Smooth Versus Textured Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: Complications and Efficacy.
Breast Implantation
/ adverse effects
Breast Implants
/ adverse effects
Breast Neoplasms
/ complications
Female
Humans
Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic
/ epidemiology
Mammaplasty
/ adverse effects
Mastectomy
/ adverse effects
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Retrospective Studies
Tissue Expansion Devices
/ adverse effects
Journal
Annals of plastic surgery
ISSN: 1536-3708
Titre abrégé: Ann Plast Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7805336
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2022
01 05 2022
Historique:
entrez:
5
5
2022
pubmed:
6
5
2022
medline:
10
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ongoing recognition of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and its link with textured devices has brought a paradigm shift in prosthetic-based breast reconstruction. Many institutions no longer offer textured expansion devices for staged reconstruction. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the efficacy of smooth tissue expanders (TE). We hypothesized that the time to final reconstruction and complication profile between smooth and textured TEs would be similar in breast reconstruction patients. A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who underwent TE breast reconstruction during a 6-year period at the Penn State Hershey Medical Center. Rates of complications treated nonoperatively and those requiring reoperation were assessed. Mechanical complications, including expander malposition and rupture, were evaluated. Time to final breast reconstruction was quantified. Mixed-effects logistic regression and linear regression models, as appropriate, were used to compare textured to smooth TEs. Patient characteristics and anatomic plane placement were adjusted for in all analyses of outcomes. Data were collected on 389 patients, encompassing 140 smooth and 604 textured TEs. Textured devices had an increased incidence of complications treated nonsurgically (16.7% vs 10.7%; P = 0.14). However, smooth TEs had an increased incidence of reoperation (12.1% vs 7.6%; P = 0.06). Most noteworthy was that although smooth TEs had a 40-fold increase in malposition (13.6% vs 0.3%; P < 0.001), no reoperation for this complication was warranted. Further, the time to final reconstruction was comparable between the 2 devices (textured expanders: 221 days and smooth expanders: 234 days; P = 0.15). Staged, implant-based reconstruction is the most common surgical approach to recreate the breast mound following mastectomy. Textured TEs were the cornerstone to this approach. Unfortunately, the association between textured devices and BIA-ALCL now mandates an alternative. We postulated that smooth expanders would compare favorably for breast reconstruction. Although our study suggests that smooth TEs suffer more malposition, this has a negligible impact on the reconstructive timeline. Thus, smooth TEs may prove beneficial when considering the risk of BIA-ALCL associated with textured devices.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35513333
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003193
pii: 00000637-202205003-00030
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
S288-S292Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.
Références
Radovan C. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy using the temporary expander. Plast Reconstr Surg . 1982;69:195–208.
Fan J, Raposio E, Wang J, et al. Development of the inframammary fold and ptosis in breast reconstruction with textured tissue expanders. Aesthetic Plast Surg . 2002;26:219–222.
Bertozzi N, Pesce M, Santi P, et al. Tissue expansion for breast reconstruction: methods and techniques. Ann Med Surg (Lond) . 2017;21:34–44.
Pennisi VR. Polyurethane-covered silicone gel mammary prosthesis for successful breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg . 1985;9:73–77.
Abramo AC, De Oliveira VR, Ledo-Silva MC, et al. How texture-inducing contraction vectors affect the fibrous capsule shrinkage around breasts implants? Aesthetic Plast Surg . 2010;34:555–560.
Barnsley GP, Sigurdson LJ, Barnsley SE. Textured surface breast implants in the prevention of capsular contracture among breast augmentation patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2006;117:2182–2190.
Barone FE, Perry L, Keller T, et al. The biomechanical and histopathologic effects of surface texturing with silicone and polyurethane in tissue implantation and expansion. Plast Reconstr Surg . 1992;90:77–86.
James GA, Boegli L, Hancock J, et al. Bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on textured breast implant shell materials. Aesthetic Plast Surg . 2019;43:490–497.
Jones P, Mempin M, Hu H, et al. The functional influence of breast implant outer shell morphology on bacterial attachment and growth. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2018;142:837–849.
Jacombs A, Tahir S, Hu H, et al. In vitro and in vivo investigation of the influence of implant surface on the formation of bacterial biofilm in mammary implants. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2014;133:471e–480e.
Zingaretti N, Galvano F, Vittorini P, et al. Smooth prosthesis: our experience and current state of art in the use of smooth sub-muscular silicone gel breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg . 2019;43:1454–1466.
Spear SL, Rottman SJ, Glicksman C, et al. Late seromas after breast implants: theory and practice. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2012;130:423–435.
Clemens MW, DeCoster RC, Fairchild B, et al. Finding consensus after two decades of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Semin Plast Surg . 2019;33:270–278.
Clemens MW, Jacobsen ED, Horwitz SM. NCCN consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Aesthet Surg J . 2019, 2019;39(suppl 1):S3–s13.
Medical device reports of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma . Food and Drug Administration. Published 2020. Updated August 20, 2020. Accessed 2021. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/breast-implants/medical-device-reports-breast-implant-associated-anaplastic-large-cell-lymphoma .
Marra A, Viale G, Pileri SA, et al. Breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: a comprehensive review. Cancer Treat Rev . 2020;84:101963.
Akhavan AA, Wirtz EC, Ollila DW, et al. An unusual case of BIA-ALCL associated with prolonged/complicated biocell-textured expander, followed by smooth round breast implant exposure, and concurrent use of adalimumab. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2021;148:299–303.
Leberfinger AN, Behar BJ, Williams NC, et al. Breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: a systematic review. JAMA Surg . 2017;152:1161–1168.
Chiu WK, Fracol M, Feld LN, et al. Judging an expander by its cover: a propensity-matched analysis of the impact of tissue expander surface texture on first-stage breast reconstruction outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2021;147:1e–6e.
Fairchild B, Ellsworth W, Selber JC, et al. Safety and efficacy of smooth surface tissue expander breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J . 2020;40:53–62.