Research Article
The Use of a Cellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) in Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Review of the Literature
Mackenzie A1*, Kasem A3 and Mokbel K2
1Department of General Surgery, Medway Maritime Hospital, UK
2Department of Breast and Oncoplastic Surgery, The Princess Grace Hospital, UK
3Department of Breast and Oncoplastic Surgery, The Princess Royal University Hospital, UK
*Corresponding author: Aliya Mackenzie, Department of General Surgery, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 5NY, UK
Published: 16 Oct, 2018
Cite this article as: Mackenzie A, Kasem A, Mokbel K.
The Use of a Cellular Dermal Matrix
(ADM) in Pre-pectoral Implant-Based
Breast Reconstruction: A Review of the
Literature. Clin Surg. 2018; 3: 2163.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with the use of Acellular
Dermal Matrix (ADM) has re-emerged as an increasingly popular choice for post-mastectomy
breast reconstruction. However, controversy remains regarding complication rates, cosmetic
outcomes and patient selection.
Materials and Methods: This review examines the current literature regarding ADM and prepectoralbased
breast reconstruction; highlighting technique, complication rates, cosmetic outcome, patient
safety and satisfaction, appropriate patient selection, and areas for further research.
Results: This appraisal clearly demonstrates that pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is safe, feasible
and has excellent short-term outcomes (cosmesis, complication rates and patient satisfaction). Main
advantages include decreased animation deformity, shoulder dysfunction and chronic pain, and
possibly a lower incidence of capsular contracture. Notable shortcomings include small population
size and lack of long-term follow-up regarding oncological and aesthetic outcomes especially the
incidence of rippling. Outcomes establish dependency on patient factors (i.e. BMI, co-morbidities,
lifestyle, etc.), breast size, intra-operative flap assessment, and adjuvant radiotherapy. Recent
evidence suggests that post mastectomy radiation does not represent a contraindication to this
approach. Meshed ADMs seem to be superior to solid ADMs in terms of integration and cost
effectiveness.
Conclusion: Short-term outcomes of pre-pectoral ADM-assisted implant-breast breast
reconstruction of are promising; however, long-term outcomes are yet to be assessed, requiring
further research.
Keywords: Pre-pectoral; Mastectomy; Breast cancer; ADM; Acellular dermal matrix
Introduction
Post-mastectomy breast reconstruction has continued to increase in popularity world-wide. A
variety of options are currently available; however, the most common is implant-based reconstruction
(40% to 60% in the UK, and 75% in the U.S.) [1-3]. Results have continued to improve as we have
seen an evolution in mastectomy techniques; and a move away from the traditional implant-based
sub-muscular reconstruction to pre-pectoral (also known as muscle-sparing) reconstruction [4].
The new technique is emerging as a highly popular owing to its more minimal surgical approach.
Furthermore, the use of Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) has revolutionized implant-based breast
reconstruction. The increasing availability of ADM over the past two decades has permitted plastic
surgeons to further enhance implant-based reconstruction and develop new protocols allowing for
a shorter operative course and improved outcomes [5,6].
Several studies have looked at the effectiveness of pre-pectoral implants with the use of ADM,
however, notable shortcomings include small population size and lack of long-term follow-up. The
aim of this review is to combine the literature on the safety, efficacy and outcome of prepectoralbased
implant reconstruction with the use of ADM; while highlighting areas for further research.
Furthermore, we aimed to assessthe importance of appropriate patient selection as a major
contributor to patient safety, satisfaction, and the prevention of complications.
Materials and Methods
The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used to search for relevant papers on PubMED included: “pre-pectoral”, “breast surgery”, “implant”, “breast reconstruction”, “reconstruction”, “reconstructive technique”, “ADM”, “a cellular dermal matrix”, and “mastectomy”. The inclusion criteria for studies which were reviewed include: papers which were recent (2015 to present), contained adult patients only, and were of research level 3 and higher. In total, thirtytwo studies were tabulated and comparisons were made in relation to the study (date of publication, study size, age and co-morbidities of participants, and type of study conducted), and outcome (including post-operative complication numbers and rates, patient satisfaction, and cosmetic outcome). Studies with inherent bias or conflict of interest were excluded from comparison.
Results
Advantages
This appraisal clearly demonstrates that pre-pectoral breast
reconstruction is safe, feasible and has excellent short-term outcomes
(complication rates, cosmesis and patient satisfaction) [1]. The main
advantages of a muscle-sparing technique include avoiding animation
deformity, being faster and less invasive, preventing shoulder
dysfunction, resulting in less post-operative pain, as well as a lower
incidence of capsular contracture [1,3]. Additionally, the costs and
complications associated with tissue expanders and a second surgery
are eliminated [5]. However, this needs to be weighed against the
heightened costs associated with complete implant coverage with
ADM and possible future fat-transfer procedures.
It is important to note that the pre-pectoral procedure is not
suitable for all patients. Selection for the pre-pectoral technique is
dependent on patient factors (i.e. body mass index, lifestyle), breast
size, flap assessment, and adjuvant radiotherapy [3,7,8]. A wellperfused
mastectomy flap is a prerequisite for this procedure in all
patients and skin perfusion should be objectively assessed utilizing a
tissue perfusion system [9].
Disadvantages
We found significant heterogeneity when reviewing the studies;
several contain insufficient patient numbers (either due to lack
of enrollment or loss during follow-up), many are retrospective in
nature, and lack long-term follow-up which compromises the quality
of the evidence. Further limitations include lack of standardised
technique, patient selection criteria, variety in types of ADM used,
and inconsistent use of pre- and post-op Quality of Life (QoL) and
cosmetic validated scoring systems (i.e BREAST-Q score). The
quality is also minimized in the studies where external assessors were
not used to critique the aesthetic outcomes.
Discussion
There is a clear need to conduct larger, long-term, prospective
studies; with particular attention to appropriate patient selection,
complication rates (including oncological outcomes), cosmesis
including the incidence of rippling and patient satisfaction. Further
research into cost-effectiveness analysis aimed at improving service
quality and provision would be highly beneficial. Below, we have
described the major influences behind the largely positive findings
with PPM and ADM use.
Rationale behind pre-pectoral implant placement
Foremost, the decision to place the implant above the pectoralis
muscle is a far less traumatic procedure which circumvents muscle
dissection; therefore, significantly decreasing assoiated nerve damage,
haematoma formation, inflammation, and muscle contraction [10].
It is important to note that muscle contraction was found to be an
independent risk of implant displacement, malposition and need for
subsequent revision. Furthermore, PPM is linked to minimal acute
post-operative pain (and almost complete elimintation of chronic
pain), decreased need for narcotics, faster recovery times, absence
of animation deformity and improved, more natural appearing
breasts [5,10]. Furthermore, patients have been shown to gain full
range of motion much earlier (PPM increasingly being performed as
a day-case procedure) in the acute postoperative period. This early
use of the upper extremities translates to less patient discomfort,
earlier mobility, reducing complications associated with prolonged
immobility (i.e. VTE, bed sores, muscle disuse) and resulting in an
easier return to baseline function [10].
Patient selection
Although prepectoral breast reconstruction has become
increasingly popular, it is not suitable for all patients; and risk-benefit
analysis must be carefully considered on a patient-specific basis.
However, a majority of research is in agreement regarding desired
patient characteristics; including: non-smokers, BMI <35 and >18.5,
no history of prior radiotherapy (10-fold increased risk of implant
loss), no cardiovascular risk factors or co-morbidities (i.e. HTN, MI,
Diabetes, etc), no immunosuppressant medication, and favorable
predicted long-term oncological outcome (i.e. excised carcinoma in
situ; and lack of metastatic disease) [8,11,12]. Patients with deeply
located tumours attached to the underlying pectoralis major muscle
should be excluded and considered for the subpectoral approach. Due
to the multifold criteria for consideration, the choice of skin incision,
thickness of mastectomy flap, access to axillary dissection, should be
carefully planned prior to reconstruction [8,12].
Decreased complication rate
The use of ADM in a pre-pectoral approach has become a preferred
surgical variable; largeley due to more control of the periprosthetic
space, providing additional tissue support, and the less anatomically
disruptive method inducing less immunological response [13,14].
A growing body of research has identified major factors affecting
complication rates; including adequacy of mastectomy skin flap
thickness and vascularity, and the aforementioned patient factors
affecting both (i.e. BMI, cardiovascular disease, breast size (small
breasts in lean patients often provide insufficient flap thickness
resulting in skin ischaemia or obious rippling, etc.) [13].
Different forms of ADM
Several ADMs have come into the market; these products differ
in their production process and origin (allogenic and xenogenic
donor sources). Therefore, they have different characteristics and
behaviors in terms of easy handling, incorporation, shelf life, and
costs. An optimal ADM should have collagen and extracellular
matrix components and not stimulate immunogenic inflammatory
response [3,12]. We have recently reported excellent results with the
use of fenestrated ADMs, however head to head comparisons are
needed to inform best practice. Current research into histological
and ultrasound examinations have shown good integration of the
matrix with the subcutaneous tissue. These objective evaluations
have been deemed fundamental to support the innovative concept of
subcutaneous positioning of the breast implant [1,12,15].
Mastectomy flap perfusion
Skin vascularity is a critical component of success in any breast
reconstruction surgery [7]. This is particularly true of pre-pectoral
implant-based reconstruction as the implant is placed closer to the
breast skin flaps, and subsequently has less vascularized soft tissue
coverage. Serious complications, such as tissue necrosis, can therefore
be minimized through the careful patient selection criteria previous
mentioned; the use of real-time intraoperative tissue perfusion
analysis (i.e. SPY system); and/or (in the absence of perfusion analysis
systems) using clinical judgement to appraise tissue flap viability (i.e.
capillary refill, thickness of flaps, tissue temperature, etc.); and lastly,
making a decision based on these factors regarding appropriate/
feasible operative technique [1,5,12,16].
Oncological outcomes
A growing body of evidence has been formed disproving the
popular theory that a more conservative approach would comprise
oncologic safety; further studies have shown this not to be the case
[12,15]. Adjuvant radioterhapy is largely dictated by the tumour
histopathology, however, there is currently limited data on toleration
of adjuvant radiotherapy and the impact on meshes. A recent
study demonstrated that patients undergoing subpectoral breast
reconstruction who received Postmastectomy Radiotherapy (PMRT)
had a capsular contracture rate three times greater with more severe
contractures (Baker grade 3 or 4) than the patients receiving PMRT
who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction [17]. Further
research is required in this area, as lack of evidence has resulted in
many centres avoiding PPM technique in those requiring immediate
post-operative radiotherapy [1,12].
Surgeons undertaking PPM may be subconsciously inclined to
create thicker mastectomy flaps to improve the aesthetics, therefore
future studies should include the clinical oncological outcome as a
primary endpoint.
Economics & cost effectiveness
With the development of any new technique (and given the
already stretched current health care environment), consideration
must be given to the issues of cost and associated expense when
considering the long-term implications. The main cost benefits of
this muscle-sparing technique include: significantly lower associated
pain and, therefore, post-operative narcotic use; decreased length of
stay (by 1-2 days on average, compared to subpectoral); less postoperative
expansions and revisional surgery; decreased incidence of
capsular contracture; quicker return to work; improved aesthetics
and patient satisfaction; earlier/enhanced range of motion, and less
physical therapy required [10]. Additional consideration has to be
taken regarding financial impact of using a larger sheet of ADM to
fully line the breast pocket (on average 3-4 times the magnitude of
those used for subpectural breast reconstruction). Inarguably, a larger
sheet of ADM has higher costs which can reduced by fenestrating
the ADM. Fenestrated ADMs increase the surface area of the mesh
thus reducing costs and seem to have superior incorporation and
integration.compared with solid ADMs [18].
However, the costs may be potentially offset by the shorter
operative times, and other aforementioned cost benefits; this is an
area requiring further investigation [3,10].
Conclusion
Our review of the literature has displayed very promising initial
short-term results with PPM resconstruction and the use of ADM;
showing that its use is both safe and feasible.
Its main advantages are that it avoids animation deformity,
prevents shoulder dysfunction, and has a lower incidence of capsular
contracture. However, it may cause rippling, which can require
further intervention (eg, lipomodeling), although this is not specific
to the prepectoral technique. With its relatively short learning curve
and promising short-term outcomes, it appears to be a promising
technique. However, further research looking at the long term results
is required to assess the oncological and aesthetic outcomes and longterm
morbidity which it may be associated with [1,10,11].
Acknowledgement
Library and Postgraduate services, Medway Maritime Hospital; for providing access to many of the full articles that were reviewed in the making of this article.
References
- Vidya R, Iqbal FM. A guide to prepectoral breast reconstruction: A new dimension to implant-based breast reconstruction. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017;17(4):266-71.
- Tasoulis MK, Iqbal FM, Cawthorn S, MacNeill F, Vidya R. Subcutaneous implant breast reconstruction: Time to reconsider? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(9):1636-46.
- Woo A, Harless C, Jacobson SR. Revisiting an old place: Single-surgeon experience on post-mastectomy subcutaneous implant-based breast reconstruction. Breast J. 2017;23(5):545-53.
- Becker H, Lind JG, Hopkins EG. Immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction using a vertical incision. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3(6):e412.
- Downs RK, Hedges K. An alternative technique for immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction-A case series. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4(7):e821.
- Casella D, Calabrese C, Bianchi S, Meattini I, Bernini M. Subcutaneous Tissue expander placement with synthetic titanium-coated mesh in breast reconstruction: Long-term results. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;3(12):e577.
- Jones G, Yoo A, King V, Jao B, Wang H, Rammos C, et al. Prepectoral immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with anterior alloderm coverage. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:31S-8S.
- Storm-Dickerson T, Sigalove N. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: The Breast Surgeon's Perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6):43S-8S.
- Gabriel A, Maxwell GP. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction in Challenging Patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6):14S-21S.
- Glasberg SB. The Economics of Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6S):49S-52S.
- Bettinger LN, Waters LM, Reese SW, Kutner SE, Jacobs DI. Comparative study of prepectoral and subpectoral expander-based breast reconstruction and clavien IIIb score outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(7):e1433.
- Onesti MG, Maruccia M, Di Taranto G, Albano A, Soda G, Ballesio L, et al. Clinical, histological, and ultrasound follow-up of breast reconstruction with one-stage muscle-sparing "wrap" technique: A single-center experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(11):1527-36.
- Nahabedian MY, Cocilovo C. Two-Stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A comparison between prepectoral and partial subpectoral techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6S):22S-30S.
- Sigalove S. Options in Acellular Dermal Matrix-Device Assembly. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6S):39S-42S.
- Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: A safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(3):432-43.
- Sbitany H. Important considerations for performing prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6S):7S-13S.
- Sinnott CJ, Persing SM, Pronovost M, Hodyl C, McConnell D, Ott Young A. Impact of postmastectomy radiation therapy in prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2899-908.
- Lotan AM, Cohen D, Nahmany G, Heller L, Babai P, Freier-Dror Y, et al. Histopathological study of meshed versus solid sheet acellular dermal matrices in a porcine model. Ann Plast Surg. 2018;81(5):609-14.