From the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University.
Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA.
Ann Plast Surg. 2022 May 1;88(3 Suppl 3):S288-S292. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003193.
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.
不断认识到乳房植入物相关间变性大细胞淋巴瘤(BIA-ALCL)及其与纹理设备的关联,给基于假体的乳房重建带来了范式转变。许多机构不再为分期重建提供纹理扩张器。然而,关于光滑组织扩张器(TE)的疗效的数据很少。我们假设在乳房重建患者中,光滑和纹理 TE 的最终重建时间和并发症情况相似。
对宾夕法尼亚州立大学赫尔希医疗中心在 6 年期间接受 TE 乳房重建的所有患者进行回顾性图表审查。评估了非手术治疗和需要再次手术的并发症发生率。评估了机械并发症,包括扩张器位置不正和破裂。量化了最终乳房重建的时间。使用混合效应逻辑回归和线性回归模型(视情况而定)比较了纹理和光滑 TE。在所有结局分析中,调整了患者特征和解剖平面位置。
共收集了 389 名患者的数据,包括 140 名光滑和 604 名纹理 TE。纹理设备的非手术治疗并发症发生率较高(16.7%比 10.7%;P=0.14)。然而,光滑 TE 的再次手术发生率较高(12.1%比 7.6%;P=0.06)。最值得注意的是,尽管光滑 TE 位置不正的发生率增加了 40 倍(13.6%比 0.3%;P<0.001),但没有为此并发症进行再次手术。此外,两种设备的最终重建时间相当(纹理扩张器:221 天,光滑扩张器:234 天;P=0.15)。
分期、基于假体的重建是乳房切除术后重建乳房丘的最常见手术方法。纹理 TE 是这种方法的基石。不幸的是,纹理设备与 BIA-ALCL 之间的关联现在需要替代方案。我们假设光滑扩张器在乳房重建方面表现良好。尽管我们的研究表明,光滑 TE 更容易出现位置不正,但这对重建时间线几乎没有影响。因此,当考虑与纹理设备相关的 BIA-ALCL 风险时,光滑 TE 可能是有益的。