Der Stellenwert von synthetischen Netzen und biologischen Matrices in
                    der Implantat-basierten Brustrekonstruktion

Andrea Weinzierl; Daniel Schmauss; Yves Harder

doi:10.1055/a-1830-8217

Handchirurgie · Mikrochirurgie · Plastische Chirurgie, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2022; 54(04): 269-278
DOI: 10.1055/a-1830-8217

Übersichtsarbeit

Der Stellenwert von synthetischen Netzen und biologischen Matrices in der Implantat-basierten Brustrekonstruktion

The Value of Synthetic and Biologic Meshes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Andrea Weinzierl

¹Institut für Klinisch-Experimentelle Chirurgie, Universität des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland

,

Daniel Schmauss

²Klinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano (ORL), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Lugano, Schweiz

³Fakultät der Biomedizinischen Wissenschaften, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Schweiz

,

Yves Harder

²Klinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano (ORL), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Lugano, Schweiz

³Fakultät der Biomedizinischen Wissenschaften, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Schweiz

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Zusammenfassung

Die Implantat-basierte Brustrekonstruktion (IBBR) entwickelt sich stetig weiter und hat insbesondere durch den steigenden Einsatz synthetischer Netze und biologischer Matrices in den letzten Jahren neue Impulse bekommen. Der Einsatz solcher Netze und Matrices in der subpektoralen und präpektoralen IBBR hat durch eine verbesserte Platzierung und Weichteildeckung der verwendeten Implantate zu niedrigeren Komplikationsraten und guten ästhetischen Ergebnissen geführt. Inzwischen hat eine große Zahl verschiedener biologischer Matrices und synthetischer Netze Eingang in die klinische Nutzung gefunden, die sich in Material, Prozessierung, Größe und Kosten unterscheiden. Ziel dieser Übersichtsarbeit ist es, diese Netze in den Kontext der rekonstruktiven Brustchirurgie einzuordnen und einen Überblick über die Vor- und Nachteile bei deren Einsatz zu geben.

Abstract

Implant based breast reconstruction (IBBR) keeps evolving and has been influenced heavily by the use of synthetic and biologic meshes in the last years. In both, subpectoral as well as prepectoral approaches the use of synthetic and biologic meshes has made it possible to place implants precisely according to the breast’s footprint and strengthen soft-tissue coverage, particularly in the lower pole of the breast with lower complication rates and better cosmesis. Various mesh options that differ in material, processing, size and cost are currently in clinical use. This review aims to define the role of biologic and synthetic meshes in IBBR regarding the advantages and disadvantages of their use.

Schlüsselwörter

synthetische Netze - biologische Netze (azelluläre dermale Matrices) - Implantat-basierte Brustrekonstruktion - Brustkrebs - Mastektomie

Keywords

synthetic mesh - biologic mesh (acellular dermal matrix) - implant-based breast reconstruction - breast cancer - mastectomy

Volltext

Referenzen

Literatur
1 Snyderman RK, Guthrie RH. Reconstruction of the female breast following radical mastectomy. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1971; 47: 565-567
2 Blanckaert M, Vranckx J. Oncological safety of therapeutic ‘nipple-sparing mastectomy’ followed by reconstruction: a systematic review. Acta Chirurgica Belgica 2021; 121: 155-163
3 Finlay B, Kollias V, Hall KA. et al. Long-term outcomes of breast reconstruction and the need for revision surgery. ANZ Journal of Surgery 2021; 91: 1751-1758
4 Panchal H, Matros E. Current trends in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2017; 140: 7S-13S
5 Bertozzi N, Pesce M, Santi P. et al. One-Stage Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Concise Review. BioMed Research International 2017; 2017: 6486859
6 Govrin-Yehudain J, Dvir H, Preise D. et al. Lightweight breast implants: A novel solution for breast augmentation and reconstruction mammaplasty. Aesthetic Surgery Journal 2015; 35: 965-971
7 Fischer JP, Wes AM, Tuggle CT. et al. Risk analysis and stratification of surgical morbidity after immediate breast reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 217: 780-787
8 Groth AK, Graf R. Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and the Textured Breast Implant Crisis. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2020; 44: 1951
9 Margulies IG, Salzberg CA. The use of acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction: Evolution of techniques over 2 decades. Gland Surgery 2019; 8: 3-10
10 Scheflan M, Colwell AS. Tissue reinforcement in implant-based breast reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2014; 2: e192
11 Weinzierl A, Schmauss D, Brucato D. et al. Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy, from the Subpectoral to the Prepectoral Approach: An Evidence-Based Change of Mind?. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2022; 11: 3079
12 Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM. et al. Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Rationale, Indications, and Preliminary Results. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2017; 139: 158-173
13 Cabalag MS, Rostek M, Miller GS. et al. Alloplastic adjuncts in breast reconstruction. Gland Surgery 2016; 5: 30S-43S
14 Rolph R, Farhadi J. The use of meshes and matrices in breast reconstruction. Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2018; 79: 454-459
15 Kim JYS, Mlodinow AS. What’s new in acellular dermal matrix and soft-tissue support for prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2017; 140: 647-653
16 Ranganathan K, Santosa KB, Lyons DA. et al. Use of acellular dermal matrix in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: Are all Acellular dermal matrices created equal?. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2015; 136: 19-26
17 Greig H, Roller J, Ziaziaris W. et al. A retrospective review of breast reconstruction outcomes comparing AlloDerm and DermaCELL. JPRAS Open 2019; 22: e1209
18 Mendenhall S, Anderson L, Ying J. et al. The BREASTrial Stage II: ADM Breast Reconstruction Outcomes from Definitive Reconstruction to 3 Months Postoperative. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5: 1076-1082
19 Ball JF, Sheena Y, Tarek Saleh DM. et al. A direct comparison of porcine (Strattice) and bovine (Surgimend) acellular dermal matrices in implant-based immediate breast reconstruction. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery 2017; 70: 283-293
20 Mazari FAK, Wattoo GM, Kazzazi NH. et al. The comparison of strattice and surgi mend in acellular dermal matrix-assisted, implant-based immediate breast reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2018; 141: 283-293
21 https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/acellular-dermal-matrix-adm-products-used-implant-based-breast-reconstruction-differ-complication
22 Ozel L, Kara VM, Sunamak O. et al. Skin–Areola, Nipple Sparing, and Subcutaneous Mastectomy and Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using a Titanium-Coated Polypropylene Mesh. Journal of Breast Health 2015; 11: 141-143
23 Tessler O, Reish RG, Maman DY. et al. Beyond biologics: Absorbable mesh as a low-cost, low-complication sling for implant-based breast reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2014; 133: 90e-90e
24 Rolph RC, Macmillan RD, Nestle-Kraemling C. et al. Delayed erythematous skin reaction with SERI(R)-assisted direct to implant breast reconstruction. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery 2018; 71: 29-31
25 Dieterich M, Paepke S, Zwiefel K. et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP Bra): A multicenter study of 231 cases. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2013; 132: 8e-19e
26 Haynes DF, Kreithen JC. Vicryl mesh in expander/implant breast reconstruction: Long-Term Follow-Up in 38 patients. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2014; 134: 892-899 doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000610
27 Gschwantler-Kaulich D, Schrenk P, Bjelic-Radisic V. et al. Mesh versus acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction - A prospective randomized trial. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2016; 42: 665-671
28 Gschwantler-Kaulich D, Schrenk P, Bjelic-Radisic V. et al. Corrigendum to “Mesh versus acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction – A prospective randomized trial” [Eur J Surg Oncol 42 (5) (2016) 665–671] (S0748798316001013) (10.1016/j.ejso.2016.02.007)). European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2017; 43: 1380-1381. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.05.001
29 Schüler K, Paepke S, Kohlmann T. et al. Postoperative Complications in Breast Reconstruction With Porcine Acellular Dermis and Polypropylene Meshes in Subpectoral Implant Placement. In Vivo 2021; 35: 2739-2746
30 Eichler C, Schulz C, Thangarajah F. et al. A retrospective head-to-head comparison between TiLoop Bra/TiMesh and Seragyn in 320 cases of reconstructive breast surgery. Anticancer Research 2019; 39: 2599-2605
31 Ho TB, Wood WC, Mspt PDS. Breast Reconstruction in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: Controversies and Disparities. Oncology (Williston Park) 2019; 33: 688845
32 Hille-Betz U, Kniebusch N, Wojcinski S. et al. Breast Reconstruction and Revision Surgery for Implant-associated Breast Deformities Using Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Multicenter Study of 156 Cases. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2015; 22: 1146-1152
33 Salzberg CA, Dunavant C, Nocera N. Immediate breast reconstruction using porcine acellular dermal matrix (Strattice): Long-term outcomes and complications. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery 2013; 66: 323-328
34 Ng CE, Pieri A, Fasih T. Porcine acellular dermis-based breast reconstruction: complications and outcomes following adjuvant radiotherapy. European Journal of Plastic Surgery 2015; 38: 459-462
35 Moyer HR, Pinell-White X, Losken A. The effect of radiation on acellular dermal matrix and capsule formation in breast reconstruction: Clinical outcomes and histologic analysis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2014; 133: 214-221
36 Seth AK, Hirsch EM, Fine NA. et al. Utility of acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction in the setting of radiation: A comparative analysis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2012; 130: 750-758
37 Chopra K, Buckingham B, Matthews J. et al. Acellular dermal matrix reduces capsule formation in two-stage breast reconstruction. International Wound Journal 2017; 14: 414-419
38 Liu J, Hou J, Li Z. et al. Efficacy of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Capsular Contracture of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Single-Arm Meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2020; 44: 735-742
39 Lardi AM, Ho-Asjoe M, Junge K. et al. Capsular contracture in implant based breast reconstruction-the effect of porcine acellular dermal matrix. Gland Surgery 2017; 6: 49-56
40 Nahabedian MY. Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction and Red Breast Syndrome: Demystification and a Review of the Literature. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open 2019; 7: e2108
41 Pittman TA, Fan KL, Knapp A. et al. Comparison of Different Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Reconstruction: The 50/50 Study. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2017; 139: 521-528
42 Mayer HF, Perez Colman MC, Stoppani I. Red breast syndrome (RBS) associated to the use of polyglycolic mesh in breast reconstruction: A case report. Acta Chirurgiae Plasticae 2020; 62: 50-52
43 Lohmander F, Lagergren J, Johansson H. et al. Effect of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy with and without acellular dermal matrix among women with breast cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open 2021; 4: e2127806
44 Potter S, Browning D, Savovic J. et al. Systematic review and critical appraisal of the impact of acellular dermal matrix use on the outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction. British Journal of Surgery 2015; 102: 1010-1025
45 Lohmander F, Lagergren J, Roy PG. et al. Implant Based Breast Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix: Safety Data from an Open-label, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial in the Setting of Breast Cancer Treatment. Annals of Surgery 2019; 269: 836-841
46 Karp NS, Salibian AA. Splitting the Difference: Using Synthetic and Biologic Mesh to Decrease Cost in Prepectoral Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2021; 147: 580-584
47 Lardi AM, Ho-Asjoe M, Mohanna PN. et al. Immediate breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: Factors affecting outcome. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery 2014; 67: 1098-105
48 Rose JF, Zafar SN, Ellsworth WA.. Does Acellular Dermal Matrix Thickness Affect Complication Rate in Tissue Expander Based Breast Reconstruction?. Plastic Surgery International 2016; 2016: 2867097
49 Garcia O, Scott JR. Analysis of acellular dermal matrix integration and revascularization following tissue expander breast reconstruction in a clinically relevant large-animal model. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2013; 131: 741e-751e
50 Scheflan M, Allweis TM, ben Yehuda D. et al. Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open 2020; 8: e3265
51 Sweitzer K, Carruthers KH, Blume L. et al. The Biomechanical Properties of Meshed versus Perforated Acellular Dermal Matrices (ADMs). Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open 2021; 9: e3454
52 Cogliandro A, Barone M, Tenna S. et al. The Role of Lipofilling After Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction with BREAST-Q. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2017; 41: 1325-1331
53 Brown AWW, Kabir M, Sherman KA. et al. Patient reported outcomes of autologous fat grafting after breast cancer surgery. Breast 2017; 35: 14-20
54 Fabiocchi L, Semprini G, Cattin F. et al. ‘Reverse expansion’: A new technique of breast reconstruction with autologous tissue. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery 2017; 70: 1537-1542
55 Stillaert FBJL, Lannau B, Van Landuyt K. et al. The Prepectoral, Hybrid Breast Reconstruction: The Synergy of Lipofilling and Breast Implants. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open 2020; 8: e2966
56 Lauritzen E, Damsgaard TE. Use of Indocyanine Green Angiography decreases the risk of complications in autologous- and implant-based breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery 2021; 74: 1703-1717 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.03.034
57 Mehta S, Rolph R, Cornelius V. et al. Local heat preconditioning in skin sparing mastectomy: A pilot study. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery 2013; 66: 1676-1682
58 Singla A, Singla A, Lai E. et al. Subcutaneously Placed Breast Implants after a Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: Do We Always Need ADM?. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open 2017; 5: e1371
59 Frey JD, Salibian AA, Choi M. et al. Mastectomy Flap Thickness and Complications in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Objective Evaluation using Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open 2017; 5: e1439
59 Momeni A, Kanchwala S, Sbitany H. Oncoplastic Procedures in Preparation for Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Controlling the Breast Envelope. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2020; 145: 914-920