Short-term cost-effectiveness of one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage expander-implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure and its economic impact is significant. This study aimed to analyse whether a direct one-stage IBBR with use of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is more cost-effective than two-stage (expander-implant) breast reconstruction. METHODS: The BRIOS (Breast Reconstruction In One Stage) study was an open-label multicentre RCT in which women scheduled for skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR were randomized between one-stage IBBR with ADM or two-stage IBBR. Duration of surgery and hospital stay, and visits for the primary surgery, unplanned and cosmetic procedures were recorded. Costs were estimated at an institutional level. Health status was assessed by means of the EuroQol Five Dimensions 5L questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients (91 breasts) underwent one-stage IBBR with ADM and 62 patients (92 breasts) two-stage IBBR. The mean(s.d.) duration of surgery in the one-stage group was significantly longer than that for two-stage IBBR for unilateral (2·52(0·55) versus 2·02(0·35) h; P < 0·001) and bilateral (4·03(1·00) versus 3·25(0·58) h; P = 0·017) reconstructions. Costs were higher for one-stage compared with two-stage IBBR for both unilateral (€12 448 (95 per cent c.i. 10 722 to 14 387) versus €9871 (9373 to 10 445) respectively; P = 0·025) and bilateral (€16 939 (14 887 to 19 360) versus €13 383 (12 414 to 14 669); P = 0·002) reconstructions. This was partly related to the use of relatively expensive ADM. There was no difference in postoperative health status between the groups. CONCLUSION: One-stage IBBR with ADM was associated with higher costs, but similar health status, compared with conventional two-stage IBBR. Registration number: NTR5446 ( http://www.trialregister.nl).

Predictors of complications after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix from a multicentre randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: In the multicentre randomized trial BRIOS (Breast Reconstruction In One Stage), direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) was associated with a markedly higher postoperative complication rate compared with two-stage tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. This study aimed to identify factors that contribute to the occurrence of complications after DTI ADM-assisted breast reconstruction. METHODS: Data were obtained from the BRIOS study, including all patients treated with DTI ADM-assisted breast reconstruction. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors predictive of postoperative complications. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients (91 breasts) were included, of whom 27 (35 breasts) developed a surgical complication. Reoperations were performed in 29 breasts (32 per cent), with prosthesis removal in 22 (24 per cent). In multivariable analyses, mastectomy weight was associated with complications (odds ratio (OR) 1·94, 95 per cent c.i. 1·33 to 2·83), reoperations (OR 1·70, 1·12 to 2·59) and removal of the implant (OR 1·55, 1·11 to 2·17). Younger patients (OR 1·07, 1·01 to 1·13) and those who received adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 4·83, 1·15 to 20·24) more frequently required reoperation. In univariable analyses, adjuvant radiotherapy showed a trend towards more complications (OR 7·23, 0·75 to 69·95) and removal of the implant (OR 5·12, 0·76 to 34·44), without reaching statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Breast size appeared to be the most significant predictor of complications in DTI ADM-assisted breast reconstruction. The technique should preferably be performed in patients with small to moderate sized breasts. Registration number: NTR5446 ( http://www.trialregister.nl).

Single-stage breast reconstruction using Strattice™: A retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Strattice™, a porcine acellular dermal matrix, has emerged as a product to augment implant-based breast reconstruction. It aims to resolve problems related to poor tissue coverage of the implant. Presently, evidence justifying the use of Strattice in breast reconstruction is lacking. The objective of this study is to assess the clinical outcomes of a patient cohort that underwent single-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with the additional use of Strattice. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent single-stage breast reconstruction with the use of Strattice. All cases of breast reconstruction after oncologic or prophylactic mastectomy between 2010 and 2014 in one of eight different centres in the Netherlands were included. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics and clinical outcome data were collected. The outcomes were presented using descriptive statistics, and the associations were evaluated using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients who underwent either unilateral (60 patients) or bilateral (25 patients) (n = 110 breasts) single-stage breast reconstruction with the use of Strattice were identified. The indication for mastectomy was therapeutic in 69.1% (76) of cases and prophylactic in 30.9% (34) of cases. The reported minor complications included seroma (20.9%), skin necrosis (20.0%), wound dehiscence (11.8%), erythema/inflammation (14.5%) and infection (11.8%). In 22 breasts (22.7%), reoperation was necessary, with explantation of the implant in 11 breasts (11.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, the total complication rate was very high (78%). Although most complications were minor, reoperation was performed in 22.7%, with explantation of the implant in 11.8% of breasts. We suggest that patient selection, experience of the surgeon and handling of early complications are factors playing a crucial role in the success of the operation. The use of a Strattice sheet in single-stage implant-based breast reconstruction may be a promising technique, but more evidence from prospective, randomized studies is necessary to justify its use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.