Gao Peng, Wang Zhongzhao, Kong Xiangyi, Wang Xiangyu, Fang Yi, Wang Jing
Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, People's Republic of China.
Cancer Manag Res. 2020 Dec 29;12:13381-13392. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S282442. eCollection 2020.
Biological matrix can provide coverage of compromised muscle and augment the subpectoral pocket in the one-stage reconstruction. However, few studies compared one stage implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological matrix. The primary endpoint of our study was to assess the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on BREAST-Q version 2.0 and analyze complications between SIS matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) and no-matrix-assisted IBBR.
This retrospective single-center study was conducted from May 2015 to April 2019, and we analyzed 155 patients who underwent one-stage IBBR with at least 1 year of follow-up. Seventy-nine patients underwent one-stage IBBR with SIS matrix group and 76 patients underwent one-stage IBBR without SIS matrix group were evaluated of PROs with BREAST-Q version 2.0 (from 3 different domains) and compared with complications. Complications occurred in patients were divided into major complications and minor complications.
In the satisfaction domain, the mean score for satisfaction with breasts was 60.27 (17.71) in the SIS matrix group and 54.49 (14.76) in the no-matrix group, p=0.045. The multivariate logistic regression for postoperative complications in the whole series pointed out a statistical significance for age>40 years old (odds ratio 3.314, 95% CI 1.012-10.854, p=0.048) and patients with endocrine therapy (odds ratio 0.260, 95% CI 0.092-0.736, p=0.011).
Patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR yield better results in PROs of satisfaction with breasts. Other domains and complications between the two groups had no significant difference.
生物基质可覆盖受损肌肉，并在一期重建中扩大胸肌下间隙。然而，很少有研究比较使用和不使用生物基质的一期植入式乳房重建。我们研究的主要终点是基于BREAST-Q 2.0版评估患者报告的结局（PROs），并分析小肠黏膜下层（SIS）基质辅助植入式乳房重建（IBBR）和无基质辅助IBBR之间的并发症。
本回顾性单中心研究于2015年5月至2019年4月进行，我们分析了155例行一期IBBR且至少随访1年的患者。79例患者接受了SIS基质组的一期IBBR，76例患者接受了无SIS基质组的一期IBBR，使用BREAST-Q 2.0版（来自3个不同领域）评估PROs，并比较并发症。患者发生的并发症分为主要并发症和次要并发症。
在满意度领域，SIS基质组对乳房满意度的平均评分为60.27（17.71），无基质组为54.49（14.76），p = 0.045。整个系列术后并发症的多因素逻辑回归指出，年龄>40岁（比值比3.314，95%可信区间1.012 - 10.854，p = 0.048）和接受内分泌治疗的患者（比值比0.260，95%可信区间0.092 - 0.736，p = 0.011）具有统计学意义。
接受SIS基质辅助一期IBBR的患者在乳房满意度的PROs方面取得了更好的结果。两组之间的其他领域和并发症无显著差异。
