Advertisement

European Journal of Plastic Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 431–438 | Cite as

Outcomes of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with Braxon® acellular dermal matrix—a single-centre experience

  • Mihir Chandarana
  • Soni SoumianEmail author
  • Sadaf Jafferbhoy
  • Sekhar Marla
  • Sankaran Narayanan
Original Paper
  • 60 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Single-stage direct-to-implant reconstruction is the most common method of reconstruction in the UK after a mastectomy. Prepectoral implant placement with full implant coverage using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is a relatively new technique. We report on long-term outcomes of prepectoral immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) using Braxon® ADM from a single institution.

Methods

All patients operated for a mastectomy with IBR using Braxon® from January 2016 to March 2018 were included in the study. The demographic details, treatment details and short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Factors affecting complication rates were analysed. Patient-reported outcome measures were studied using BREAST-Q questionnaires.

Results

One hundred and sixteen reconstructions performed in 98 patients were included in the study. The median age was 50 years with a mean body mass index of 27.33 kg/m2. The median follow-up period was 440 days. The implant-related major complication rate was 17%, with an unplanned readmission rate of 22.4% and a return to theatre rate of 21.4%. Early complications were significantly higher in patients with node-positive disease. Delayed complications were seen in nine patients. The implant loss rate was 4.3%. The mean BREAST-Q scores were 78 for satisfaction with treatment and 64 for satisfaction with breast domains. The outcomes were comparable to reported national data.

Conclusions

Prepectoral implant-based reconstruction with Braxon has comparable complication rates with good long-term aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes. Further studies with larger cohort and longer follow-up are needed.

Level of Evidence—Level III, therapeutic study.

Keywords

Breast reconstruction Acellular dermal matrix Implant-based reconstruction 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest statement

Mihir Chandarana, Soni Soumian, Sadaf Jafferbhoy, Sekhar Marla and Sankaran Narayanan declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Patient consent

Patients provided written consent for the use of their images.

Funding source

The study has no source of funding.

References

  1. 1.
    Mennie JC, Mohanna P-N, O’Donoghue JM, Rainsbury R, Cromwell DA (2017) National trends in immediate and delayed post-mastectomy reconstruction procedures in England: a seven-year population-based cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(1):52–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW (2009) Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33(1):44–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O’Connor EA (2015) Treatment of Breast Animation Deformity in Implant-Based Reconstruction with Pocket Change to the Subcutaneous Position. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(6):1540–1544Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nigro LC, Blanchet NP (2017) Animation deformity in postmastectomy implant-based reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5(7):e1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker BG, Irri R, MacCallum V, Chattopadhyay R, Murphy J, Harvey JRA (2018) Prospective comparison of short-term outcomes of subpectoral and prepectoral Strattice-based immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 141(5):1077–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berna G, Cawthorn SJ, Papaccio G, Balestrieri N (2017) Evaluation of a novel breast reconstruction technique using the Braxon® acellular dermal matrix: a new muscle-sparing breast reconstruction. ANZ J Surg 87(6):493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kobraei EM, Cauley R, Gadd M, Austen WG, Liao EC (2016) Avoiding breast animation deformity with pectoralis-sparing subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4(5):e708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Highton L, Johnson R, Kirwan C, Murphy J. Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017;5(9):e1488–e1488. https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/Fulltext/2017/09000/Prepectoral_Implant_Based_Breast_Reconstruction.4.aspx
  9. 9.
    Raghavan V, Jaume M, Simon C, Giorgio B, Fernando B, Alexander G et al (2017) Evaluation of the effectiveness of the prepectoral breast reconstruction with Braxon dermal matrix: first multicenter European report on 100 cases. Breast J 23(6):670–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jafferbhoy S, Chandarana M, Houlihan M, Parmeshwar R, Narayanan S, Soumian S, Harries S, Jones L, Clarke D (2017) Early multicentre experience of pre-pectoral implant based immediate breast reconstruction using Braxon®. Gland Surg 6(6):682–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Casella D, Bernini M, Bencini L, Roselli J, Lacaria MT, Martellucci J, Banfi R, Calabrese C, Orzalesi L (2014) TiLoop® bra mesh used for immediate breast reconstruction: comparison of retropectoral and subcutaneous implant placement in a prospective single-institution series. Eur J Plast Surg 37(11):599–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chandarana MN, Jafferbhoy S, Marla S, Soumian S, Narayanan S (2018) Acellular dermal matrix in implant-based immediate breast reconstructions: a comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral approach. Gland Surg 7(S1):S64–S69. http://gs.amegroups.com/article/view/19053
  13. 13.
    Martin L, O’Donoghue JM, Horgan K, Thrush S, Johnson R, Gandhi A (2013) Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgeons. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) assisted breast reconstruction procedures: joint guidelines from the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgeons. Eur J Surg Oncol 39:425–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spear SL, Baker JL Jr., Caffee HH (1995) Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 96(5):1119–1124. https://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Fulltext/1995/10000/Classification_of_Capsular_Contracture_after.18.aspx
  16. 16.
    Berna G, Cawthorn SJ (2017) Long term follow-up on prepectoral ADM-assisted breast reconstruction: evidences after 4 years. Eur J Plast Surg 40(3):255–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Browne J, Pereira J, Caddy C, Sheppard C, Nurse BC. British association of plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic SurgeonsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    First results from the iBRA study; a national multicentre prospective cohort study of 2230 patients having immediate implant breast reconstruction [Internet]. Available from: https://associationofbreastsurgery.org.uk/events/previous-meetings/2017/abs-conference-2017/. Accessed 30 Sept 2018
  19. 19.
    Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, Hwang BH, Chan LS, Wong AK (2012) A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 68:346–356Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boswell EN, Dizon DS (2015) Breast cancer and sexual function. Transl Androl Urol 4(2):160–168Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Negenborn VL, Dikmans REG, Bouman M-B, Wilschut JA, Mullender MG, Salzberg CA (2018) Patient-reported outcomes after ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction: a cross-sectional study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6(2):e1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sedgwick P (2014) Retrospective cohort studies: advantages and disadvantages. BMJ 348(jan24 1):g1072–g1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mihir Chandarana
    • 1
  • Soni Soumian
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Sadaf Jafferbhoy
    • 2
  • Sekhar Marla
    • 2
  • Sankaran Narayanan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryForth Valley Royal HospitalLarbertUK
  2. 2.Department of Breast SurgeryUniversity Hospitals of North MidlandsStoke-on-TrentUK
  3. 3.Department of General SurgeryUniversity Hospital North Midlands, The Royal Stoke University HospitalStoke on TrentUK

Personalised recommendations