Tissue Reinforcement in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Background: Tissue reinforcement with allogeneic or xenogeneic acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) is increasingly used in single-stage (direct-to-implant) and 2-stage implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy. ADMs allow surgeons to control implant position and obviate the need for submuscular implant placement. Here, we review the benefits and risks of using ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction based on available data. Methods: A comprehensive analysis of the literature with focus on recent publications was performed. Additional information regarding the proper use of ADMs was based on our institutional experience. Results: ADM use may improve definition of the lateral confines of the breast and lower pole projection. It may facilitate direct-to-implant procedures and improve aesthetic outcomes. The effect of ADMs on complication rates remains controversial. Known patient risk factors such as obesity, smoking, and radiotherapy should be considered during patient selection. For patients with healthy, well-vascularized skin envelopes, ADM-assisted direct-to- implant reconstruction is a safe and cost-effective alternative to 2-stage implant reconstruction, with low complication rates. ADMs may be used to treat capsular contracture, and limited available data further suggest the possibility that ADMs may reduce the risk of capsular contracture. Novel synthetic or biosynthetic tissue reinforcement devices with different physical and ease-of-use properties than ADMs are emerging options for reconstructive surgeons and patients who seek to avoid tissue products from human or mammalian cadavers. Conclusions: ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction may improve aesthetic outcomes. However, appropriate patient selection, surgical technique, and postoperative management are critical for its success, including minimizing the risk of complications

Cellular Optimization of Nanofat: Comparison of Two Nanofat Processing Devices in Terms of Cell Count and Viability

Background: Nanofat was introduced by Tonnard and Verpaele in 2013. Their initial observations in intradermal applications showed improvement in the appearance of the skin. Since then, a number of Nanofat devices have been introduced. The cellular content in the processing of Nanofat is not the same in every device, yet the cellular composition is responsible for the biologic action of Nanofat. The authors sought to find a different means to produce a matrix rich Nanofat to optimize the cellular content. Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to compare cell counts, cultures, and cell viabilities produced by LipocubeNano (Lipocube, Inc., London, UK) in comparison to Tulip\u27s NanoTransfer (Tulip Medical, San Diego, CA) processing methods. Methods: Twenty milliliters of fat were harvested from 10 patients in order to test two methods of Nanofat production. Ten milliliters of fat were used to assess each method and, after the final product was obtained, enzymatic digestion for stromal vascular fraction (SVF) isolation was performed. A Muse Flow-cytometer was used to measure cell counts and cell viabilities, cell cultures were performed, and cell images were taken with a florescent microscope. Results: The LipocubeNano was shown to be superior to Tulip\u27s NanoTransfer system of progressive downsizing with final filtering, which appeared to trap more fibrous tissue leading to lower amounts of SVF. LipocubeNano resulted in higher cell counts (2.24 × 106/cc), whereas Tulip\u27s NanoTransfer method resulted in a lower cell count at 1.44 × 106/cc. Cell viability was the same (96.05%) in both groups. Conclusions: Nanofat from LipocubeNano has a higher regenerative cell count and more SVF cells than the other common mechanical method of Nanofat processing. This new means of mechanical processing preserves more matrix, optimizing the cellular content of the Nanofat, thus having potentially a higher regenerative effect