RESUMO
Prepectoral implant placement has many potential advantages in immediate breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are commonly used in these surgeries. ADM meshing may enhance integration, decrease seroma and infection rates, and reduce surgical costs. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center study of 49 women (71 breasts) undergoing immediate, prepectoral, implant-based breast reconstruction with 2:1 meshed, bovine-derived ADM (SurgiMend). Outcomes were compared against those of 77 patients (105 breasts) undergoing a similar procedure but with partial subpectoral implant placement. RESULTS: In the prepectoral group, the mean age was 49.1 years and mean body mass index was 24.7 kg/m2. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics versus the partial subpectoral control group. Mean follow-up was 18.6 months (prepectoral) and 21.3 months (partial subpectoral). Mean time to drain removal was reduced in the prepectoral group (6.5 versus 8.5 days; P < 0.001). Rates of minor and major complications with prepectoral implant placement were 15.5% and 11.3%, respectively - similar to partial subpectoral placement (15.2% and 14.3%) (overall P = 0.690). Capsular contracture and explantation were associated with radiation therapy, and rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral implant placement with meshed ADM is a safe and reproducible alternative to partial muscle coverage with meshed ADM. Recovery may be easier and animation deformity avoided. It could therefore become the standard of care for implant-based breast reconstruction.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrices are commonly used to support implant-based breast reconstruction. Meshing may enhance integration, reduce drain time and seroma, and decrease surgical costs. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center analysis of 83 adult women (115 breasts) undergoing one-stage (84.3 percent) or two-stage (15.7 percent) immediate breast reconstruction with bovine-derived acellular dermal matrix (SurgiMend) meshed at a 2:1 ratio. Outcomes were compared with previously published data from a control group of 111 patients (147 breasts) undergoing the same procedure with nonmeshed (fenestrated) acellular dermal matrix. RESULTS: The mean age of patients receiving meshed acellular dermal matrix was 48.3 years and the mean body mass index was 23.6 kg/m. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics versus controls, other than chemotherapy history (received by fewer patients in the meshed acellular dermal matrix group). Mean follow-up was 23.6 months. Overall rates of minor and major complications in the meshed acellular dermal matrix group were 16.5 percent and 13.0 percent, respectively-similar to controls (25.2 percent and 12.9 percent). However, with meshed acellular dermal matrix, there were significantly fewer major seromas (0 percent versus 8.2 percent; OR, ∞; 95 percent CI, 1.927 to ∞), fewer total hematomas (0 percent versus 4.8 percent; OR, ∞; 95 percent CI, 1.022 to ∞), and fewer total infections (10.4 percent versus 23.8 percent; OR, 2.682; 95 percent CI, 1.259 to 5.802) compared with controls. Time to drain removal was reduced. Rates of capsular contracture (5.2 percent versus 2.7 percent) and explantation (5.2 percent versus 2.7 percent) were similar in the meshed acellular dermal matrix and control groups. CONCLUSION: Acellular dermal matrix meshing reduces rates of postoperative seroma, hematoma, and infection and decreases drain removal time compared with nonmeshed acellular dermal matrix. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
