The Use of Alloderm® Coverage to Reinforce Tissues in Two-Stage Tissue Expansion Placement in the Subcutaneous (Prepectoral) Plane: A Prospective Pilot Study.

Rafael Felix P Tiongco, Joseph S Puthumana, Iman F Khan, Pathik Aravind, Michael A Cheah, Justin M Sacks, Michele Manahan, Carisa M Cooney, Gedge D Rosson
Author Information
  1. Rafael Felix P Tiongco: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
  2. Joseph S Puthumana: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
  3. Iman F Khan: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
  4. Pathik Aravind: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
  5. Michael A Cheah: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
  6. Justin M Sacks: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
  7. Michele Manahan: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
  8. Carisa M Cooney: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
  9. Gedge D Rosson: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Two-stage tissue expander (TE) to implant breast reconstruction is commonly performed by plastic surgeons. Prepectoral implant placement with acellular dermal matrix (ADM, e.g., AlloDerm®) reinforcement is evidenced by minimal postoperative pain. However, the same is not known for TE-based reconstruction. We performed this study to explore the use of complete AlloDerm® reinforcement of breast pocket tissues in women undergoing unilateral or bilateral mastectomies followed by immediate, two-stage tissue expansion in the prepectoral plane.
METHODS: Patients (n = 20) aged 18-75 years were followed prospectively from their preoperative consult to 60 days post-TE insertion. The pain visual analog scale (VAS), Patient Pain Assessment Questionnaire, Subjective Pain Survey, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) survey, BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module, and short-form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires were administered. Demographic, intraoperative, and 30- and 60-day complications data were abstracted from medical records. After TE-to-implant exchange, patients were followed until 60 days postoperatively to assess for complications.
RESULTS: Pain VAS and BPI-SF pain interference scores returned to preoperative values by 30 days post-TE insertion. Static and moving pain scores from the Patient Pain Assessment Questionnaire returned to preoperative baseline values by day 60. The mean subjective pain score was 3.0 (0.5 standard deviation) with seven patients scoring outside the standard deviation; none of these seven patients had a history of anxiety or depression. Median PONV scores remained at 0 from postoperative day 0 to day 7. Patient-reported opioid use dropped from 89.5% to 10.5% by postoperative day 30.
BREAST-Q: Sexual well-being scores significantly increased from preoperative baseline to day 60 post-TE insertion. Changes in SF-36 physical functioning, physician limitations, emotional well-being, social functioning, and pain scores were significantly different from preoperative baseline to day 60 post-TE insertion. Five participants had complications within 60 days post-TE insertion. One participant experienced a complication within 60 days after TE-to-implant exchange.
CONCLUSIONS: We describe pain scores, opioid usage, patient-reported outcomes data, and complication profiles of 20 consecutive patients undergoing mastectomy followed by immediate, two-stage tissue expansion in the prepectoral plane. We hope this study serves as a baseline for future research.

Keywords

References

  1. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Jan;135(1):1e-8e [PMID: 25539329]
  2. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jan;143(1):24-34 [PMID: 30303927]
  3. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Dec;124(6):1735-1740 [PMID: 19952627]
  4. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021 Aug;74(8):1763-1769 [PMID: 33451949]
  5. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 Apr 20;6(4):e1731 [PMID: 29876176]
  6. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022 Apr 1;149(4):607e-616e [PMID: 35103644]
  7. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011 Dec;64(12):1553-61 [PMID: 21388901]
  8. Ann Plast Surg. 2020 May;84(5S Suppl 4):S329-S335 [PMID: 32294076]
  9. Br J Anaesth. 2010 Feb;104(2):158-66 [PMID: 20037151]
  10. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021 Jul 1;148(1):1-9 [PMID: 34003807]
  11. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021 Aug 10;9(8):e3745 [PMID: 34386310]
  12. Gland Surg. 2015 Jun;4(3):204-11 [PMID: 26161305]
  13. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009 Jan;33(1):44-8 [PMID: 19052809]
  14. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Sep;142(3):611-620 [PMID: 29878998]
  15. Pain. 1976 Jun;2(2):175-84 [PMID: 1026900]
  16. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Feb;19(2):548-52 [PMID: 21769470]
  17. Pain. 1996 Aug;66(2-3):195-205 [PMID: 8880841]
  18. Cancer Nurs. 2019 Mar/Apr;42(2):E1-E9 [PMID: 29734254]
  19. Korean J Pain. 2021 Jan 01;34(1):106-113 [PMID: 33380573]
  20. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Apr;145(4):865-876 [PMID: 32221191]
  21. JPRAS Open. 2017 Mar;11:1-13 [PMID: 28713853]
  22. J Support Oncol. 2011 Mar-Apr;9(2):72-8 [PMID: 21542414]
  23. Postgrad Med. 2019 Sep;131(7):438-444 [PMID: 31482756]
  24. Ann Plast Surg. 2018 Mar;80(3):212-216 [PMID: 28984661]
  25. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Nov;130(5 Suppl 2):57S-66S [PMID: 23096987]
  26. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Feb;23(2):600-10 [PMID: 26438439]
  27. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021 Nov;74(11):2899-2905 [PMID: 34078588]
  28. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Nov;128(5):403e-410e [PMID: 22030500]
  29. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jan;145(1):11e-20e [PMID: 31577663]
  30. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Aug;124(2):345-353 [PMID: 19644246]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0pain60scoresdaypreoperativedayspost-TEinsertionPaintissuepostoperativefollowedpatientsbaseline0breastreconstructionprepectoralcomplicationsexpanderimplantperformedPrepectoralAlloDerm®reinforcementstudyuseundergoingimmediatetwo-stageexpansionplane20VASPatientAssessmentQuestionnaireBPI-SFPONVSF-36dataTE-to-implantexchangereturnedvalues30standarddeviationsevenopioid5%well-beingsignificantlyfunctioningwithincomplicationquestionnairePURPOSE:Two-stageTEcommonlyplasticsurgeonsplacementacellulardermalmatrixADMegevidencedminimalHoweverknownTE-basedexplorecompletepockettissueswomenunilateralbilateralmastectomiesMETHODS:Patientsn=aged18-75yearsprospectivelyconsultvisualanalogscaleSubjectiveSurveyBriefInventory-ShortFormnauseavomitingsurveyBREAST-QReconstructionModuleshort-form36questionnairesadministeredDemographicintraoperative30-60-dayabstractedmedicalrecordspostoperativelyassessRESULTS:interferenceStaticmovingmeansubjectivescore35scoringoutsidenonehistoryanxietydepressionMedianremained7Patient-reporteddropped8910BREAST-Q:SexualincreasedChangesphysicalphysicianlimitationsemotionalsocialdifferentFiveparticipantsOneparticipantexperiencedCONCLUSIONS:describeusagepatient-reportedoutcomesprofilesconsecutivemastectomyhopeservesfutureresearchUseAlloderm®CoverageReinforceTissuesTwo-StageTissueExpansionPlacementSubcutaneousPlane:ProspectivePilotStudyadmbreast-qvassf-36

Similar Articles

Cited By