported outcomes after ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction: a cross-sectional study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6(2):e1654CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Sedgwick P (2014) Retrospective cohort studies: advantages and disadvantages. BMJ 348(jan24 1):g1072–g1072CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Outcomes of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with Braxon® acellular dermal matrix—a single-centre experience
Authors
Mihir Chandarana
Soni Soumian
Sadaf Jafferbhoy
Sekhar Marla
Sankaran Narayanan
Publication date
01-10-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword
Mastectomy
Published in
European Journal of Plastic Surgery / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 0930-343X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-0130
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-019-01512-2

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

European Journal of Plastic Surgery 5/2019 Go to the issue

Case Report

Squamous cell carcinoma following multiple revision breast surgeries with massive chest wall reconstruction via flow-through double ALT free flaps

Original Paper

Skin wound healing properties of Hypericum perforatum, Liquidambar orientalis, and propolis mixtures

Review

Literature scans: cartilage grafts in nasal tip rhinoplasty

Case Report

Liposuction fat emboli resulting in myocardial infarction: a case report and review of the literature

Original Paper

Danish and Dutch linguistic validation and cultural adaptation of the WOUND-Q, a PROM for chronic wounds

Original Paper

Extensor indicis opponensplasty: a modified evaluation system