Outcomes of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with Braxon® acellular dermal matrix—a single-centre experience
- 60 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsBreast reconstruction Acellular dermal matrix Implant-based reconstruction
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Patients provided written consent for the use of their images.
The study has no source of funding.
- 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
- 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
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 17.Browne J, Pereira J, Caddy C, Sheppard C, Nurse BC. British association of plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic SurgeonsGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.Boswell EN, Dizon DS (2015) Breast cancer and sexual function. Transl Androl Urol 4(2):160–168Google Scholar