Is single-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (SSBR) with an acellular matrix safe?: Strattice™ or Meso Biomatrix® in SSBR.

BACKGROUND: Acellular matrices (AM) might enable a direct single-stage breast reconstruction procedure resulting in an improved efficacy of the reconstruction phase for patients. Safety concerns are an important issue due to a recent study which shows that single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ resulted in more complications versus a two-stage reconstruction. Therefore, the goal of this study is to compare the short- and long-term complications of a single-stage breast reconstruction with the use of two types of AM (Strattice™ and Meso Biomatrix®) versus two-stage breast reconstruction without the use of an AM. METHODS: Cohort study with single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ (n = 28) or Meso BioMatrix® (n = 20) or two-stage breast reconstruction without an AM (n = 36) at the Maastricht Academic Hospital, the Netherlands. All complications, in particular major complications with the need for re-admission to the hospital, re-exploration, and implant explantation, were the primary outcome measures. A 1-year follow-up was achieved for all patients. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of all 52 patients were similar between groups. There was a significantly higher complication rate in the single-stage AM groups with loss of the implant in 40.0% of the breasts from the Meso BioMatrix® group and in 10.7% of the Strattice™ group compared to no implant loss in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort study clearly suggests that the use of a single-stage breast reconstruction is not safe with the use of these AMs. Well-designed prospective studies that guarantee the safety of those matrices should be published before these AMs are used in implant-based surgery.Level of Evidence: Level III, risk / prognostic study.

A new treatment for reliable functional and esthetic outcome after local facial flap reconstruction: a transparent polycarbonate facial mask with silicone sheeting.

BACKGROUND: Facial flap surgery predominantly leads to good functional results. However, in some cases, it can cause unsatisfactory esthetic results. They include persistent erythema, pincushioning, and development of hypertrophic scars. Conservative, reliable treatment for facial flaps is lacking. Pressure and silicone therapy have proven to result in significant improvement in scar erythema, pliability, and thickness in postburn hypertrophic scars. By combining these therapies in a facial mask, the esthetic outcome of facial flaps could be improved. In this retrospective study, the efficacy of a unique transparent face mask containing silicone sheets on the esthetic outcome of postsurgical facial flaps is assessed. METHODS: Twenty-one patients were assigned to facial pressure mask therapy after they underwent facial flap surgery between July 2012 and September 2015. Patients were treated for a mean duration of 46 weeks. The effects of pressure mask therapy were examined by means of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). RESULTS: All POSAS components showed a reduction between start and end of therapy, while itchiness, pigmentation, pliability, thickness, and relief of the flap improved significantly (P < 0.05). Mean total and patient score showed significant reduction between start and end of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a facial pressure mask layered with silicone results in noticeable flap improvement with a long-lasting result. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.