Splitting the Difference: Using Synthetic and Biologic Mesh to Decrease Cost in Prepectoral Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction

 

Splitting the Difference: Using Synthetic and Biologic Mesh to Decrease Cost in Prepectoral Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction

 

by Karp, Nolan S.; Salibian, Ara A. 

 

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: March 2021 - Volume 147 - Issue 3 - p 580-584

 

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has minimized morbidity and dynamic deformities associated with submuscular implant-based breast reconstruction. However, reliance on implant coverage with acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant reconstruction remains limited by high material costs. The authors describe a technique in which anterior implant coverage in prepectoral reconstruction is split into acellular dermal matrix inferolaterally and synthetic, absorbable mesh superiorly. Use of acellular dermal matrix inferiorly provides coverage and reinforces the inframammary fold, whereas the absorbable mesh is trimmed and sutured to the acellular dermal matrix at the appropriate tension to support the implant and relieve pressure on mastectomy flaps. A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive prepectoral one-stage breast reconstructions using this technique at a single institution. Patient demographics, mastectomy and reconstruction characteristics, reconstructive outcomes, and cost of support materials were queried and analyzed. Eleven patients (21 breasts) underwent prepectoral immediate implant reconstruction with Vicryl and acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage. Average mastectomy weight was 775.8 g. Smooth, round cohesive implants were used in all cases and average implant size was 514.5 ml. Overall complication rates were low and included one minor infection (4.8 percent) and one case of minor mastectomy flap and partial nipple necrosis each (4.8 percent). Calculated cost savings of Vicryl and acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage was up to $3415 in unilateral and $6830 in bilateral cases. Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix inferiorly and Vicryl mesh superiorly is a safe technique that decreases material costs associated with support materials and allows the surgeon to precisely control the implant pocket and position. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

[Articles] Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study

[Articles] Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study

 by Shelley Potter, Elizabeth J Conroy, Ramsey I Cutress, Paula R Williamson, Lisa Whisker, Steven Thrush, Joanna Skillman, Nicola L P Barnes, Senthurun Mylvaganam, Elisabeth Teasdale, Abhilash Jain, Matthew D Gardiner, Jane M Blazeby, Chris Holcombe, iBRA Steering Group, Breast Reconstruction Research Collaborative  

The Lancet Oncology: Volume 20, issue 2, P254-266, February 01, 2019

Complications after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction are higher than recommended by national standards. A randomised clinical trial is needed to establish the optimal approach to immediate implant-based breast reconstruction.

Evaluation of Prepectoral Implant Placement and Complete Coverage with TiLoop Bra Mesh for Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study on Long-Term and Patient-Reported BREAST-Q Outcomes

Evaluation of Prepectoral Implant Placement and Complete Coverage with TiLoop Bra Mesh for Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study on Long-Term and Patient-Reported BREAST-Q Outcomes

by Casella, Donato; Di Taranto, Giuseppe; Marcasciano, Marco; Sordi, Silvia; Kothari, Ashutosh; Kovacs, Tibor; Lo Torto, Federico; Cigna, Emanuele; Calabrese, Claudio; Ribuffo, Diego

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: January 2019 - Volume 143 - Issue 1 - p 1e–9e

Background: Breast reconstruction is rapidly evolving, because of the changing face of cancer surgery and the growing acceptance of acellular dermal matrices and synthetic meshes. Although some early reports showed encouraging results after prepectoral breast reconstruction, there is a paucity of data on long-term outcomes.

Methods: Between January of 2012 and March of 2015, 179 patients undergoing mastectomy were enrolled at the authors’ institution. Patients underwent mastectomy and immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction with the definitive implant entirely wrapped in a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLoop). The BREAST-Q questionnaire was administered before surgery and after 2 years. Capsular contracture was evaluated using the Baker scale. Oncologic, surgical, and aesthetic outcomes and changes in BREAST-Q score were analyzed over time.

Results: Average follow-up was 38.5 months. A total of 250 mastectomies were performed. The locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1 percent. Complications requiring reoperation were recorded in six patients (2.4 percent) and implant removal was necessary in three cases (1.2 percent), followed by reconstruction with submuscular expanders. Grade IV capsular contracture was detected in five breasts (2 percent), whereas 212 breasts were evaluated as grade I (84.8 percent), 28 breasts as grade II (11.2 percent), and five breasts as grade III (2 percent). Patients reported significant high rates in the BREAST-Q overall Satisfaction with Outcome (73.8), overall Satisfaction with Breasts (72.5), Psychosocial Well-being (77.7), and Sexual Well-being (57.9), scoring a significant increase in these domains from the preoperative period to the postoperative period (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: The authors report encouraging results of a prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction technique using a synthetic mesh, supporting the evaluation of the muscle-sparing subcutaneous approach as a valid alternative to traditional submuscular reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.