Tumors of female reproductive systemTumors of female reproductive systemОпухоли женской репродуктивной системы1994-40981999-8627Publishing House ABV Press99710.17650/1994-4098-2022-18-3-64-70MAMMOLOGY. REVIEWSМАММОЛОГИЯ. ОБЗОРНЫЕ СТАТЬИThe influence of synthetic and biologic matrices on the choice of the implant plane during breast reconstruction. The modern state of the problemВлияние синтетических и биологических матриц на выбор плоскости при реконструкции молочной железы. Современное состояние проблемыhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6292-1775BaychorovE. A.БайчоровЭ. А.
Russian Federation

310 Mira St., Stavropol 355017

Эльбрус Асламбекович Байчоров 

355017 Ставрополь, ул. Мира, 310

operator09@yandex.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7141-2502ZikiryakhodzhaevA. D. ЗикиряходжаевА. Д.
Russian Federation

3, 2 nd Botkinskiy Proezd, Moscow 125284

build. 2, 8 Trubetskaya St.,  Moscow 119992,

125284 Москва, 2-й Боткинский проезд, 3

119992 Москва, ул. Трубецкая, 8, стр. 2

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4205-6507IsmagilovA. Kh. ИсмагиловА. Х.
Russian Federation

11 Mushtari St., Kazan 420012

29 Sibirskiy Tract St., Kazan 420029

420012 Казань, ул. Муштари, 11

420029 Казань, Сибирский тракт, 29

PrzhedetskiyYu.  V.ПржедецкийЮ. В.
Russian Federation

63 14th Line St., Rostov-on-Don 344037

344037  Ростов-на-Дону, ул. 14-я Линия, 63

Stavropol Medical UniversityФГБОУ ВО «Ставропольский медицинский университет» Минздрава РоссииP. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Centre of the Ministry of Health of RussiaМосковский научно-исследовательский институт им. П. А. Герцена – филиал ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр» Минздрава РоссииI.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of RussiaФГБОУ ВО «Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И. М. Сеченова» Минздрава РоссииKazan 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 RussiaКазанская государственная медицинская академия – филиал ФГБОУ ДПО «Российская медицинская академия непрерывного профессионального образования» Минздрава РоссииRepublican Clinical Сancer Center named after prof. M. Z. SigalГАУЗ «Республиканский клинический онкологический диспансер им. проф. М. З. Сигала» Минздрава Республики ТатарстанRostov Research Institute of Oncology, Ministry of Health of RussiaФГБУ «Ростовский научно-исследовательский онкологический институт» Минздрава Россииru02122022202218364700212202202122022Received:02122022Accepted:02122022Published:02122022https://ojrs.abvpress.ru/ojrs/article/view/997

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.

Сразу после того как были описаны силиконовые имплантаты, в реконструктивной хирургии молочной железы доминировала техника препекторальной установки имплантатов. Однако вскоре хирургам пришлось отказаться от нее в связи с высокой частотой развития у пациентов таких осложнений, как инфицирование, капсульная контрактура, эксплантация, и перейти на субпекторальную плоскость.

Спустя несколько десятилетий, благодаря открытию синтетических и биологических сеток, хирурги опять вернулись к препекторальной плоскости, но на технически новом уровне.

Целью настоящего обзора было провести анализ роли биологических и синтетических матриц в качестве факторов, влияющих на выбор плоскости для установки имплантата при одномоментной реконструкции молочной железы.

breast reconstructionacellular dermal matrix in breast reconstructionsynthetic mesh in breast reconstructionреконструкция молочной железыацеллюлярная дермальная матрица в реконструкции молочной железысинтетические сетки в реконструкции молочной железыHalsted 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.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.Bland C.S. The Halsted mastectomy: present illness and past history. West J Med 1981;134:549–55.Bard M.S.A. Psychological impact of cancer and its treatment. IV. Adaptation to radical mastectomy. Cancer 1955;8:656–72.Watson T.A. Cancer of the breast. The Janeway Lecture – 1965. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1966;96:547–59.Watson T.A. Cancer of the breast. The Janeway Lecture – 1965. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1966;96:547–59.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.2016.09.12Cronin T.O., Gerow F.J. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new “natural feel” prosthesis. Exc Med Int Congr Ser 1963;58:3.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.0000000000004047Schlenker 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: 10.1097/00006534-197812000-00004Ter Louw R.P., Nahabedian M.Y. Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140(5S):51S–59S. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003942Biggs T.M., Yarish R.S. Augmentation mammaplasty: a comparative analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990;85:368–72. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-199003000-00005Spear 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-yChang 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.0000000000005000Hage 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.0b013e318269e4eeLeonardis 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.24257Kuechle 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.24257Negenborn 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.0000000000001654Powell-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.2018.06.006Salzberg 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.0000214873.13102.9fMargulies 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.2018.10.0Dieterich 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.2012.08.026Logan 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/s12957-016-0874-9Frey 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.0000000000005290Antony 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.0000000000005627D’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.0b013e3182729e58Sbitany 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.0b013e3182729e58Salibian 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.2018.08.01Loo 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.0000000000001895Guo 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.2019.09.001Guo 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.2019.09.001Hallberg 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.2017.1419141Casella 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.2018.12.018Potter 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)30781-2Boháč 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.2018.2873Dutra 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.2011.09.010Tevlin 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.0000000000002213Leong 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/sju014Leong 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/sju014Kim 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/s10434-018-6549-8Vardanian 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.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.0000000000001364Zikiryakhodzhaev 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: 10.17650/1994-4098-2018-14-1-28-37Зикиряходжаев А.Д., Широких И.М., Аблицова Н.В. и др. Использование биологических и синтетических материалов в реконструктивной хирургии при раке молочной железы (обзор литературы). Опухоли женской репродуктивной системы 2018;14(1):28–37. DOI: 10.17650/1994-4098-2018-14-1-28-37Vidya 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.2015.08.054Bishop 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.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/s00238-018-1455-7Vardanian 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.0b013e31822b6637Nahabedian M.Y., Spear S.L. Acellular dermal matrix for secondary procedures following prosthetic breast reconstruction. Aesth Surg J 2011;31(7):38S–50S. DOI: 10.1177/1090820X11418093Becker 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.0000000000000384Baldelli 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.0000000000002180Baldelli 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/s00266-019-01346-0Clarke-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.0000000000002173Forsberg 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.0000000000000098Ganz 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.0000000000001027Salzberg A.A. Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Clinics Plastic Surg 2012;39(2):119–26. DOI: 10.1016/j. cps.2012.01.001Salzberg A.A. Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Clinics Plastic Surg 2012;39(2):119–26. DOI: 10.1016/j. cps.2012.01.001Salzberg 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.2012.10.015Spear 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.0b013e31820436afTessler 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.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-ySinha 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.0000000000002839Colwell A.S., Taylor E.M., Colwell A.S. Recent advances in implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;139(1):20–8.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