Short-term cost-effectiveness of one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage expander-implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure and its economic impact is significant. This study aimed to analyse whether a direct one-stage IBBR with use of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is more cost-effective than two-stage (expander-implant) breast reconstruction. Methods: The BRIOS (Breast Reconstruction In One Stage) study was an open-label multicentre RCT in which women scheduled for skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR were randomized between one-stage IBBR with ADM or two-stage IBBR. Duration of surgery and hospital stay, and visits for the primary surgery, unplanned and cosmetic procedures were recorded. Costs were estimated at an institutional level. Health status was assessed by means of the EuroQol Five Dimensions 5L questionnaire. Results: Fifty-nine patients (91 breasts) underwent one-stage IBBR with ADM and 62 patients (92 breasts) two-stage IBBR. The mean(s.d.) duration of surgery in the one-stage group was significantly longer than that for two-stage IBBR for unilateral (2⋅52(0⋅55) versus 2⋅02(0⋅35) h; P < 0⋅001) and bilateral (4⋅03(1⋅00) versus 3⋅25(0⋅58) h; P = 0⋅017) reconstructions. Costs were higher for one-stage compared with two-stage IBBR for both unilateral (€12 448 (95 per cent c.i. 10 722 to 14 387) versus €9871 (9373 to 10 445) respectively; P = 0⋅025) and bilateral (€16 939 (14 887 to 19 360) versus €13 383 (12 414 to 14 669); P = 0⋅002) reconstructions. This was partly related to the use of relatively expensive ADM. There was no difference in postoperative health status between the groups. Conclusion: One-stage IBBR with ADM was associated with higher costs, but similar health status, compared with conventional two-stage IBBR. Registration number: NTR5446 (http://www .trialregister.nl)

Anatomical evaluation of the internal mammary vessels based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

INTRODUCTION: The rib-sparing technique to access the internal mammary vessels for microanastomosis is the current practice in our hospital nowadays. This study is performed to analyse the best intercostal space to expose those vessels. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the chest wall of 133 women was evaluated. The Schwabegger classification (representing the anatomical variation), the intercostal space between ribs two, three and four, and the surface of the internal mammary artery and veins in the second and third intercostal space were determined on multiplanar reconstructed T2-weighted images. RESULTS: In more than half of the cases, the anatomy followed Schwabegger variation two; one lateral artery and one medial vein were symmetrical. If a second vein was present, the bifurcation was most commonly in the third intercostal space. The second intercostal space above the mammary vessels was significantly wider than the third one. The surface of the artery and vein(s) was significantly larger in the second intercostal space. CONCLUSION: In most clinical situations, the second intercostal space is most likely the best approach to the internal mammary vessels for microanastomosis using a rib-sparing technique because of wider intercostal space and larger artery and vein

A comparative study of colour and perfusion between two different post surgical scars. Do the laser Doppler imager and the colorimeter measure the same features of a scar?

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of different located post surgical scars on both perfusion and redness. The pattern of change and correlation between perfusion and redness of post surgical scars is also examined. METHODS: In this study, we measured redness and perfusion of the abdominal and breast scar of 24 women undergoing breast reconstruction with Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Free Flap surgery with the Minolta Chromameter CR-400/410 and the Moor Instruments laser Doppler imager 12IR, respectively, at different intervals post-operatively. RESULTS: The laser Doppler imager gives significantly higher values for the abdominal compared with the breast scar. There was no consistent correlation found between perfusion and redness at the different test moments for both locations. The scores of both parameters were significantly associated after 9 months follow-up for both locations. CONCLUSION: Scars closed with higher mechanical force show higher perfusion and prolonged activity; and more redness is associated with more perfusion for both post surgical scars. Nevertheless, there was no consistent correlation found between these parameters making the laser Doppler imager and the Colorimeter still non-replaceable instruments

Is single-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (SSBR) with an acellular matrix safe?

Background: Acellular matrices (AM) might enable a direct single-stage breast reconstruction procedure resulting in an improved efficacy of the reconstruction phase for patients. Safety concerns are an important issue due to a recent study which shows that single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ resulted in more complications versus a two-stage reconstruction. Therefore, the goal of this study is to compare the short- and long-term complications of a single-stage breast reconstruction with the use of two types of AM (Strattice™ and Meso Biomatrix®) versus two-stage breast reconstruction without the use of an AM. Methods: Cohort study with single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ (n = 28) or Meso BioMatrix® (n = 20) or two-stage breast reconstruction without an AM (n = 36) at the Maastricht Academic Hospital, the Netherlands. All complications, in particular major complications with the need for re-admission to the hospital, re-exploration, and implant explantation, were the primary outcome measures. A 1-year follow-up was achieved for all patients. Results: Baseline characteristics of all 52 patients were similar between groups. There was a significantly higher complication rate in the single-stage AM groups with loss of the implant in 40.0% of the breasts from the Meso BioMatrix® group and in 10.7% of the Strattice™ group compared to no implant loss in the control group. Conclusions: This cohort study clearly suggests that the use of a single-stage breast reconstruction is not safe with the use of these AMs. Well-designed prospective studies that guarantee the safety of those matrices should be published before these AMs are used in implant-based surgery. Level of Evidence: Level III, risk / prognostic study