The influence of synthetic and biologic matrices on the choice of the implant plane during breast reconstruction. The modern state of the problem
https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2022-18-3-64-70
Abstract
Immediately after silicone implants were described, the technique of prepectoral implant placement dominated in breast reconstructive surgery. However, this plane soon had to be abandoned due to the high frequency of complications, such as infection, capsular contracture, explantation. For these reasons, surgeons soon had to switch to the subpectoral plane. Several decades later, thanks to the discovery of synthetic and biological meshes, surgeons returned to the prepectoral plane, but at a technically new level.
The purpose of this review was to analyze the role of biological and synthetic matrices as factors influencing the choice of the implant plane in one-stage breast reconstruction.
About the Authors
E. A. Baychorov
Stavropol Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
310 Mira St., Stavropol 355017
A. D. Zikiryakhodzhaev
P. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Centre of the Ministry of Health of Russia; I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
3, 2 nd Botkinskiy Proezd, Moscow 125284
build. 2, 8 Trubetskaya St., Moscow 119992,
A. Kh. Ismagilov
Kazan State Medical Academy – branch of Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education of Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education of Ministry of Health of Russia; Republican Clinical Сancer Center named after prof. M. Z. Sigal
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
11 Mushtari St., Kazan 420012
29 Sibirskiy Tract St., Kazan 420029
Yu. V. Przhedetskiy
Rostov Research Institute of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
63 14th Line St., Rostov-on-Don 344037
References
1. Halsted W.S.I. The results of operations for the cure of cancer of the breast performed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital from June, 1889 to January. Ann Surg 1894;20:497–555.
2. Bland C.S. The Halsted mastectomy: present illness and past history. West J Med 1981;134:549–55.
3. Bard M.S.A. Psychological impact of cancer and its treatment. IV. Adaptation to radical mastectomy. Cancer 1955;8:656–72.
4. Watson T.A. Cancer of the breast. The Janeway Lecture – 1965. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1966;96:547–59.
5. Hillard C., Fowler J.D., Bard R.S. et al. Silicone breast implant rupture: a review. Gland Surg 2017;6(2):163–8. DOI: 10.21037/ gs.2016.09.12
6. Cronin T.O., Gerow F.J. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new “natural feel” prosthesis. Exc Med Int Congr Ser 1963;58:3.
7. Nahabedian M.Y., Cocilovo C. Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction: A comparison between prepectoral and partial subpectoral techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140(6S): 22S–30S. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004047
8. Schlenker J.D., Bueno R.A., Ricketson G., Lynch J.B. Loss of silicone implants after subcutaneous mastectomy and reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978;62(6):853–61. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-197812000-00004
9. Ter Louw R.P., Nahabedian M.Y. Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140(5S):51S–59S. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003942
10. Biggs T.M., Yarish R.S. Augmentation mammaplasty: a comparative analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990;85:368–72. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-199003000-00005
11. Spear S.L., Schwartz J., Dayan J.H. et al. Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009;33:44–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00266-008-9275-y
12. Chang E.I., Hammond D.C. Clinical results on innovation in breast implant design. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018;142(4S):31S–38S. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005000
13. Hage J.J., van der Heeden J.F., Lankhorst K.M. Impact of combined skin sparing mastectomy and immediate subpectoral prosthetic reconstruction on the pectoralis major muscle function: a preoperative and postoperative comparative study. Ann Plast Surg 2014;72(6):631–7. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318269e4ee
14. Leonardis J.M., Lyons D.A., Giladi A.M. et al. Functional integrity of the shoulder joint and pectoralis major following subpectoral implant breast reconstruction. J Orthop Res 2019;37(7):1610–9. DOI: 10.1002/jor.24257
15. Kuechle D.K., Newman S.R., Itoi E. et al. Shoulder muscle moment arms during horizontal flexion and elevation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1997;6(5):429–39. DOI: 10.1002/jor.24257
16. Negenborn V.L., Dikmans R.E., Bouman M.B. et al. Patientreported Outcomes after ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction: A cross-sectional study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6(2):e1654. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001654
17. Powell-Brett S., Goh S. Clinical and patient reported outcomes in breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. JPRAS Open 2018;17:31–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpra.2018.06.006
18. Salzberg C.A. Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann Plast Surg 2006;57(1):1–5. DOI: 10.1097/01.sap.0000214873.13102.9f
19. Margulies I.G., Salzberg C.A. The use of acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction: Evolution of techniques over 2 decades. Gland Surg 2019;8(1):3. DOI: 10.21037/gs.2018.10.0
20. 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 2013;132(1):8e–19e. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2012.08.026
21. Logan Ellis H., Asaolu O., Nebo V., Kasem A. Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: A literature review. World J Surg Oncol 2016;14(1):1–9. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-016-0874-9
22. Frey J.D., Salibian A.A., Karp N.S., Choi M. Implant-based breast reconstruction: Hot topics, controversies, and new directions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143(2). DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005290
23. Antony A.K., Poirier J., Madrigrano A. et al. Evolution of the surgical technique for “breast in a day” direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: Transitioning from dual-plane to prepectoral implant placement. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143(6):1547–56. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005627
24. D’Agostino J., Sinnott C., Hamade M., Dobryansky M. Abstract: Bovine acellular dermal matrix for complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6(9 Suppl):1. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729e58
25. Sbitany H., Gomez-Sanchez C., Piper M., Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143(1):10–20. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729e58
26. Salibian A.A., Frey J.D., Karp N.S. Strategies and considerations in selecting between subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2019;8:11–8. DOI: 10.21037/gs.2018.08.01
27. Loo Y.L., Haider S. The use of porcine acellular dermal matrix in single-stage, implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: A 2-center retrospective outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6(8):68. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001895
28. Guo R., Li L., Su Y. et al. Current practice and barriers of meshassisted implant-based breast reconstruction in China: A nationwide cross-sectional survey of 110 hospitals. Eur J Surg Oncol 2020;46(1):65–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.09.001
29. Hallberg H., Rafnsdottir S., Selvaggi G. et al. Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2018;52(3):130–47. DOI: 10.1080/2000656X.2017.1419141
30. Casella D., Di Taranto G., Marcasciano M. et al. Subcutaneous expanders and synthetic mesh for breast reconstruction: Long-term and patient-reported BREAST-Q outcomes of a single-center prospective study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2019;72(5): 805–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.12.018
31. Potter S., Conroy E.J., Cutress R.I. et al. Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): A multicentre, prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20(2):254–66. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30781-2
32. Boháč M., Danišovič L., Koller J. et al. What happens to an acellular dermal matrix after implantation in the human body? A histological and electron microscopic study. Eur J Histochem 2018;62(1):e12. DOI: 10.4081/ejh.2018.2873
33. Dutra A.K., Andrade W.P., Carvalho S.M.T. et al. Immediate breast reconstruction using autologous skin graft associated with breast implant. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2012;65(2):187–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2011.09.010
34. Tevlin R., Borrelli M.R., Irizarry D. et al. Acellular dermal matrix reduces myofibroblast presence in the breast capsule. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019;7:5 DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002213
35. Leong M., Basu C.B., Hicks M.J. Further evidence that human acellular dermal matrix decreases inflammatory markers of capsule formation in implant-based breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Surg J 2015;35(1):40–7. DOI: 10.1093/asj/sju014
36. Kim I.K., Park S.O., Chang H., Jin U.S. Inhibition mechanism of acellular dermal matrix on capsule formation in expander – implant breast reconstruction after postmastectomy radiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;25(8): DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6549-8
37. Vardanian A.J., Sethi H., Sanchez I. et al. Comparison of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;132(4S-1):136.
38. Vidya R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction or musle-sparing technique with the braxon porcine acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017;5(6):e1364. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001364
39. Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D., Shirokikh I.M., Ablitsova N.V. et al. Biological y synthetic materials in reconstructive surgery for breast cancer treatment (literature review). Opukholi zhenskoy reproduktivnoy sistemy = Tumors of female reproductive system 2018;14(1):28–37. (In Russ.)]. DOI: 10.17650/1994-4098-2018-14-1-28-37
40. Vidya R., Cawthorn S. Evaluation of the early post-operative effectiveness of a novel muscle-sparing breast reconstruction technique using Braxon® (acellular dermal matrix) – multicentre European experience. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016;41(11):PS268 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.08.054
41. Bishop P., Chauhan R., Dunstan M. et al. P062. An audit of prepectoral breast reconstructions using the Braxon® acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Eur J Surg Oncol 2019;45(5):901, 902.
42. Gardani M., Simonacci F., De Sario G. et al. Prepectoral breast reconstruction using the Braxon® porcine acellular dermal matrix: A retrospective study. Eur J Plast Surg 2019;42(2):145–54. DOI: 10.1007/s00238-018-1455-7
43. Vardanian A.J., Clayton J.L., Roostaeian J. et al. Comparison of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;128(5):403e–410e. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31822b6637
44. Nahabedian M.Y., Spear S.L. Acellular dermal matrix for secondary procedures following prosthetic breast reconstruction. Aesth Surg J 2011;31(7):38S–50S. DOI: 10.1177/1090820X11418093
45. Becker H., Lind J.G., Hopkins E.G. Immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction using a vertical incision. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015;3(6):E412. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000384
46. Baldelli I., Cardoni G., Franchelli S. et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using a polyester mesh (Surgimesh-PET): A retrospective single-center study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137(6):931e–939e(9). DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002180
47. Baldelli I., Vappiani M., Zena M. et al. Breast reconstruction in Poland syndrome patients with latissimus dorsi myo flap and implant: An efficient endoscopic approach using single transverse axillary incision. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2019;43(5):1186–94. DOI: 10.1007/s00266-019-01346-0
48. Clarke-Pearson E.M., Lin A.M., Hertl C. et al. Revisions in implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137(6):1690–9. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002173
49. Forsberg C.G., Kelly D.A., Wood B.C. et al. Aesthetic outcomes of acellular dermal matrix in tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2014;72(6):S116–S120. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000098
50. Ganz O.M., Tobalem M., Perneger T. et al. Risks and benefits of using an absorbable mesh in one-stage immediate breast reconstruction: A comparative study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;135(3):198e–507e. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001027
51. Salzberg A.A. Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Clinics Plastic Surg 2012;39(2):119–26. DOI: 10.1016/j. cps.2012.01.001
52. Salzberg C.A., Dunavant C., Nocera N. Immediate breast reconstruction using porcine acellular dermal matrix (StratticeTM): Long-term outcomes and complications. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2013;66(3):323–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2012.10.015
53. Spear S.L., Seruya M., Clemens M.W. et al. Acellular dermal matrix for the treatment and prevention of implant-associated breast deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127(3):1047–58. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820436af
54. Tessler O., Reish R.G., Maman D.Y. et al. Beyond biologics: Absorbable mesh as a low-cost, low-complication sling for implantbased breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;133(2): 1047–58.
55. Ribuffo D., Berna G., De Vita R. et al. Evolution of the surgical technique for “breast in a day” direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: Transitioning from dual-plane to prepectoral implant placement. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143(6):1357–65. DOI: 10.1007/s00266-020-01892-y
56. Sinha I., Pusic A.L., Wilkins E.G. et al. Late surgical-site infection in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;139(1):20. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002839
57. Colwell A.S., Taylor E.M., Colwell A.S. Recent advances in implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;139(1):20–8.
58. Davila A.A., Mioton L.M., Chow G. et al. Immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstruction compared with one-stage permanent implant breast reconstruction: A multi-institutional comparison of short-term complications. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2013;47(5):344–9. DOI: 10.3109/2000656X.2013.767202
Review
For citations:
Baychorov E.A., Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D., Ismagilov A.Kh., Przhedetskiy Yu.V. The influence of synthetic and biologic matrices on the choice of the implant plane during breast reconstruction. The modern state of the problem. Tumors of female reproductive system. 2022;18(3):64-70. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2022-18-3-64-70
Views:
343
Email this article 