Mesh versus acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction - A prospective randomized trial

被引:59
作者
Gschwantler-Kaulich, D. [1 ]
Schrenk, P. [2 ]
Bjelic-Radisic, V. [3 ]
Unterrieder, K. [4 ]
Leser, C. [1 ]
Fink-Retter, A. [1 ]
Salama, M. [5 ]
Singer, C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Vienna, Breast Canc Ctr, Dept Gynaecol Oncol, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
[2] AKH Linz Breast Canc Ctr, Krankenhausstr 9, A-4021 Linz, Austria
[3] Med Univ Graz, Dept Gynaecol, Auenbruggerpl 1, A-8036 Graz, Austria
[4] Private Hosp Villach, Breast Canc Ctr, Dept Gynaecol, Dr Walter Hochsteiner Str 4, A-9504 Villach, Austria
[5] Otto Wagner Hosp, Dept Surg, Baumgartner Hoehe 1, A-1140 Vienna, Austria
来源
EJSO | 2016年 / 42卷 / 05期
关键词
Breast; Reconstruction; Mesh; Acellular dermal matrix; BIOLOGICAL MATRICES; SYNTHETIC MESHES; COMPLICATIONS; SURGERY; MASTECTOMY; OUTCOMES; CANCER;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejso.2016.02.007
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Comparative studies on the use of meshes and acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) have not yet been performed. Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter pilot study was performed at four Austrian breast cancer centers. Fifty patients with oncologic or prophylactic indication for mastectomy and IBBR were randomized to immediate IBBR with either an ADM (Protexa (R)) or a titanized mesh (TiLOOP (R) Bra). Complications, failed reconstruction, cosmetic outcome, patients' quality of life and the thickness of the overlying tissue were recorded immediately postoperatively and 3 and 6 months after surgery. Results: 48 patients participated in the study (Protexa (R) group: 23; TiLOOP (R) Bra group: 25 patients). The overall complication rate was 31.25% with similar rates in both groups (Protexa (R) group: 9 versus TiLOOP (R) Bra group: 6; p = 0.188). There was a higher incidence of severe complications leading to failed reconstructions with implant loss in the Protexa (R) group than in the TiLOOP (R) Bra group (7 versus 2; p < 0.0001). An inverted T-incision technique led to significantly more complications and reconstructive failure with Protexa (R) (p = 0.037, p = 0.012, respectively). There were no significant differences in patients' satisfaction with cosmetic results (p = 0.632), but surgeons and external specialists graded significantly better outcomes with TiLOOP (R) Bra (p = 0.034, p = 0.032). Conclusion: This pilot study showed use of TiLOOP (R) Bra or Protexa (R) in IBBR is feasible leading to good cosmetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. To validate the higher failure rates in the Protexa (R) group, data from a larger trial are required. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:665 / 671
页数:7
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   Economic Analysis and Review of the Literature on Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction With and Without the Use of the Acellular Dermal Matrix [J].
Bank, Jonathan ;
Phillips, Nicole A. ;
Park, Julie E. ;
Song, David H. .
AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2013, 37 (06) :1194-1201
[2]   Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings [J].
Breuing, KH ;
Warren, SM .
ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2005, 55 (03) :232-239
[3]   Recommendations for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment [J].
Cardoso, Maria Joao ;
Cardoso, Jaime Santos ;
Vrieling, Conny ;
Macmillan, Douglas ;
Rainsbury, Dick ;
Heil, Joerg ;
Hau, Eric ;
Keshtgar, Mohammed .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2012, 135 (03) :629-637
[4]   Comparison of Different ADM Materials in Breast Surgery [J].
Cheng, Angela ;
Saint-Cyr, Michel .
CLINICS IN PLASTIC SURGERY, 2012, 39 (02) :167-+
[5]   Acellular Dermal Matrix in Irradiated Tissue Expander/Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Evidence-Based Review [J].
Clemens, Mark W. ;
Kronowitz, Steven J. .
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2012, 130 (05) :27S-34S
[6]   Retrospective Review of 331 Consecutive Immediate Single-Stage Implant Reconstructions with Acellular Dermal Matrix: Indications, Complications, Trends, and Costs [J].
Colwell, Amy S. ;
Damjanovic, Branimir ;
Zahedi, Bita ;
Medford-Davis, Laura ;
Hertl, Catherine ;
Austen, William G., Jr. .
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2011, 128 (06) :1170-1178
[7]   Biological Matrices and Synthetic Meshes Used in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction - a Review of Products Available in Germany [J].
Dieterich, M. ;
Faridi, A. .
GEBURTSHILFE UND FRAUENHEILKUNDE, 2013, 73 (11) :1100-1106
[8]   A short-term follow-up of implant based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLoop® Bra) [J].
Dieterich, M. ;
Reimer, T. ;
Dieterich, H. ;
Stubert, J. ;
Gerber, B. .
EJSO, 2012, 38 (12) :1225-1230
[9]   Biocompatibility, cell growth and clinical relevance of synthetic meshes and biological matrixes for internal support in implant-based breast reconstruction [J].
Dieterich, Max ;
Stubert, Johannes ;
Gerber, Bernd ;
Reimer, Toralf ;
Richter, Dagmar-Ulrike .
ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2015, 291 (06) :1371-1379
[10]   AlloDerm and Strattice in Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison and Techniques for Optimizing Outcomes [J].
Glasberg, Scot B. ;
Light, David .
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2012, 129 (06) :1223-1233