Autologous dura mater grafts in reconstructive surgeries for breast cancer: surgical and aesthetic outcomes

Background. Simultaneous breast reconstruction after subcutaneous or skin-sparing mastectomy using silicone implants is associated with a high risk of postoperative complications. Therefore, the issue of additional shell cover for breast implants is highly relevant. Synthetic and biological implants are believed to be the most effective.
Aim. To assess the efficacy and safety of autologous dura mater grafts in reconstructive surgeries for breast cancer patients.
Materials and methods. This study included 164 patients who had undergone subcutaneous or skin-sparing mastectomy with simultaneous breast reconstruction using implants and additional shell cover with either autologous dura mater grafts (experimental group, n = 83) or synthetic mesh implants (control group, n = 81) between 2017 and 2022. The mean patients’ age was 41.4 ± 7.2 years (41.2 ± 7.1 years in the experimental group and 41.6 ± 7.2 years in the control group). The mean follow-up time was 38.0 ± 21.4 months (min: 12 months; max: 80 months).
Results. The 3-year relapse-free survival rate was 100 %. The 3-year progression-free survival was 97.4 % (95 % confidence interval 92.6–100.0 %). We observed no significant differences in the time to disease progression between the experimental and control group (p = 0.573). The assessment of aesthetic outcomes using a special surgical questionnaire showed excellent cosmetic and psycho-emotional results. Patients in both groups demonstrated comparable cosmetic results (p >0.05); however, psychoemotional satisfaction with surgery results was higher in the experimental group (p<0.05). Postoperative complications (primarily capsule contracture) were registered in 18 patients from the experimental group (21.7 %) and 31 patients from the control group (38.3 %) (p0.05). We also calculated the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and found that the difference was due to different follow-up time. Clinically significant capsule contracture was observed in 9 patients from the experimental group (10.8 %). The incidence of capsule contracture was higher among patients who had radiation therapy than in those who had no radiation therapy (15.8 % and 0.0 %, respectively; p<0.05).
Conclusion. Subcutaneous or skin-sparing mastectomy with simultaneous breast reconstruction using silicone implants and autologous dura mater grafts is a safe and effective surgical method for breast cancer patients. The analysis of the international Breast-Q questionnaire results and surgical questionnaire results demonstrated that all patients had a high quality of life after simultaneous breast reconstruction using an autologous dura mater graft.

1. Bernier J. Postoperative radiotherapy after nipple- or skin-sparing mastectomy: А review of recent institutional and pooled data. Ecancermedicalscience 2018;12:834. DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2018.834

2. Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D., Rasskazova E.A., Tukmakov A.Yu., Shirokikh I.M. Relapses after radical subcutaneous/skin-sparing mastectomies with simultaneous reconstruction for breast cancer. Issledovanie i praktika v medicine = Research and Practice in Medicine 2019:1(6):33–40. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17709/2409-2231-2019-6-1-3

3. Dieterich M., Reimer T., Dieterich H. et al. A short-term follow-up of implant based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLoop® Bra). Eur J Surg Oncol 2012;38(12):1225–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2012.08.026

4. Dieterich M., Faridi A. Biological matrices and synthetic meshes used in implant-based breast reconstruction – a review of products available in Germany. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2013;73(11):1100–6. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1350930

5. Dieterich M., Dieterich H., Timm S. et al. Using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLoop® Bra) for implant-based breast reconstruction: Case report and histological analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286(1):273–6. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-012-2253-2

6. Brooke S., Mesa J., Uluer M. et al. Complications in tissue expander breast reconstruction: a comparison of AlloDerm, DermaMatrix, and FlexHD acellular inferior pole dermal slings. Ann Plast Surg 2012;69:347–9. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31824b3d97

7. Liu A.S., Kao H.K., Reish R.G. et al. Postoperative complications in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127:1755–62.

8. Michelotti B.F., Brooke S., Mesa J. et al. Analysis of clinically significant seroma formation in breast reconstruction using acellular dermal grafts. Ann Plast Surg 2013;71:274–7. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182923dc9

9. Pannucci C.J., Antony A.K., Wilkins E.G. The impact of acellular dermal matrix on tissue expander/implant loss in breast reconstruction: An analysis of the tracking outcomes and operations in plastic surgery database. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;132:1–10. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318290f917

10. Venturi M.L., Mesbahi A.N., Boehmler J.H. et al. Evaluating sterile human acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander-based breast reconstruction: A multicenter, prospective, cohort study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;131:9e–18e. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729d4f

11. Lee K.T., Mun G.H. Updated evidence of acellular dermal matrix use for implant-based breast reconstruction: A meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23:600–10.

12. Weichman K.E., Wilson S.C., Weinstein A.L. et al. The use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129(5):1049–58. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824a2acb

13. Ohlinger R., Alwafai Z., Paepke S. et al. Patient quality of life after subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with synthetic or biological materials. Anticancer Res 2021;41(6):3075–82. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15091

14. Dzhabrailova D.Sh., Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D., Usov F.N. et al. The use of an alloimplant based on the dura mater during reconstructive plastic surgery in patients with breast cancer. Opukholi zhenskoy reproduktivnoy systemy = Tumors of female reproductive system 2021;17(3):44–50. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1994-4098-2021-17-3-44-50