Search

Background: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has become popular in various reconstructive procedures of different anatomic regions. There are different needs depending on the clinical application, including breast, abdominal wall, and any other soft-tissue reconstruction. Removal of the basement membrane, which consists of collagen fibers, may help achieve natural and soft breast reconstruction, which requires highly elastic ADMs. Given the lack of knowledge of the effectiveness of ADM without the basement membrane, the authors compared the clinical outcomes of ADMs with and without basement membrane in breast reconstruction., Methods: The authors conducted a single-blind randomized controlled trial to evaluate differences in clinical outcomes. The patients were randomized into 2 groups: ADM with or without basement membrane. Both groups underwent immediate prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Demographic characteristics, surgical outcomes, and breast shape change using nipple position were compared between the 2 groups., Results: A total of 56 patients were divided into 2 groups: ADM with basement membrane (n = 30 [53.6%]) or ADM without basement membrane (n = 26 [46.4%]). Clinical and surgical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The authors detected no statistically significant differences in the overall rate of complications or breast shape change between the 2 groups. However, the rate of seromas was higher in the ADM with basement membrane group than in the ADM without basement membrane group (10% versus 0%; P = 0.09)., Conclusions: The 2 groups showed similar surgical outcomes. ADM without basement membrane in implant-based breast reconstruction was safe, and had mechanical properties of lower tensile strength and higher elasticity., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, II., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Several acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are used for soft-tissue support in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Little high-level evidence supports the use of one ADM over another. The authors sought to compare Cortiva 1-mm Allograft Dermis with AlloDerm RTU (ready to use), the most studied ADM in the literature., Methods: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing Cortiva with AlloDerm in prepectoral and subpectoral immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction was performed at 2 academic hospitals from March of 2017 to December of 2021. Reconstructions were direct to implant (DTI) or tissue expander (TE). Primary outcome was reconstructive failure, defined as TE explantation before planned further reconstruction, or explantation of DTI reconstructions before 3 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were additional complications, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and cost., Results: There were 302 patients included: 151 AlloDerm (280 breasts), 151 Cortiva (277 breasts). The majority of reconstructions in both cohorts consisted of TE (62% versus 38% DTI), smooth device (68% versus 32% textured), and prepectoral (80% versus 20% subpectoral). Reconstructive failure was no different between ADMs (AlloDerm 9.3% versus Cortiva 8.3%; P = 0.68). There were no additional differences in any complications or PROs between ADMs. Seromas occurred in 7.6% of Cortiva but 12% of AlloDerm cases, in which the odds of seroma formation were two-fold higher (odds ratio, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.01 to 3.67]; P = 0.047). AlloDerm variable cost was 10% to 15% more than Cortiva, and there were no additional cost differences., Conclusion: When assessing safety, clinical performance, PROs, and cost, Cortiva is noninferior to AlloDerm in immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction, and may be less expensive, with lower risk of seroma formation., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, I., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in the UK. Reconstruction - of which implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most common - forms a core part of surgical management of breast cancer. More recently, pre-pectoral IBBR has become common as technology and operative techniques have evolved. Many surgeons use acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in reconstruction however there is little evidence in literature that this improves surgical outcomes. This review will assess available evidence for surgical outcomes for breast reconstructions using ADM versus non-use of ADM., Methods: A database search was performed of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2012-2022). Studies were screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Risk of Bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale and ROBIS tools. Analysis and meta-analysis were performed., Results: This review included 22 studies (3822 breast reconstructions). No significant difference between overall complications and failure rates between ADM and non-ADM use was demonstrated. Capsular contracture, wound dehiscence and implant rippling had significant differences however these results demonstrated high heterogeneity thus wider generalisation may be inaccurate. Patient quality of life scores were not recorded consistently or comparably between papers., Conclusions: This review suggests a lack of significant differences in most complications between ADM use and non-use for pre-pectoral IBBR. If no increase in complications exists between groups, this has significant implications for surgical and legislative decision-making. There is, however, inadequate evidence available on the topic and further research is required., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The authors performed a retrospective review to analyze operative outcomes of breast mound reconstruction after robot-assisted mastectomy., Methods: Patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with a robotic device (Da Vinci Xi) and immediate prepectoral prosthetic reconstruction by lateral incision from June of 2018 to July of 2019 were enrolled. Patient characteristics, complications, and satisfaction rates as assessed by BREAST-Q were analyzed. The surgical technique was described in detail., Results: Thirty-nine cases, including 7 bilateral cases (total 46 breasts), underwent robot-assisted NSM followed by immediate prepectoral prosthetic implant reconstruction. The median patient age was 46.63 years (range, 21 to 63 years). The mean operation time for each prepectoral breast mound reconstruction using the direct-to-implant technique was 126.55 minutes. Robot-assisted reconstruction resulted in superior BREAST-Q scores compared with the conventional reconstruction method. Major infection occurred in 7 cases (15.2%), and complete nipple loss occurred in 3 cases (6.6%). Severe complications requiring breast implant removal occurred in 4 breasts (8.7%). Two cases were due to the coexistence of infection and skin necrosis; in 1 case, the skin flap became congested on postoperative day 3 and required additional surgery to change the expander. Other complications were resolved with conservative care or minor revision., Conclusions: This report is the first concerning robot-assisted NSM followed by prepectoral acellular dermal matrix-wrapped prosthetic reconstruction. This procedure was not inferior to other methods. Further prospective research to evaluate oncologic outcomes is warranted., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, IV., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: In immediate breast reconstruction (IBR), it is unclear whether there is any difference in the complication rates between prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement without acellular dermal matrix (ADM)., Aim: To compare the rates of early post-operative complications and time to initiation of adjuvant treatment in patients undergoing IBR between prepectoral and subpectoral implant placement without ADM for the two surgical procedure., Methods: We retrospectively retrieved data of patients who underwent IBR with prepectoral versus subpectoral implant placement between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022 in a large cancer center in France., Results: We included 192 patients: 119 in the prepectoral and 73 in the subpectoral group. Their clinical characteristics were similar. Thirty patients (15.6%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, among them 27 (14.1%) received it within 12 weeks, and there was no difference between the groups (p = 0.12). In the prepectoral group, 39 patients (32.8%) received adjuvant radiotherapy versus 5 (6.8%) in the subpectoral group (p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in time to treatment commencement. Overall, 35 patients (29.4%) in the prepectoral group and 17 (23.3%) in the subpectoral group experienced post-operative complications (p = 0.44). Using multivariable analysis, the only factor associated with post-operative complications was determined to be mastectomy weight (odds ratio 1.98 (1.10-3.59) for weight ≥500 g; p = 0.02)., Conclusion: Prepectoral implant placement without ADM can be proposed to patients undergoing IBR with an indication for adjuvant treatment. However, in our study, the reoperation rate with this technique was slightly higher (p = 0.008). This is partly due to the learning curve for surgeons using this new technique., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Since the early 2000s, acellular dermal matrix has been a popular adjunct to prepectoral breast reconstruction to enhance outcomes., Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in the postoperative course of 2 standard acellular dermal matrix products, AlloDerm SELECT Ready To Use and DermACELL., Methods: A prospective, patient-blind study of patients undergoing bilateral nipple and/or skin-sparing mastectomies with either tissue expander or silicone implant insertion between 2019 and 2022 were selected for this study. The study design used patients as their own controls between 2 products randomly assigned to the left or right breast. Outcomes between the products included average time for drain removal, infection rate, seroma rate, and incorporation rates., Results: The prospective clinical data of 55 patients (110 breasts) were recorded for 90 days. There were no significant differences between drain removal time, average drain output, or seroma aspiration amount. A higher percentage of seromas was recorded in the breasts with AlloDerm (30.91%) compared with breasts containing DermACELL (14.55%, P < .05), and a statistically significant difference between the incorporation rates of AlloDerm (93.4%) and DermACELL (99.8%, P < .05) was observed., Conclusions: Irrespective of patient demographic disparities, both products had a 94.55% success rate for reconstruction outcomes. AlloDerm was determined to have a higher incidence of seromas as a postoperative complication and a trend to lower incorporation., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Absorbable mesh has been used to mitigate the potential drawbacks of acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-based breast reconstruction. Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) has been demonstrated to be a lower-cost, safe, and effective alternative to ADM in subpectoral breast reconstruction. In this study, the authors used P4HB for pocket control and implant support in immediate two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction, examining nonintegration, capsular contracture, implant malposition, patient comorbidities, and risk factors., Methods: A retrospective review of a single surgeon's (K.M.) experience was performed over a 4-year span for patients who had undergone immediate two-stage prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with P4HB mesh. Complications (implant loss, rippling, capsular contracture, and malposition) and patient satisfaction were examined., Results: From 2018 to 2022, 105 patients underwent breast reconstruction using P4HB mesh on a total of 194 breasts. P4HB mesh integration was 97%. Sixteen breasts (8.2%) experienced minor complications, and 10.3% of devices required explantation, which was significantly higher in the irradiated group at 28.6% ( P < 0.01). Patients who were older, had a higher body mass index, were active smokers, or had an increased mastectomy specimen size were more likely to undergo explantation. The capsular contracture rate and overall lateral malposition rate were 1.0%. Visible rippling was present in 15.6% of breasts. There was no significant difference between smile mastopexy and inferolateral incision with regard to capsular contracture, lateral malposition, and rippling. Overall, patients demonstrated a high level of satisfaction. There were no significant predictors of capsular contracture, lateral malposition, or visible rippling., Conclusions: The authors show the safety and efficacy of P4HB in two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction. There appears to be equal, if not reduced, capsular contracture rates when compared with the published data on ADM. This represents a large cost reduction to both the patient and the health care system., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, IV., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has become popularized with the concurrent use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). The authors sought to compare 3-month postoperative complication rates and explantation rates for first-stage, tissue-expander-based, prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without the use of ADM., Methods: A single-institution retrospective chart review was performed to identify consecutive patients undergoing prepectoral tissue-expander-based breast reconstruction from August of 2020 to January of 2022. Chi-square tests were used to compare demographic categorical variables, and multiple variable regression models were used to identify variables associated with 3-month postoperative outcomes., Results: The authors enrolled 124 consecutive patients. Fifty-five patients (98 breasts) were included in the no-ADM cohort and 69 patients (98 breasts) were included in the ADM cohort. There were no statistically significant differences between the ADM and no-ADM cohorts with regard to 90-day postoperative outcomes. On multivariable analysis, there were no independent associations between seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, mastectomy skin flap necrosis, infection, unplanned return to the operating room, or explantation in the ADM and no-ADM groups after controlling for age, body mass index, history of diabetes, tobacco use, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and postoperative radiotherapy., Conclusions: The authors' results reveal no significant differences in odds of postoperative complications, unplanned return to the operating room, or explantation between the ADM and no-ADM cohorts. More studies are needed to evaluate the safety of prepectoral, tissue expander placement without ADM., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Breast cancer is the world's most prevalent cancer, and many breast cancer patients undergo mastectomy as the choice of treatment, often with post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) use has become a method to improve outcomes of reconstruction for these patients. We aimed to compare postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes, which are still poorly characterized, between groups utilizing acellular dermal matrix during reconstruction and those without., Materials and Methods: We searched electronic databases from inception to 16 June 2022 for randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies comparing the outcomes of patients who have and have not received acellular dermal matrix in implant-based breast reconstruction. The results were quantitatively combined and analyzed using random-effects models., Results: A total of nine studies were included, representing 3161 breasts. There was no significant difference in postoperative outcomes, such as seroma formation (p = 0.51), hematomas (p = 0.20), infections (p = 0.21), wound dehiscence (p = 0.09), reoperations (p = 0.70), implant loss (p = 0.27), or skin necrosis (p = 0.21). Only two of the studies included evaluated patient-reported outcomes between the use and non-use of ADM in implant-based breast reconstruction using BREAST-Q questionnaire, as well as self-reported pain. There was no reported significant difference in BREAST-Q or pain scores., Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows comparable short- and long-term outcomes between ADM and non-ADM breast reconstruction, suggesting that the use of ADM may not be necessary in all cases given their additional cost. However, there is a paucity of data for patient-reported outcomes, and further research is required to determine whether ADM use affects patient-reported outcomes., (© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background: Prepectoral tissue expander (TE) placement for two-stage postmastectomy reconstruction is usually performed in conjunction with insertion of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). However, the effects of ADM use on TE loss or other early complications remain unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare early postoperative complications in patients who underwent prepectoral breast implant reconstruction with or without ADM use., Methods: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients at their institution who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction from January of 2018 to June of 2021. The primary outcome was TE loss within 90 days of surgery; secondary outcomes included other complications such as infection, TE exposure, mastectomy skin flap necrosis requiring revision, and seroma., Results: Data on 714 patients with 1225 TEs (1060 with ADM and 165 without) were analyzed. Baseline demographics did not differ by ADM use, although mastectomy breast tissue weight was higher in patients without ADM (750.3 g versus 540.8 g; P < 0.001). Rates of TE loss were similar in reconstructions with (3.8%) ADM and without (6.7%; P = 0.09). We also did not find differences in the rates of secondary outcomes between cohorts., Conclusions: ADM use had no statistically significant effect on early complication rates among patients undergoing breast reconstruction with prepectoral TEs. Still, this study was underpowered, and data trended toward statistical significance; thus, larger studies are required in the future. Additional research and randomized studies should focus on larger cohorts and examine long-term complications such as capsular contracture and implant malposition., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Interfaces continue to be used in prepectoral breast reconstruction to refine breast appearance, but more clinical data are required to assess their effectiveness. This study compares the rates of capsular contracture, breast esthetics, and patient satisfaction between two commonly used interface materials, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and polyurethane (PU) foam., Methods: A cross-sectional assessment was conducted on all patients who underwent prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction with an interface material between June 2018 and June 2022. We compared capsular contracture rates (assessed in-person), esthetic outcomes (evaluated by a three-member panel using a specially designed scale), and patient satisfaction (measured using the Breast-Q questionnaire) among the members of the interface groups., Results: Among the 79 reconstructed breasts (20 bilateral cases), 35 were reconstructed using ADM and 44 using PU implants. The ADM group had a significantly higher frequency of Baker III/IV capsular contracture compared with the PU group (14.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.014) and lower ratings from the panel in terms of capsular contracture (median 3.7 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001). PU reconstructions scored worse in implant visibility (median 2.3 vs. 3.3, p < 0.001) and rippling (median 3.0 vs. 3.7, p < 0.001). However, after appropriate adjustment for confounders, no significant differences in overall appearance and patient satisfaction were found., Conclusions: ADM reconstructions are prone to capsular contracture with all their related esthetic issues, but PU implants have certain cosmetic flaws, such as implant visibility and malposition. Since each technique has its own limitations, neither the experienced surgeons nor patients exhibited a clear preference for either approach., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest and have no financial disclosures to make., (Copyright © 2024 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

As prepectoral implant placement becomes widely adopted, recent studies investigating the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) during tissue expander placement have demonstrated no major benefit with regard to postoperative outcomes. We sought to evaluate second-stage outcomes 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant with and without ADM. Consecutive patients who underwent prepectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction with and without ADM were identified. Patients were followed up for 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest including implant rippling, capsular contracture, implant explantation, additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported outcomes were collected and compared. Sixty-eight breasts in the ADM cohort and sixty-one breasts in the no ADM cohort underwent tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest were similar between the ADM and no ADM cohorts with no statistically significant differences identified regarding incidences of implant rippling (24.6% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.08), capsular contracture (4.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 1.00), and explantation (6.6% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.67) between the two cohorts. BREAST-Q scores were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of physical wellbeing and satisfaction in terms of implant rippling, as can be seen, which improved in the no ADM cohort (p = 0.04). Our study reports no major benefit for the inclusion of ADM with respect to implant rippling, capsular contracture, explantation, need for additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported satisfaction in prepectoral second-stage implant-based breast reconstruction., (Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) has been reported in breast surgery; however, its application and duration have varied across studies. This study aimed to assess the early postoperative outcomes of rinsing the breast pocket with TXA during prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction using an acellular dermal matrix (ADM)., Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted in consecutive patients who underwent immediate prosthetic prepectoral reconstruction between August 2021 and December 2022. For cases performed during the earlier part of the study period (up to April 2022), TXA was not administered (non-TXA group), whereas those performed after April 2022 received topical TXA application during surgery (TXA group). Postoperative outcomes including hematoma, seroma, drainage volume, and drain maintenance duration were compared between the two groups using propensity score matching (PSM)., Results: A total of 674 breasts were analyzed; 280 in the TXA group and 394 were in the non-TXA group. There were 251 breasts in each group after PSM, and their characteristics were similar. The incidence of hematoma in the first 24 hours and total drain output were significantly lower in the TXA group than the non-TXA group. In cases of direct-to-implant cases, the TXA group showed a significantly lower seroma rate., Conclusions: Rinsing the breast pocket with TXA can potentially reduce the occurrence of hematoma and decrease drain output in prepectoral ADM-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction. Moreover, this approach may be beneficial in lowering the incidence of seroma in direct-to-implant reconstruction., (Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Implant-based reconstruction is the most common method of immediate breast reconstruction in the United States, with acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) playing a significant role in implant support and coverage. This study evaluated recent national trends in ADM use in immediate breast reconstruction and assessed patient characteristics and 30-day complication rates., Methods: The authors queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for all patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction from 2015 to 2020. Primary outcomes were major surgical and medical complications, as well as ADM use per year. Subset analysis was performed to compare patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction with ADM in 2015 versus 2020., Results: In 39,800 immediate breast reconstructions, ADMs were used in 55.5% of cases ( n = 22,087). ADM usage increased annually from 2015 through 2020. Direct-to-implant reconstruction was significantly associated with ADM use ( P < 0.001). Compared with the no-ADM cohort, there was a significantly increased rate of return to the operating room for any reason ( P < 0.001). When comparing the 2015 and 2020 ADM cohorts, the 2020 ADM cohort had a significantly higher rate of superficial infections. Obesity, smoking history, and insulin-dependent diabetes were independent risk factors for superficial wounds in patients receiving ADM., Conclusions: ADM use in immediate breast reconstruction increased significantly from 2015 to 2020, likely reflecting national trends in increasing direct-to-implant and prepectoral breast reconstruction. Obesity, smoking history, and insulin-dependent diabetes were independent risk factors for superficial wound infections in the ADM cohort. Patients with ADM had a slight increased incidence of return to the operating room., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Risk, II., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Capsular contracture is a known complication of breast augmentation and is among the top reasons for revisional breast augmentation procedures. The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has been shown to reduce the rate of capsular contracture in breast reconstruction and augmentation, theorizing that it acts as a protective barrier between the implant capsule and inflammatory process responsible for capsular contracture. The role of ADM in treatment of capsular contracture has been investigated in numerous studies, with a variety of ADMs., Objectives: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of existing literature on the use of ADM for treatment of capsular contracture in aesthetic breast augmentation patients to investigate differences in efficacy of ADM types., Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases were systematically reviewed for articles pertaining to capsular contracture, acellular dermal matrices, and breast augmentation. Number of patients, type of ADM, Baker grade, follow-up time, complication rate, and capsular contracture rate were recorded from identified articles. Data was pooled from studies to calculate a capsular contracture rate for each ADM type, with a chi-squared test performed for analysis. Identified studies with a comparative group were included in a meta-analysis utilizing risk ratio (RR) to assess the efficacy of ADM., Results: Nine articles including ADM for treatment of capsular contracture in breast augmentation met criteria for inclusion, with a total of 481 breasts. Strattice was the most commonly utilized ADM (n = 391), followed by AlloDerm (n = 57). There was a statistically significant difference in efficacy of ADM among the studied ADM types (P < .001). AlloDerm, FlexHD, and DermaMatrix had the lowest capsular contracture rates (0%). NeoForm and SurgiMend had the highest capsular contracture rates (each 25%, but with n = 4 and n = 8, respectively). Strattice had a capsular contracture rate of 1.53% in the pooled data, and meta-analysis showed that Strattice reduced the risk of capsular contracture (RR 0.14 [95% CI 0.06, 0.31]) compared with conventional treatment., Conclusions: Acellular dermal matrices appear to be effective at treating capsular contracture after breast augmentation while maintaining a low complication rate. Overall capsular contracture rates are low with the use of ADM. There is a statistically significant difference in efficacy among ADM types. Meta-analysis shows that Strattice is effective at reducing the risk of capsular contracture in breast augmentation patients when compared to conventional treatment. Future research, especially in the form of randomized controlled trials, is needed to further investigate the efficacy of various ADMs in the treatment of capsular contracture., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) represents a safe, fast, and successful option in breast reconstruction in a selected cohort of patients. Nowadays, this procedure is considered challenging in thin. Meanwhile, his cohort has not been accurately analyzed yet., Methods: A single institution retrospective cohort study was performed between January 2019 and March 2023 in all women who underwent mastectomy. Biometrical and clinical data were recorded. Also, surgical technique, operating room (OR) time, mastectomy weights, implant choice, and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) types were properly noted. Postoperative complications represented the main topic: these were classified into early and late ones based on onset time. At least 12-month follow-up was required. A comparison between thin and ideal body mass index (BMI) populations was performed., Results: Early complications did not seem to differ between the 2 groups with 37.8% and 38.9% of women having at least 1 early complication in thin and ideal-weight women, respectively (P = .919). In univariable regression analysis, compared with women with a BMI of 22.1 to 25.0, women with a BMI ≤ 22.0 were associated with an increased risk of late complications of 2.84 (1.13-7.14). Specifically, thin women appeared to have a 3-fold increased risk (OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.08-8.18) of ripples/wrinkles compared with women with ideal weight., Conclusions: Prepectoral reconstruction with ADM in thin patients may be considered as safe as in standard BMI patients. Rippling may be more frequent, but, whenever needed, easy to correct with a few sessions of lipo-grafts., Level of Evidence: III., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose. All authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or nonfinancial interest (such as personal or professional relationship, affiliation, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Although there are many acellular dermal matrix (ADM) products, the sterilization process varies for each product. We compared the clinical outcomes of immediate prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction with and without sterilization products., Methods: This was a retrospective study of immediate prepectoral DTI breast reconstructions performed between 2018 and 2020. We classified patients depending on whether the used ADM products had undergone radiation sterilization and compared the patient demographics and surgical outcomes, including seroma, infection, mastectomy flap necrosis, capsular contracture, and implant failure., Results: The study included 357 patients, 182 in the no-sterilization group and 179 in the sterilization group. The ADM size differed significantly between the no-sterilization and sterilization groups (122.7 cm 2 vs. 145.4 cm 2 , respectively, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in overall rates of complications between the two groups, including seroma (P = 0.28), infection (P = 0.63), mastectomy flap necrosis (P = 0.76), and capsular contracture (P = 0.76). However, implant failure from infection (0% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.01) and drainage amount (690.3 mL vs. 779.36 mL, P = 0.04) with similar removal days were significantly higher in the sterilization group., Conclusion: The authors demonstrated similar complication rates for seroma, infection, mastectomy flap necrosis, and capsular contracture. Whereas a bigger size of ADM was needed to cover a similar implant volume, and drain amount was higher in the sterilization group, the salvage rate from infection was higher in the no-sterilization group with a significant difference., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflict of interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Many deformities occur after subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Today, immediate prepectoral reconstruction with implants shows a significant increase in popularity because it has many advantages over subpectoral positioning: absence of muscle deficit and breast animation deformity, reduced implant dislocation, and less postoperative pain and easy recovery. Implant pocket conversion from the submuscular to prepectoral plane has become our preferred strategy for solving most problems related to the submuscular implant position. The authors performed a retrospective review (from June 2018 to December 2022) of patients who underwent prepectoral implant conversion for correction of animation deformity, dysfunctional chronic pain, or to ameliorate poor cosmetic results. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) was utilized in the first 7 cases; in the remaining 56 patients polyurethane-covered implants were placed. Resolution of animation deformity and chronic pain were evaluated, as were cosmetic results and any postoperative complications. Sixty-three patients (87 breasts) underwent prepectoral implant conversion with complete resolution of animation deformity and chronic pain as well as improved cosmetic results. Preventive lipofilling was done in 18 patients. Complication rate included 3 periprosthetic seromas in ADM group. All resolved after ultrasound-guided aspiration. Rippling was noted in 3 patients, and edge visibility was documented in 1 patient. There were no incidences of grade 3 or 4 capsular contracture. The prepectoral implant conversion improves functional and aesthetic results, reaching excellent outcomes. Preparation for this surgery with fat grafting is considered a complementary procedure that increases the indications for prepectoral implant conversion., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently utilized in prepectoral breast reconstruction, but few studies have examined the role of ADM type in complication risk., Objectives: This study was performed to determine the impact of ADM type on early complication rates in 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction., Methods: We performed a cohort examination of all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction with ADM support at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2018 to 2021. ADM types utilized included AlloDerm (LifeCell Corporation, Branchburg, NJ), FlexHD (MTF Biologics, Edison, NJ), and SurgiMend (Integra LifeSciences Corporation, Princeton, NJ). Complication rates based on the number of tissue expanders (TEs) were determined for each ADM type. Performance of multivariate logistic regression determined the impact of ADM type on complication risk after accounting for confounders., Results: Overall, 726 patients (1054 TEs: 194 AlloDerm, 93 FlexHD, 767 SurgiMend) were included. The 3 cohorts differed in terms of mastectomy type (nipple-sparing: 23.5% of AlloDerm, 33.3% of FlexHD, 19.1% of SurgiMend, P = .038); ADM perforation (perforated: 94.8% of AlloDerm, 98.2% of FlexHD, 100% of SurgiMend, P < .001); and ADM size (AlloDerm: 153.2 cm2 [37.6], SurgiMend: 198.7 cm2 [10.4], FlexHD: 223.7 cm2 [37.9], P < .001). On univariate examination, no differences existed between ADM types for seroma, infection, exposure, malposition, or TE loss. Additionally, after adjustment for confounders with multivariate regression, no ADM type had higher odds of TE loss., Conclusions: In this large cohort of prepectoral reconstruction patients, ADM type did not significantly affect the risk of complications. Additional prospective studies are warranted to better evaluate ADM choice for prepectoral breast reconstruction., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest K.B. serves as a consultant (advisory board member) for AbVie (previously Allergan), which manufactures Alloderm and Artia. No funds were received for this study. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Since 2001, acellular dermal matrices have been increasingly used in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) because they allow for the placement of the ideal-sized definitive implant in one step. They are used in both retropectoral and prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstructions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of dermal matrices on the quality of life and on complications., Materials and Methods: Two surveys were used to evaluate the quality of life: the BREAST-Q V2.0© and the QuickDASH. The surveys were sent to all patients who had an immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction at a University Hospital Center from 2010 to 2020. A case-control study was performed for comparison of responses between the "Matrix+" and "Matrix-" groups., Results: Seventeen IBR with matrix (23.6%) and 55 IBR without matrix (76.4%) were analyzed. Patients in the "Matrix+" group had a better quality of life in terms of sexual well-being (p = 0.038) and a significantly lower QuickDASH (p < 0.01). They had better breast satisfaction (p = 0.016) and better implant satisfaction (p < 0.01). The likelihood of encountering major complications later in time was more important in the group with matrix (p = 0.04)., Conclusion: We found a satisfactory quality of life with scores of sexual well-being and satisfaction with the breast and the implants, and a better satisfaction with care thanks to the use of the matrices. However, due to a higher number of major late complications and a lack of follow-up, we believe that immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction with matrix should be discussed according to the comorbidities, medical treatments, and the vitality of the skin flaps of each patient., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Animal-derived acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are increasingly being used in prepectoral direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction. However, the indications and complication profile associated with this type of reconstruction remain unclear. This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the available literature on the use of animal-derived ADM in prepectoral DTI breast reconstruction., Methods: Three different literature databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Embase were screened using the following keywords: "immediate" AND "pre-pectoral" OR "prepectoral" AND "ADM breast reconstruction." Animal-derived ADM used (porcine - Braxon® and non-Braxon® - and bovine - Surgimend®) anthropometric information, clinical data, and complications profile were considered., Results: A total of 340 articles were initially identified, of which only 45 articles (5089 patients and 6598 reconstructed breasts) satisfied our inclusion criteria. The most widely used ADM was Braxon® in the context of conservative mastectomies. In most studies, a subcutaneous layer > 1 cm and lack of previous radiotherapy were considered prerequisites for this type of reconstruction. An increased risk of complications was found in smokers, patients who underwent radiation treatment, patients with high breast volumes, and patients with cancers requiring axillary dissection. Data related to the role of diabetes, high body mass index, and breast implant size on surgical outcomes were instead inconcludent. Age was not directly proportional to the complications., Conclusion: The complications associated with different animal-derived ADMs are generally comparable. The profile of patients required for eligibility for this type of reconstruction appears to have been identified and is in line with current recommendations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a paucity of evidence comparing the safety of prepectoral and partial subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADM). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the postoperative complications of the two approaches., Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The rates of the complications were, respectively, pooled, and relative risk (RR) was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the incidence between the two cohorts., Results: Ten articles reporting on 2667 breast reconstructions were eligible. The hematoma rate was lower in the prepectoral group (RR  =  0.590, 95% CI 0.351-0.992). No significant difference was observed in terms of seroma (RR = 1.079, 95% CI 0.489-2.381), skin flap necrosis (RR = 0.936, 95% CI 0.587-1.493), infection (RR = 0.985, 95% CI 0.706-1.375), tissue expander/implant explantation (RR  =  0.741, 95% CI 0.506-1.085), wound dehiscence (RR = 1.272, 95% CI 0.605-2.673), capsular contracture (RR = 0.939, 95% CI 0.678-1.300) and rippling (RR = 2.485, 95% CI 0.986-6.261). The RR of animation deformity for the prepectoral group compared with the subpectoral group was 0.040 (95% CI, 0.002-0.853)., Conclusions: This systematic review suggested that with appropriate patient selection, prepectoral breast reconstruction could avoid animation deformity without incurring higher risk of early wound complications, capsular contracture or rippling than partial subpectoral breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should complete a comprehensive assessment of the patients before choosing appropriate surgical approaches in clinical practice., Level of Evidence Iii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 ., (© 2023. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.)

Background: Over half of immediate implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBR) are performed with an acellular dermal matrix, despite limited long-term outcome data., Methods: The Breast Reconstruction Outcomes with and without Strattice, or BROWSE, study was a retrospective multicenter cohort study comparing consecutive patients who had undergone immediate Strattice IBBR with those who had undergone immediate IBBR with a submuscular technique between January of 2009 and December of 2015., Results: This study compared 553 Strattice reconstructions with 242 submuscular reconstructions, with a median follow-up of 4.3 years (range, 2 to 9.3 years) and 5.7 years (range, 2 to 8.1 years), respectively, demonstrating an equivalent total complication rate [Strattice, n = 204 (36.9%); submuscular, n = 77 (31.8%); P = 0.17] and implant loss rate (8.5% versus 5.4%, respectively; P = 0.12). Infection rates and wound dehiscence rates were higher in the Strattice cohort [ n = 114 (20.6%) versus n = 31 (12.8%), P = 0.009; and n = 90 (16.3%) versus n = 25 (10.4%), P = 0.03, respectively]. Overall revision rates were comparable [ n = 226 (46.7%) versus n = 79 (41.1%); P = 0.2], but significantly fewer Strattice reconstructions required revision surgery for capsular contracture (5.3% versus 15.6%; P < 0.001)., Conclusion: Although the risk of complications associated with Strattice reconstruction is numerically higher than that for submuscular coverage, the difference is small and not statistically significant, and likely outweighed by the clear reduced rate of revision surgery because of capsular contracture when Strattice is used., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have shown promise for use in reconstructive breast surgery as they improve aesthetic outcomes and decrease capsular contracture rates. However, concerns about their use remain because of the higher cost and complication profile. We report a single institution's implant-based-reconstruction (IBR) experience between 2007 and 2021, including cases performed by 51 plastic surgeons. For each stage of IBR, data on age, comorbidities, type of mesh used, and acute complications were collected. Of 1379 patients who underwent subpectoral IBR, 937 received an ADM or synthetic mesh as part of their reconstruction. 256 patients out of 264 treated with prepectoral IBR received an ADM or mesh. Infection and wound dehiscence rates were highest for patients who underwent prepectoral IBR with ADM. Both subpectoral and prepectoral IBR with ADM were associated with higher rates of infection and wound complications compared to without ADM or mesh, but only the difference among the subpectoral cohort reached statistical significance. Prepectoral IBR with ADM or mesh had the lowest rates of capsular contracture and aesthetic reoperations. Although the use of Vicryl® mesh in subpectoral IBR was associated with a higher risk of capsular contracture and skin flap necrosis compared to reconstruction with ADMs (10.53% versus 3.29%; p < 0.05), Vicryl® was associated with fewer aesthetic revisions. Our study demonstrated that prepectoral IBR with ADM or mesh resulted in the fewest aesthetic reoperations and the lowest rates of capsular contracture. Infection and wound dehiscence rates were notably higher for patients who had reconstruction with ADM., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None., (Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although implant-based breast reconstruction is a common surgical modality, a periprosthetic capsule inevitably forms and worsens in cases of postmastectomy radiation therapy. Previous animal studies have reported that antiadhesive agents (AAAs) inhibit periprosthetic capsule formation. The authors prospectively examined the clinical effects of an AAA (Mediclore) on capsule formation in implant-based breast reconstruction., Methods: The authors analyzed patients who underwent immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction following total mastectomy for breast malignancy between November of 2018 and March of 2019. Each patient was randomly allocated to the control or AAA group. After inserting the breast expander and acellular dermal matrix, AAA was applied around the expander before skin closure. The capsule specimen was obtained during the expander-implant change; capsule thickness and immunohistochemistry were investigated., Results: A total of 48 patients were enrolled and allocated to the control ( n = 22) and AAA ( n = 26) groups. There were no significant differences in patient- and operation-related characteristics. Submuscular capsule thickness was significantly reduced in the AAA group compared with the control group. The levels of pro-capsular-forming cells (myofibroblasts, fibroblasts, and M1 macrophages) in the capsule were significantly lower in the AAA group than in the control group., Conclusions: AAA reduced the thickness of periprosthetic capsules and changed the profiles of cells involved in capsule formation during the tissue expansion. These findings demonstrate the clinical value of AAA for mitigating capsule formation in implant-based breast reconstruction., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, II., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Implant-related breast reconstruction can be divided into subpectoral breast reconstruction (SPBR) and prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) according to the different anatomical planes. The previous stereotype was that PPBR had a high complication rate and was not suitable for clinical use. However, with the emergence of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), the clinical effect of PPBR has been improved. To compare the outcomes difference between SPBR and PPBR, We conducted this meta-analysis. Articles on SPBR versus PPBR were searched in PubMed, Web of Sciences, Embase, and Cochrane databases, strictly following the PRISMA guidelines. According to the set criteria, we included the literature that met the requirements. Extracted data were the incidence of adverse events and the duration of drainage. Results show that SPBR has a higher incidence rate in capsular contracture, animation deformity, infection, hematoma and delayed healing wound than PPBR. There are no significant differences in skin flap necrosis, seroma, implant loss, reoperation and duration of drainage between the two groups. Hence, PPBR is no longer a high complication surgical method and can be used in the clinical practice. However, there are few large sample studies at present, so it is necessary to carry out further studies on PPBR.

Background: The Breast Reconstruction Evaluation of Acellular Dermal Matrix as a Sling Trial (BREASTrial) is a blinded, randomized trial comparing the outcomes of tissue expander breast reconstruction using AlloDerm or DermaMatrix. In this final stage of the trial, outcomes 3 months to 2 years after definitive reconstruction are reported along with patient satisfaction data., Methods: A randomized trial was conducted to compare complication rates between groups of patients who underwent reconstruction with AlloDerm and DermaMatrix. Regression models were used to analyze the impact of matrix type, age, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and reconstructive type on complication rates. Premastectomy and postmastectomy questionnaires were used to assess patient satisfaction and were also analyzed using regression models., Results: Of the 128 patients (199 breasts) who were randomized in the trial, 108 patients (167 breasts) were available for analysis in stage III. There was no difference in the overall complication rates between the AlloDerm and DermaMatrix groups (6% versus 13.2%; P = 0.3) or the severity of those complications ( P = 0.7). Obesity was a positive predictor for complications, regardless of reconstruction group ( P = 0.02). Patient satisfaction was positive overall and did not grossly vary between AlloDerm and DermaMatrix groups., Conclusions: Findings from the BREASTrial conclude that AlloDerm and DermaMatrix exhibit similar histologic and clinical outcomes. Patient satisfaction is also similar between matrices. Obesity is a predictor of complications, and acellular dermal matrices should be used with caution in these patients. As the largest head-to-head trial comparing two acellular dermal matrices, the BREASTrial contributes to the fund of knowledge regarding acellular dermal matrix supplementation in breast reconstruction., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, II., Competing Interests: Disclosure : The BREASTrial is an investigator-initiated study funded by grants from the University of Utah, Lifecell, Synthes, and the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation to Author Dr. Agarwal. Dr. Mendenhall is an educational consultant for PolyNovo and receives research funding from CoNextions Medical. No funding was received for this article. The remaining authors have no other financial conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this study ., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Summary: As a biologic product derived from human tissue, acellular dermal matrices did not require premarket approval for their initial use as a soft-tissue support product. Since their first use in breast surgery, acellular dermal matrices have allowed for numerous advances in breast reconstruction. They quickly gained popularity in breast surgery and are used frequently in various applications. During an investigation into potential factors leading to breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration made an official statement that acellular dermal matrices were not approved for use in breast reconstruction and that using them in breast surgery was considered off-label. This special topic article details the history of acellular dermal matrices in breast surgery and describes the ongoing evolution of the relationship between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and acellular dermal matrices., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Purpose: The use of acellular dermal matrix changed the breast reconstruction algorithm facilitating implant coverage and direct to implant technique. This study aims to evaluate the effect of the ADM surgical complications, breast aesthetics, and patient satisfaction., Methods: In a tertiary hospital, patients that underwent implant-based breast reconstructions during a three-year period had their charts retrospectively reviewed, received post-operative BreastQ, and had their post-operative photos evaluated by a three-member panel using a multi-parameter breast specific scale (scored 1-5). The complication information was analysed per reconstructed breast while the analysis of aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes was done per patient., Results: A total of 501 patients (990 breasts) were evaluated. In the complication analysis group, 20.3% of the breasts had ADM. Overall complications and major complications were more frequent in the ADM group. During the first 30 postoperative days the most frequent complications were: skin necrosis/delayed wound healing and haematoma, after 30 days was infection, and complications after 1 year being less than 1%. On the outcome analysis group, ADM was used in 21.5% patients, 44% had post-operative photos, and 29% answered the BreastQ. Factors associated with higher appearance score were bilateral reconstruction, prophylactic surgery, and nipple presence. ADM demonstrated no difference in satisfaction with breasts., Conclusion: In implant-based breast reconstructions ADM has been shown to increase rate of complications. The use of acellular dermal matrix did not influence the overall appearance or the patient-reported outcome. A good aesthetic outcome is positively influenced by bilateral reconstructions with preservation of the nipple., (Copyright © 2022 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is gaining in popularity. Acellular dermal matrices are an integral part of prepectoral reconstruction. However, large quantities of acellular dermal matrix are required for total implant coverage, and the cost of acellular dermal matrices could be a deterrent to reconstruction. To minimize the cost, the authors have resorted to the use of a bioabsorbable mesh, GalaFLEX, as a partial replacement to acellular dermal matrices. This study evaluates the comparative safety of using a GalaFLEX-AlloDerm construct versus AlloDerm alone in prepectoral reconstruction., Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent immediate, expander-implant, prepectoral breast reconstruction were included in this retrospective study. Patients were stratified into two groups: those who received the GalaFLEX-AlloDerm combination versus AlloDerm alone. In GalaFLEX-AlloDerm reconstructions, the lower third of the expander was covered by the AlloDerm, whereas the rest of the expander was covered by GalaFLEX. Complications following reconstruction were compared between the groups., Results: AlloDerm alone was used in 128 patients (249 breasts) and GalaFLEX-AlloDerm was used in 135 patients (250 breasts). The rate of any complication was 7.6 percent in the AlloDerm-alone group and 6.4 percent in the GalaFLEX-AlloDerm group. The rate of infection, major skin necrosis, seroma, capsular contracture, prosthesis exposure/extrusion, and prosthesis loss were less than or equal to 3.0 percent in the GalaFLEX-AlloDerm group and did not differ significantly from those in the AlloDerm-only group., Conclusions: GalaFLEX bioabsorbable matrix is a less costly alternative to acellular dermal matrices in two-stage, prepectoral reconstruction with comparable safety outcomes. Further long-term data and clinical experience are needed to better understand the safety of this matrix for use in breast reconstruction., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Capsular contracture (CC) represents one of the most common complications in breast reconstruction surgery, impairing final result and patients' well-being. The role of acellular dermal matrixes (ADM) has been widely described for the treatment and prevention of contracture. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of complete implant coverage with porcine-derived ADM in preventing CC limiting complications. In addition, patients' reported outcomes were evaluated in order to define the role of ADM in improving sexual, physical and psychosocial well-being and satisfaction., Methods: 42 patients who underwent surgical treatment of 46 contracted reconstructed breasts from May 2018th to May 2019th were collected in the two groups (ADM group vs. Control group)., Results: The ADM group showed lower rate of CC recurrence and a higher rate of implant losses and minor complications. A significant difference was observed in red breast syndrome (27.3% in the ADM group vs. absent in control the group) and skin ulceration rates (18.2% in the ADM group vs. 4.18% in the control group). As for patients' perceived outcomes, the ADM group showed a statistically significant higher postoperative Satisfaction of Breast Scale score compared to the control group. In addition, a significant difference was observed in the improvement of Physical Well-Being of the Chest Scale and the Satisfaction of Breast Scale after surgery, in favor to the ADM group., Conclusion: Complete implant coverage with ADM may reduce the risk of CC recurrence in breast reconstruction. An accurate patient selection allows minimizing complications improving patient well-being and satisfaction., Level of Evidence Iv: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PIBR) has regained popularity, despite decades-long preference for subpectoral implant placement. This paper aims to compare patient-reported outcomes (PRO) between prepectoral and subpectoral approaches to implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The primary PRO was with the BREAST-Q, and postoperative pain scores, while the secondary outcomes were complication rates., Methods: A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed library was performed. All studies on patients undergoing IBBR after mastectomy that compared prepectoral to subpectoral placement and PROM or postoperative pain were included., Results: A total of 3789 unique studies of which 7 publications with 216 and 332 patients who received prepectoral and subpectoral implants, respectively, were included for meta-analysis. Patients with prepectoral implant placement had significantly higher satisfaction with the outcome (p = 0.03) and psychosocial well-being (p = 0.03) module scores. The pain was lower in patients with prepectoral implants on postoperative day 1 (p<0.01) and day 7 (p<0.01). The subgroup analysis of prepectoral breast implants showed that complete acellular dermal matrix coverage had lower rates of wound dehiscence (p<0.0001), but there were no significant differences in complications between one-stage and two-stage procedures., Conclusion: Overall, patients with prepectoral implants reported higher BREAST-Q scores and lower postoperative pain and lower complications rates than patients with subpectoral implants. In appropriately selected patients, prepectoral implant placement with ADM coverage, be it the primary placement of an implant or placement of a tissue expander before definitive implant placement, should be the modality of choice in patients who choose IBBR. Further research should focus on patient selection, strategies to reduce cost and cost-benefit analysis of PIBR., (Copyright © 2022 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Summary: When first described for breast reconstruction, the presence of acellular dermal matrices was associated with increased seroma formation and infection. However, clinical safety data have gradually improved with surgeon experience to an acceptable outcomes profile of acellular dermal matrix-assisted reconstruction when compared to submuscular implant coverage. In fact, acellular dermal matrix use potentially decreases capsular contracture rates and facilitates expansion for staged prepectoral breast reconstruction. Because of new regulatory requirements, the collection of unbiased, well-powered premarket approval data summarizing long-term clinical outcomes will be essential over the coming years to understand the clinical performance of acellular dermal matrix use in breast reconstruction. Currently, the authors can highlight the physiologic benefits of acellular dermal matrix use in breast reconstruction by evaluating the components of surgical wound healing that are favorably augmented by the implanted collagen substrate. Acellular dermal matrix takes advantage of the wound healing cascade to incorporate into the patient's tissues-a process that requires a coordinated inflammatory infiltrate and angiogenesis. The presence of acellular dermal matrix augments and modulates the wound healing process to its advantage by simultaneously increasing the invasion of appropriate cellular constituents to facilitate expeditious healing and accelerate angiogenesis. In this article, the authors summarize the wound healing literature to demonstrate the mechanisms acellular dermal matrices use to biointegrate and the literature in which cellular constituents and soluble growth factors are up-regulated in the presence of acellular dermal matrix. Lastly, the authors use their experimental observations of acellular dermal matrix incorporation to corroborate the literature., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Implant-based reconstruction is the most common procedure for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Acellular dermal matrix is used to provide additional coverage in subpectoral and prepectoral implant placement. In this study, the authors compared postoperative outcomes between AlloDerm (LifeCell, Branchburg, N.J.) and DermACELL (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Mich.), two acellular dermal matrix brands., Methods: A retrospective review of implant-based breast reconstruction from 2016 to 2020 was conducted. Patient demographics and comorbidities, implant size and location, acellular dermal matrix choice, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Primary outcomes assessed were seroma and infection compared between two acellular dermal matrix brands. Independent clinical parameters were assessed with multiple logistic regression models for the primary outcomes., Results: Reconstruction was performed in 150 patients (241 breasts). Eighty-eight patients underwent expander placement with AlloDerm and 62 patients with DermACELL. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. There was a significantly higher incidence of seroma in the AlloDerm group in univariate (AlloDerm 21.7 percent versus DermACELL 8.2 percent, p < 0.005) and multivariate analyses ( p = 0.04; 95 percent CI, 1.02 to 6.07). Acellular dermal matrix use (regardless of type) was not associated with higher rates of infection ( p = 0.99), but body mass index was ( p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Both AlloDerm and DermACELL had similar infection rates regardless of contributing risk factors. AlloDerm was found to be a risk factor for seroma formation in the postoperative period. As such, it is important to be aware of this complication when performing implant-based reconstruction with this brand of acellular dermal matrix., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction has become an alternative to staged subpectoral expander-based reconstruction. Although the surgical safety of this technique has been shown, aesthetic limitations have not been well-described. This article reports aesthetic limitations and elucidates risk factors that may predispose patients toward developing unfavorable outcomes following direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction., Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed, identifying patients who underwent prepectoral, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction from June of 2016 to June of 2019. Aesthetic limitations assessed included capsular contracture, rippling, implant malposition, and implant flipping., Results: Two hundred twenty-four consecutive women representing 334 breasts underwent immediate reconstruction performed by a single plastic surgeon. A midlateral incision was used in 185 breasts (55.4 percent) and the Wise pattern in 95 breasts (28.8 percent). The mean follow-up time was 30.5 months (45.3 to 18.3 months). Significant capsular contracture (grade 3 to 4) was noted in 27 breasts (8.1 percent), implant flipping in four breasts (1.2 percent), implant displacement in five breasts (1.5 percent), major rippling in nine breasts (2.7 percent), and minor rippling in 17 breasts (5.1 percent). The use of acellular dermal matrix had no significant effect on the aesthetic outcomes. In comparing breasts with postmastectomy radiation, there was a significant difference in the presence of minor rippling and capsular contracture ( p < 0.05)., Conclusions: This cohort represents the largest, single-surgeon, direct-to-implant prepectoral database in the literature. This report shows that aesthetic limitations were comparable to those seen with other forms of reconstruction. Complications did not differ in terms of acellular dermal matrix use. Certain factors can predispose patients to developing unfavorable aesthetic outcomes., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, IV., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Since the issue of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, smooth breast implants tend to be the more preferred option in implant-based breast reconstructions, compared to its use previously. The most unfavorable aspect of smooth implants is lateral and inferior displacements, which are more common in patients who undergo breast reconstruction compared to augmentation mammoplasty. Hence, we introduce a prevention method for implant displacement using an acellular dermal matrix garter belt., Methods: This study is a retrospective review of patients who had undergone implant-based breast reconstruction between April 2019 and December 2020. Some patients who have highly possibility of implant displacement, had undergone the application of an ADM garter belt to prevent lateral or superior displacement. Implant displacement was assessed before and at least 6 months postoperatively., Results: A total of 155 IBR cases were recorded. ADM garter belts were applied in 27 patients (17.4%) who had a high tendency of implant displacement for several reasons, which could be classified into two categories: wide breast pocket (56%) and tight inferomedial breast pocket (44%). The intraoperative average distance of lateral slipping on patients' reconstructed breasts from the chest wall midline in supine position was 3.02 ± 0.81 cm and corrected to1.54 ± 0.69 cm at least 6 months postoperative follow-up., Conclusions: We utilized an ADM strap as an internalized garter belt to minimize implant displacement. This ADM garter belt combined with capsuloplasty might be an effective way to prevent the displacement of smooth implants in the patients with a greater risk of implant displacement., Level of Evidence Iv: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors   www.springer.com/00266., (© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.)

Introduction: Breast reconstruction (BR) using a prosthesis implant (PI) associated with an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a known method that has been the subject of discussion in recent years. The objective of this study was to quantify the rate of PI removal after BR using prosthesis combined with ADM, and to identify the risk factors in the event of removal., Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted between 2010 and 2015. Inclusion criteria were patients who had undergone immediate (IBR) or delayed (DBR) breast reconstruction with placement of a PI associated with porcine ADM. The primary endpoint was the postoperative removal of the PI., Results: In all, 84 reconstructions were performed. The mean age of the population was 57.5 years. 25.9% of the patients were active smokers at the time of surgery. 89.5% of patients had previously benefited from ipsilateral breast radiation therapy (IBRT) in DBR, 10.5% in IBR. The PI deposition rate, all BR combined, was 21.4%. It was 52.17% in smokers and 9.84% in non-smokers (P<0.0001), making smoking an independent risk factor for reconstruction failure (hazard ratio (HR)=7.4, 95%CI [2.64-20.9]). IBRT was also a risk factor for PI removal, especially when performed after IBR (HR=8.1, 95%CI [1.1-62.1])., Conclusion: Smoking and adjuvant IBRT are risk factors for failure of reconstruction by PI associated with ADM. This type of reconstruction should be selected for non-smokers who have not undergone IBRT and therefore could be a therapeutic alternative in the BR panel., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Complications of implant-based reconstruction have been shown to be related to increasing body mass index (BMI) and breast size. The impact of skin reducing mastectomy (SRM) with a dermal flap is examined., Methods: A retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience with immediate submuscular tissue expander (TE) reconstruction from 2011 to 2019 was performed. The outcomes of SRM were compared with those of skin sparing mastectomy (SSM)., Results: A total of 162 patients (292 breasts) were identified. Mastectomy types were as follows: SRM, 73 (136 breasts) and SSM, 89 (156 breasts). Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) was used to supplement TE coverage in 65.4% of SRM cases. Mean BMI was 29.2 among SRM patients and 25.9 in SSM patients (P < 0.001). Obesity (BMI ≥ 30) was more prevalent in the SRM group (SRM, 38.4% vs SSM, 22.5%; P = 0.03). Mean mastectomy weight was higher in the SRM group (SRM, 833.6 g vs SSM, 425.6 g; P < 0.001). Mean BMI and mastectomy weight were lower in SRM patients who were reconstructed with ADM (ADM, 28.1 vs no ADM, 30.8; P = 0.01; ADM, 746.1 g vs no ADM, 1006.3 g; P < 0.001). Minor complications were more prevalent in the SRM group (SRM, 22.8% vs SSM, 4.5%; P < 0.001). Mastectomy skin flap necrosis (MSFN) was more common in the SRM group (SRM, 22.8% vs SSM, 7.7%; P < 0.001), but MSFN necessitating operative debridement was similarly low in both groups (SRM: 1.9% vs SSM: 4.5%). Major complication rates (SRM 11.0% vs SSM 10.9%) and reconstructive failure rates (SRM 5.9% vs SSM 5.1%) were similar between groups. Mastectomy weight 800 g or higher and BMI of 30 or higher were found to be risk factors for complications on analysis of the SRM cohort (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: Mastectomy weight and BMI were positive predictors of complications after immediate TE reconstruction. Mastectomy skin flap necrosis is more common after SRM than SSM. The use of SRM with a dermal flap has a similar major complication rate as SSM despite its use in obese, large-breasted women. The dermal flap provides soft tissue coverage, which prevents implant exposure and seroma. The use of ADM does not adversely affect the complication rate of SRM., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Increasing amounts of acellular dermal matrix are being used with the adoption of prepectoral breast reconstruction. Postoperative infection remains a challenge in breast reconstruction, and the contribution of acellular dermal matrix type, processing, and sterility assurance level to risk of complications in prepectoral reconstruction is not well studied., Methods: The authors performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction from February of 2017 to July of 2020. Because of an increase in the rate of infection, the drain protocol was changed and acellular dermal matrix type was switched from AlloDerm (sterility assurance level, 10-3) to DermACELL (sterility assurance level, 10-6) in January of 2019. Demographic and surgical variables were collected, in addition to details regarding development and management of infection., Results: Despite higher rates of direct-to-implant reconstruction and bilateral procedures and increased implant volumes, the rate of infection was significantly lower in patients who received DermACELL instead of AlloDerm [two of 38 (5.3 percent) versus 11 of 41 (26.8 percent); p = 0.014]. Drain duration was slightly longer in the DermACELL group, consistent with the change in drain protocol. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics remained similar between the two groups., Conclusions: With increased reliance on large amounts of acellular dermal matrix for prepectoral breast reconstruction, it directly follows that the properties of acellular dermal matrix with respect to incorporation, sterility, and implant support are that much more important to consider. There have been few studies comparing different types of acellular dermal matrix in prepectoral breast reconstruction, and further research is required to determine the contribution of acellular dermal matrix type and processing techniques to development of postoperative infection., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Purpose: The acellular dermal matrix plays an important role in reinforcing thin mastectomy skin and repositioning the implant in prosthetic breast reconstruction. As the concept of prepectoral plane has become widespread, the role of the acellular dermal matrix has become increasingly important. However, evidences and standards for appropriate thickness and direction during placement remain insufficient. This study is aimed at testing the assumption that differences in the acellular dermal matrix thickness and orientation during placement may affect surgical outcomes including the incidence of postoperative complications., Methods: This was a retrospective single-centered analysis of 43 patients (50 breasts) who underwent implant-based reconstruction with MegaDerm® (L&C Bio, Seoul, Korea) and 23 patients (23 breasts) who underwent implant-based reconstruction with DermACELL® (LifeNet Health, Virginia Beach, VA, USA), two types of human-derived acellular dermal matrix. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon. Demographic variables, surgery-related factors, and complications were compared between a thick matrix group (1.5-2.3 mm) and a thin matrix group (1.0-1.5 mm). The same processes were performed in the nonreverse and reverse matrix insertion groups., Results: Baseline demographics and surgery-related data were summarized according to matrix thickness and direction. There were no significant intergroup differences in the demographic variables such as history of smoking, radiation, or chemotherapy. The mean drain volume was significantly higher in the thick matrix group than that in the thin matrix group ( p = 0.0445). However, there were no significant differences in overall complication rates by matrix thickness ( p = 0.3139). Additionally, there were no significant differences in complications between the nonreverse and reverse matrix insertion groups ( p = 0.538)., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that patients with a thick acellular dermal matrix need a prolonged period for engraftment. However, the thickness did not directly affect the surgical outcomes between the thick and thin matrix groups. Likewise, the orientation in which the acellular dermal matrix was inserted did not affect the surgical outcomes including postoperative complications., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Joon Hur and Hyun Ho Han.)