Mesh versus acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction – A prospective randomized trial. Issue 5 (May 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gschwantler-Kaulich, D.; Schrenk, P.; Bjelic-Radisic, V.; Unterrieder, K.; Leser, C.; Fink-Retter, A.; Salama, M.; Singer, C.
• Is Part Of: European journal of surgical oncology. Volume 42:Issue 5(2016:May)
• Page Start: 665
• Page End: 671
• Publication Date: 2016-05
• Subjects: Breast -- Reconstruction -- Mesh -- Acellular dermal matrix; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- surgery -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Oncologie; Chirurgie (geneeskunde); Electronic journals; Electronic journals -- Sciences; Electronic journals -- Medicine; Electronic journals; 616.994059005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.02.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0748-7983

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Comparative studies on the use of meshes and acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) have not yet been performed. Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter pilot study was performed at four Austrian breast cancer centers. Fifty patients with oncologic or prophylactic indication for mastectomy and IBBR were randomized to immediate IBBR with either an ADM (Protexa ® ) or a titanized mesh (TiLOOP ® Bra). Complications, failed reconstruction, cosmetic outcome, patients' quality of life and the thickness of the overlying tissue were recorded immediately postoperatively and 3 and 6 months after surgery. Results: 48 patients participated in the study (Protexa ® group: 23; TiLOOP ® Bra group: 25 patients). The overall complication rate was 31.25% with similar rates in both groups (Protexa ® group: 9 versus TiLOOP ® Bra group: 6; p = 0.188). There was a higher incidence of severe complications leading to failed reconstructions with implant loss in the Protexa ® group than in the TiLOOP ® Bra group (7 versus 2; p < 0.0001). An inverted T-incision technique led to significantly more complications and reconstructive failure with Protexa ® (p = 0.037, p = 0.012, respectively). There were no significant differences in patients' satisfaction with cosmetic results (p = 0.632), but surgeons and external specialists graded significantly better outcomes with TiLOOP ® Bra (p = 0.034, p = 0.032). Conclusion: This pilot study showed use of TiLOOP ® Bra or Protexa ® in IBBR is feasible leading to good cosmetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. To validate the higher failure rates in the Protexa ® group, data from a larger trial are required. NCT02562170