Utilización de biomateriales xenogénicos en reconstrucción mamaria postmastectomíacomplicaciones tempranas y pérdidas de implante

Résumé

ABSTRACT Three quarters of all breast reconstructions in North America and Europe are made with implants. Almost a decade ago, plastic surgeons in US first began the use of human cadaveric acellular dermal matrices (ADM) to better define the position of the implant after mastectomy and to allow the immediate placement of a definitive prosthesis in a one-staged implant procedure. Objectives The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of several non-human Acellular Matrices (AMs) assisted post mastectomy breast reconstruction. Methods A retrospective study of 183 consecutive patients who underwent matrix-assisted post mastectomy reconstructions between 2010 and 2014 at the IEO in Milan. Patients' demographics, operative characteristics, early complications and implant failures were reviewed. Different biomaterials were used: SurgiMend¿; Strattice¿; Veritas¿ and Tecnoss protexa¿. The indications for using the AMs were: in not-irradiated breasts to complete the muscular pocket; in postmastectomy immediate reconstruction with implant in irradiated breasts (local recurrences after conservative treatment); revision surgery for capsular contracture, both in irradiated and not-irradiated breasts; revision surgery for implant wrinkling and rippling and/or deficiency of soft tissue coverage. AMs were used following the same technique and implanted by plastic surgeons belonging to the same department. At follow up, complications and their treatment were collected. All clinic visits were documented and recorded in the electronic patient's file. Complications were defined as: local erythema/inflammation; infection; wound dehiscence and mastectomy flap necrosis; seroma; hematoma and implant removal. Relation with radiotherapy was well analyzed. Results 202 AM assisted reconstructions were performed in 183 women over the study period. The median follow-up was 15 months. AMs were indicated in 23 cases to complete the muscular pocket in not-irradiated breasts; in 65 cases of mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implant in irradiated breasts; in 7 cases of delayed reconstruction with implant in irradiated breasts; in 75 revisional surgeries for capsular contracture and in 13 cases for implant wrinkling and/or soft tissue deficiency. AMs used were: 15 SurgiMend¿, 66 Tecnoss protexa¿, 119 Veritas¿ and 2 Strattice¿. Associated risks factors included 38 smoker patients, 140 previous external radiotherapies and 54 patients with one or more comorbidities. Overall there were a 33.7% early complications: 2 hematomas, 28 wound dehiscences, 13 seromas, 6 infections, 16 necrosis of the mastectomy flaps and 7 local erythema/inflammation. Several of the complications were successfully treated conservatively. There were 35 (17%) failures corresponding to implant and matrix removal. Failure was observed in 16 (24%) of the Tecnoss-assisted reconstructions and 19 (14%) of the other matrices' procedures (p=0.077). In irradiated breasts, Tecnoss matrix proved to be significantly associated to implant loss (25%) compared to other matrices (12%) (p=0.039). Conclusions The high rate of complications and implant losses observed in this study suggests that breast reconstruction with AMs can not replace the reconstructive techniques with flaps in irradiated patients. More studies are necessary to know the performance of different biomaterials depending on patient background.