Background:
Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap (LDMF) with tissue expander provides excellent results in breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has been used in expander-based reconstruction (EBR) with good results. This study assesses how ADM compares to LDMF in EBR.
Methods:
The cohorts comprised 124 patients (218 breasts) who had EBR using ADM between 2006 and 2012, and 242 patients (266 breasts) who had EBR using LDMF between 1994 and 2012. Postoperative complications, reoperations, Breast-Q scores, and objectively assessed aesthetic outcomes were compared.
Results:
Median age was 55 years for both ADM (range 23–84) and LDMF (range 26–88) groups. No statistically significant differences were noted between the groups in the rates of major postoperative complications (P > 0.3). Forty-nine of the 218 (22.5%) in the ADM group and 67 of 266 (25.2%) in the LDMF group had a total of 63 and 84 reoperations, respectively (P = 0.52), with no significant differences in the reoperations rate (P > 0.3). No significant differences were observed in the Breast-Q scores. Some categorical differences were noted in the aesthetic outcomes; however, the difference between the overall outcomes was not significant (P = 0.54).
Conclusion:
Our study revealed no statistically significant differences in the complications or reoperation rates, patient satisfaction, or overall aesthetic outcomes when comparing the use of ADM to LDMF in EBR. In conclusion, this study supports the hypothesis that ADM performs as well as LDMF in EBR.
INTRODUCTION
Secondary only to lung cancer, breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related mortality in females and accounts for 500,000 deaths worldwide annually.1,2 It affects ~1 in 8 women, and with 1,600,000 new cases, each year has an increasing prevalence. Mastectomy remains one of the primary treatments, and plastic surgeons play a crucial role in reconstruction.3 With approximately 100,000 breast reconstruction procedures performed annually in the United States, identifying the safest, most efficient, and cosmetically superior technique is crucial.4
The popularity of breast reconstruction using autologous tissue emerged in the late 1980s after the public acceptance of silicone breast implants deteriorated due to inflated claims of their risks.5,6 During this time, reconstruction using the latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap (LDMF) increased as a viable option.7–9 This procedure yielded a relatively low complication rate and favorable aesthetic outcomes, especially when combined with a tissue expander.10–12 LDMF was originally indicated for patients with a history of significant radiotherapy or complex mastectomies.13,14 Currently, LDMF has been shown to be particularly useful in unilateral reconstruction and in those patients who had radiation with acceptably low capsular contracture rates (6%–12%).15,16
More recently, reconstruction using allogenic tissue with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has become increasingly popular. ADM was introduced in 2001 for revisional aesthetic surgery and was first used for expander-based reconstruction (EBR) in 2007.17,18 EBR using ADM has had variable, but increasingly reliable reported surgical and aesthetic outcomes.19,20
To date, no large study has directly compared LDMF with ADM in patients undergoing EBR. This study evaluates and compares the incidence of complications, aesthetic quality, and patient satisfaction between EBR using LDMF and ADM.
METHODS
After obtaining study approval by the Institutional Review Board at Mayo Clinic, we conducted a retrospective review of patients who received EBR using ADM between June 2006 and December 2012, and patients who had EBR using LDMF between April 1994 and December 2012. Patients were excluded if they had failed a previous breast reconstruction or if they were not breast cancer victims. Postoperative complications were tracked and included breast seroma, capsular contracture (grade 3 or 4), prosthesis exposure, prosthesis rupture, and aesthetic considerations (malposition, symmastia, size). The number of reoperations and scar revisions were also recorded. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Breast-Q preoperatively and postoperatively. To measure patient satisfaction, photos of LDMF and ADM patients who completed their second stage of reconstruction were randomly selected and assessed by 3 independent physicians on a 1–10 scale based on the inframammary fold, position, resemblance of a natural breast, visible scarring, and symmetry. A subgroup analysis for each cohort with and without a history of radiotherapy was also conducted to assess differences in complication rates and patient satisfaction. Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
Our retrospective analysis included 124 patients (218 breasts) with EBR using ADM and 242 patients (266 breasts) with EBR using LDMF. The median age was 55 years (23–84 years for ADM, and 26–88 years for LDMF) (Table 1). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complication rates (Table 2). Mastectomy flap necrosis was the most common recorded complication and similar between the groups (ADM: 6.9%, LDMF: 6.4%). The reoperation rate for ADM compared with LDMF was also similar (22.5% versus 25.2%, P = 0.52). There was no statistically significant difference in Breast-Q scores (Table 3). LDMF displayed significantly better scores in aesthetic subcategories for volume (P < 0.01), placement (P < 0.01), and inframammary fold (P = 0.02), but no significant difference in overall aesthetic appearance (P = 0.54) (Table 4). The most common indication for reoperation in both groups was aesthetics (malposition, symmastia, size) (Table 5).
Table 1.
Demographic Data
| Variable | Overall | LDMF | ADM |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. patients | 366 | 242 | 124 |
| No. breasts | 484 | 266 | 218 |
| Radiotherapy (breasts) | 140 | 112 (42.1%) | 28 (12.8%) |
| Median age at first stage, y | 55 (23, 88) | 55 (26, 88) | 55 (23, 84) |
| Follow-up period, mo | 23 (1, 191) | 28 (1, 191) | 18 (1, 76) |
Table 2.
Complications Based on Type of Surgery
| Variable | Overall (n = 484) | LDMF (n = 266) | Rate (%) | ADM (n = 218) | Rate (%) | P (Two-tailed) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at first stage, y | 55 (23, 88) | 55 (26, 88) | — | 55 (23, 84) | — | 0.49 |
| Radiotherapy | 140 | 112 | 42.1 | 28 | 12.8 | <0.001 |
| Unplanned reoperation | 116 | 67 (84 reop) | 25.2 | 49 (63 reop) | 22.5 | 0.522 |
| Malposition | 27 | 13 | 4.9 | 14 | 6.4 | 0.552 |
| Capsular contracture (grade III/IV) | 19 | 9 | 3.4 | 10 | 4.6 | 0.639 |
| Time of onset of capsular contracture, mo | 13 (5, 39) | 12.5 (5, 39) | — | 13 (6, 30) | — | 0.87 |
| Ruptured/leaking prosthetic | 8 | 6 | 2.3 | 2 | 0.9 | 0.304 |
| Prosthetic removal (other than infection) | 18 | 11 | 4.1 | 7 | 3.2 | 0.638 |
| Infection (requiring prosthetic removal) | 23 | 11 | 4.1 | 12 | 5.5 | 0.524 |
| Seroma (breast) | 15 | 7 | 2.6 | 8 | 3.7 | 0.602 |
| Hematoma (breast) | 7 | 3 | 1.1 | 4 | 1.8 | 0.706 |
| Scar revision | 26 | 12 | 4.5 | 14 | 6.4 | 0.419 |
| Breast cellulitis | 21 | 12 | 4.5 | 9 | 4.1 | 1.000 |
| Skin necrosis | 32 | 17 | 6.4 | 15 | 6.9 | 0.856 |
| Fat necrosis | 7 | 3 | 1.1 | 4 | 1.8 | 0.706 |
| Follow-up period, mo | 23 (1, 191) | 28 (1, 191) | — | 18 (1, 76) | — | <0.001 |
Table 3.
Summary and Association of Breast-Q Satisfaction Scores According to Surgery Type
| Score Variables | Overall Sample (N = 78) | LDMF (N = 58) | ADM (N = 20) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction with breasts | 71 (59, 85) | 71 (59, 91) | 66 (59, 82) | 0.49 |
| Satisfaction with outcome | 75 (61, 100) | 75 (61, 100) | 75 (64, 93) | 0.93 |
| Psycho-social well-being | 86 (67, 100) | 86 (70, 100) | 84 (63, 100) | 1.00 |
| Sexual well-being | 63 (47, 77) | 63 (49, 77) | 63 (38, 77) | 0.79 |
| Physical well-being: chest | 85 (74, 91) | 83 (74, 100) | 85 (71, 91) | 0.40 |
| Satisfaction with nipples | 61 (36, 89) | 55 (31, 89) | 61 (50, 100) | 0.29 |
| Satisfaction with information | 80 (65, 100) | 80 (64, 100) | 88 (70, 100) | 0.35 |
| Surgeon | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 0.88 |
| Medical staff | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 0.99 |
| Office staff | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 0.75 |
The sample median (IQR) is given for continuous variables. The following variables have unavailable information: satisfaction with outcome (n = 11), physical well-being: chest (n = 9), satisfaction with nipples (n = 36), surgeon (n = 7), and office staff (n = 3).
IQR, inter-quartile range.
Table 4.
Objective Aesthetic Outcomes
| Category | Score* | ADM (n = 53†) | LDMF (n = 121†) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume | 0–3 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | <0.01 |
| 4–6 | 4 (7.5%) | 42 (34.7%) | ||
| 7–10 | 49 (92.5%) | 79 (65.3%) | ||
| Contour | 0–3 | 1 (1.9%) | 1 (0.8%) | 0.83 |
| 4–6 | 23 (43.4%) | 53 (43.8%) | ||
| 7–10 | 29 (54.7%) | 67 (55.4%) | ||
| Placement | 0–3 | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.7%) | <0.01 |
| 4–6 | 13 (24.5%) | 58 (47.9%) | ||
| 7–10 | 40 (75.5%) | 61 (50.4%) | ||
| Inframammary fold | 0–3 | 3 (5.7%) | 5 (4.1%) | 0.02 |
| 4–6 | 29 (54.7%) | 40 (33.1%) | ||
| 7–10 | 21 (39.6%) | 76 (62.8%) | ||
| Scar | 0–3 | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.7%) | 0.42 |
| 4–6 | 49 (92.5%) | 94 (77.7%) | ||
| 7–10 | 4 (7.5%) | 25 (20.7%) | ||
| Overall | 0–3 | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | 0.54 |
| 4–6 | 32 (60.4%) | 75 (62%) | ||
| 7–10 | 21 (39.6%) | 45 (37.2%) |
Postoperative photographs following the completion of the second stage were blindly assessed by independent staff members. The P values were obtained using Wilcoxon rank sum exact test.
0 = worst result, 10 = best result. Score of 0–3 = Poor; 4–6 = Fair; and 7–10=Good.
Number of patients.
Table 5.
Reoperation Incidences Based on Type of Surgery (Breasts)
| Variable | Overall (n = 484) | LDMF (n = 266) | Rate (%) | ADM (n = 218) | Rate (%) | P (two-tailed) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aesthetic (malposition, symmastia, size) | 30 | 18 | 6.8 | 12 | 5.5 | 0.578 |
| Capsular contracture (grade III/IV) | 7 | 5 | 1.9 | 2 | 0.9 | 0.466 |
| Exposure of prosthetics | 15 | 6 | 2.3 | 9 | 4.1 | 0.295 |
| Seroma (breast) | 13 | 4 | 1.5 | 2 | 0.9 | 0.695 |
| Hematoma (breast) | 9 | 3 | 1.1 | 3 | 1.4 | 1.000 |
| Infection (requiring removal of prosthetic) | 23 | 11 | 4.1 | 12 | 5.5 | 0.524 |
| Necrosis (skin, flap, fat) | 18 | 10 | 3.8 | 8 | 3.7 | 1.000 |
| Ruptured/leaking prosthetic | 8 | 6 | 2.3 | 2 | 0.9 | 0.304 |
| Scar/skin revision/resection | 22 | 10 | 3.8 | 12 | 5.5 | 0.387 |
| Flap loss | 1 | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 0.0 | — |
| Exploration | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.5 | — |
Prior history of radiotherapy was significantly higher in the LDMF cohort compared with patients with ADM (42.1% versus 12.8%, P < 0.001). Of the patients who received LDMF, those with a history of radiotherapy had a significantly higher rate of breast cellulitis (8.0% versus 1.9%, P = 0.032) and a lower rate of seroma (0.0% versus 4.5%, P = 0.044) (Table 6). Patients with ADM and prior radiotherapy had a significantly increased risk of capsular contracture compared with ADM patients without radiotherapy (21.4% versus 2.1%, P < 0.001) (Table 7). There was no significant difference in Breast-Q scores for either LDMF or ADM patients with or without a history of radiotherapy (Table 8–9).
Table 6.
LDMF (Breasts) Complications Based on Radiation Therapy
| Variable | Without Radiotherapy (n = 154) | Rate (%) | With Radiotherapy (n = 112) | Rate (%) | P (Two-tailed) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at first stage, y | 57 (33, 88) | — | 51 (26, 78) | — | 0.003 |
| Unplanned reoperation | 35 | 22.7 | 32 | 28.6 | 0.317 |
| Malposition | 7 | 4.5 | 6 | 5.4 | 0.780 |
| Capsular contracture grade III/IV | 5 | 3.2 | 4 | 3.6 | 1.000 |
| Time of onset of capsular contracture, mo | 13 (6, 39) | — | 12 (5, 35) | — | 0.81 |
| Ruptured/leaking prosthetic | 3 | 1.9 | 3 | 2.7 | 1.000 |
| Prosthetics removal (other than infection) | 6 | 3.9 | 5 | 4.5 | 1.000 |
| Infection (requiring prosthetics removal) | 5 | 3.2 | 6 | 5.4 | 0.535 |
| Seroma (breast) | 7 | 4.5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.044 |
| Hematoma (breast) | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 2.7 | 0.073 |
| Scar revision | 6 | 3.9 | 6 | 5.4 | 0.766 |
| Breast cellulitis | 3 | 1.9 | 9 | 8.0 | 0.032 |
| Skin necrosis | 12 | 7.8 | 5 | 4.5 | 0.319 |
| Fat necrosis | 1 | 0.6 | 3 | 2.7 | 0.313 |
| Follow-up period, mo | 33 (1, 191) | — | 25 (1, 182) | — | 0.100 |
Table 7.
ADM (Breasts) Complications Based on Radiation Therapy
| Variable | Without Radiotherapy (n = 190) | Rate (%) | With Radiotherapy (n = 28) | Rate (%) | P (Two-tailed) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at first stage, y | 55 (23, 84) | — | 55 (37, 71) | — | 0.75 |
| Unplanned Reoperation | 41 | 21.6 | 8 | 28.6 | 0.467 |
| Malposition | 12 | 6.3 | 2 | 7.1 | 1.000 |
| Capsular contracture (grade III/IV) | 4 | 2.1 | 6 | 21.4 | <0.001 |
| Time of onset of capsular contracture, mo | 11 (6, 30) | — | 14 (10, 19) | — | 0.5 |
| Ruptured/leaking prosthetic | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 3.6 | 0.241 |
| Prosthetic removal (other than infection) | 5 | 2.6 | 2 | 7.1 | 0.222 |
| Infection (requiring prosthetic removal) | 11 | 5.8 | 1 | 3.6 | 1.000 |
| Seroma (breast) | 6 | 3.2 | 2 | 7.1 | 0.600 |
| Hematoma (breast) | 2 | 1.1 | 2 | 7.1 | 0.081 |
| Scar revision | 12 | 6.3 | 2 | 7.1 | 1.000 |
| Breast cellulitis | 7 | 3.7 | 2 | 7.1 | 0.608 |
| Skin necrosis | 11 | 5.8 | 4 | 14.3 | 0.109 |
| Fat necrosis | 3 | 1.6 | 1 | 3.6 | 1.000 |
| Follow-up period, mo | 17 (1, 76) | — | 19 (7, 54) | — | 0.16 |
Table 8.
Summary and Association of Breast-Q Satisfaction Scores for LDMF with Radiation Versus LDMF without Radiation Patients
| Score Variables | Overall Sample (N = 58) | Without Radiotherapy (N = 31) | With Radiotherapy (N = 27) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction with breasts | 71 (59, 91) | 71 (59, 91) | 71 (55, 85) | 0.93 |
| Satisfaction with outcome | 75 (61, 100) | 75 (61, 100) | 75 (67, 75) | 0.53 |
| Psycho-social well-being | 86 (70, 100) | 82 (63, 100) | 92 (76, 100) | 0.53 |
| Sexual well-being | 63 (49, 77) | 60 (47, 77) | 63 (49, 85) | 0.68 |
| Physical well-being: chest | 83 (74, 100) | 88 (77, 100) | 81 (74, 100) | 0.38 |
| Satisfaction with nipples | 55 (31, 89) | 61 (36, 100) | 41 (31, 81) | 0.24 |
| Satisfaction with information | 80 (64, 100) | 77 (62, 100) | 85 (64, 100) | 0.41 |
| Surgeon | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (85, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 0.22 |
| Medical staff | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 0.54 |
| Office staff | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 0.39 |
The sample median (IQR) is given for continuous variables. The following variables have unavailable information: Satisfaction with outcome (n = 7), physical well-being: chest (n = 6), satisfaction with nipples (n = 23), surgeon (n = 4), and office staff (n = 2).
IQR, inter-quartile range.
Table 9.
Summary and Association of Breast-Q Satisfaction Scores for ADM with Radiation Versus ADM without Radiation Patients
| Score Variables | Overall Sample (N = 20) | Without Radiotherapy (N = 14) | With Radiotherapy (N = 6) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction with breasts | 66 (59, 82) | 71 (61, 91) | 61 (58, 64) | 0.11 |
| Satisfaction with outcome | 75 (64, 93) | 75 (67, 86) | 75 (47, 100) | 1.00 |
| Psycho-social well-being | 84 (63, 100) | 92 (82, 100) | 68 (55, 79) | 0.065 |
| Sexual well-being | 63 (38, 77) | 68 (47, 77) | 42 (37, 63) | 0.21 |
| Physical well-being: chest | 85 (71, 91) | 85 (73, 91) | 73 (55, 93) | 0.60 |
| Satisfaction with nipples | 61 (50, 100) | 61 (61, 81) | 68 (36, 100) | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with information | 88 (70, 100) | 96 (77, 100) | 70 (54, 91) | 0.075 |
| Surgeon | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (81, 100) | 0.76 |
| Medical staff | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (91, 100) | 0.079 |
| Office staff | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 100 (100, 100) | 0.32 |
The sample median (IQR) is given for continuous variables. The P values were obtained using Wilcoxon rank sum exact test. The following variables have unavailable information: satisfaction with outcome (n = 4), physical well-being: chest (n = 3), satisfaction with nipples (n = 13), surgeon (n = 3), and office staff (n = 1).
IQR, inter-quartile range.
DISCUSSION
In 2016, ~100,000 women had reconstruction after mastectomy in the United States.23 EBR using ADM and LDMF are both common reconstructive methods. The use of ADM was introduced in the early 2000s but has had conflicting reports of postoperative complication rates.24,25,26 Perhaps a more complicated procedure, LDMF is generally regarded as reliable with favorable aesthetic outcomes, low complications rates, and performs well in the face of radiation.12,27
There is little-published data directly comparing outcomes of EBR using ADM or LDMF. The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of these 2 procedures. In 2016, Youssef et al29 performed a study that prospectively tracked 20 patients, with 12 receiving immediate ADM and 9 delayed LDMF. They found no differences between clinical and patient satisfaction, which is similar to our results. Thus far, we present the most substantial study comparing EBR using LDMF and ADM.
Prior history of radiotherapy was significantly higher in patients with LDMF. Otherwise, there were no differences in demographics or preference for either procedure based on age group. Further, there were no significant differences between the 2 procedures in any of the tracked postoperative complications or reoperation rates. These findings differ from previous literature. In 2010, Chun et al24 found an increased 4.2- and 5.3-times risk of seroma formation and infection, respectively, when using ADM for breast reconstruction compared with not using ADM. Ho et al31 also concluded that patients were more likely to develop infections after using ADM for breast reconstruction. Interestingly, the prevalence of infection with ADM in our study was 5.7%, which is comparable to Ho’s meta-analysis. Although the infection rate was not significantly different from LDMF patients in our study, there are a few hypotheses for the higher rate associated with ADM. Prior publications have tried to explain this phenomenon by linking it to the quality of the remaining skin flap.24,29,31 The compliance of ADM allows it to adjust to a higher initial volume. The high intraoperative filling volumes of tissue expanders result in an augmented stretching of the native breast flap. This can compromise blood supply and lead to necrosis with the development of a secondary infection.27,31 To prevent this complication, some authors have recommended avoiding aggressive initial overexpansion and using indocyanine green angiography intraoperatively to assess the flap viability.27,31 Thin, ischemic flaps are also prone to implant extrusion and seroma formation.32 Another hypothesis postulated that ADM could act as a nidus of infection.31
LDMF is a versatile reconstructive technique, utilized in immediate, delayed, or salvage reconstruction.30,33,34 Reconstruction with the LDMF previously fell out of popularity due to concerns about high capsular contracture rates when used with an implant, and the parallel development of abdominal-based free flaps.11,35 However, the popularity of the LDMF has since increased due to concomitant use of tissue expanders.11,35 One of its advantages over ADM is the inclusion of healthy adjacent tissue for rotational coverage. This provides an improved appearance with a more natural feel to the reconstruction.36 Regarding cosmetic outcomes, LDMF was superior to ADM when considering volume, placement, and inframammary fold. However, the overall aesthetic outcome was not significantly different between the groups. There is conflicting literature on the aesthetic outcomes of LDMF. Some authors have described a suboptimal aesthetic profile for LDMF, and others claim the inframammary fold has a better cosmetic outcome with ADM.22,37 However, LDMF does offer increased volume secondary to the thickness of the muscle, subcutaneous tissue, plus the skin paddle if fashioned for the flap.32 Although muscle atrophy can decrease final volume, this can be adjusted with fat grafting.32,39–41
In breast reconstruction, quality of life outcomes are crucial factors. This study used BREAST-Q, a widely validated tool, to assess the impact on quality of life.38 There were no significant differences in BREAST-Q scores between either cohort.
Breast cancer treatment is a multidisciplinary approach and radiotherapy is a pivotal component to consider when planning reconstruction. We found a higher incidence of patients receiving LDMF in those who had a history of radiotherapy. LDMF is typically preferred in patients with radiotherapy because it inserts vascularized tissue coverage in ischemic postradiation chests.34 The flap can also be performed as a delayed or salvage procedure to reduce radiation-associated complications.30,32,37,42 This is a potential advantage over ADM, which relies on incorporation and neovascularization. We also noticed that patients with ADM who received radiotherapy had higher rates of capsular contracture compared with LDMF patients with radiotherapy (21% versus 3.6%). This contrasts previous literature that ADM decreases capsular contracture rates, even in the presence of radiotherapy.44–46 This desirable feature of the LDMF over ADM could be a deciding factor for which reconstruction modality to choose, especially in more advanced cancer patients who need radiotherapy.
There is still debate about which technique is superior, and some important factors must be considered when determining the optimal approach. For example, LDMF has been associated with postoperative shoulder weakness, donor site morbidity and is relatively contraindicated in patients with a history of posterolateral thoracotomy.34,42,43 ADM has been associated with a higher risk of implant rupture/removal or revisional surgery.28 Although ADM is expensive, usually costing $2,000–$5,000 per patient, it takes 79–165 minutes less operating room time compared with LDMF.21,22,29,47 Further, ADM has been determined superior to LDMF regarding hospital resource utilization with fewer readmissions and shorter lengths of stay.47 This advantage is especially noted when ADM is performed as a single stage procedure, with direct to implant placement.22,47 However, these studies lacked aesthetic, and patient satisfaction outcomes and most surgeons argue that performing a second stage procedure is helpful because it creates an opportunity to revise the pocket for an improved cosmetic outcome.22,47,48
Regarding future directions, a cost analysis is needed to determine the exact difference in resource utilization between the 2 procedures. The current literature is also lacking in data directly comparing ADM with other breast reconstructive techniques.
Our study is not foreign to limitations. Due to the retrospective nature of our work, there is a potential for recall bias and confounding. Besides, as a retrospective chart review, the impact of our findings is inferior to a prospective study. Furthermore, 3 different surgeons performed the reconstructive procedures analyzed in this study. Additionally, the Breast-QTM had a low response rate (21.3%) and is not fully representative of our patient population. Also, skin paddles were used in some LDMF patients, which can create a different aesthetic appearance compared with not using skin islands. Finally, the LDMF cohort had a significantly higher rate of prior radiotherapy. This demographic difference could impact outcome comparisons between these 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS
When comparing ADM to LDMF in EBR, there were no significant differences in postoperative complications or aesthetic outcomes. This study supports that ADM performs as well as LDMF in EBR and both modalities are comparable alternatives for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Notably, however in patients with a history of radiotherapy, there was a higher capsular contracture rate when using ADM.
Footnotes
Published online 30 September 2019
Presented at the Southeastern Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons June 2014, Nassau, Bahamas.
Disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.
REFERENCES
- 1.Ghoncheh M, Pournamdar Z, Salehiniya H. Incidence and mortality and epidemiology of breast cancer in the world. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17:43–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, et al. Global cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends–an update. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25:16–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Tao Z, Shi A, Lu C, et al. Breast cancer: epidemiology and etiology. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2015;72:333–338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.2017 Cosmetic Plastic Surgery Statistics. 2017 Cosmetic Plastic Surgery Statistics, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2017.
- 5.Larson DL, Anderson RC, Maksud D, et al. What influences public perceptions of silicone breast implants? Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;94:318–325; discussion 326. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Palcheff-Wiemer M, Concannon MJ, Conn VS, et al. The impact of the media on women with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;92:779–785. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Schneider WJ, Hill HL, Jr, Brown RG. Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg. 1977;30:277–281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Olivari N. Use of thirty latissimus dorsi flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979;64:654–661. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bostwick J, 3rd, Nahai F, Wallace JG, et al. Sixty latissimus dorsi flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979;63:31–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Abdalla HM, Shalaan MA, Fouad FA, et al. Immediate breast reconstruction with expander assisted latissimus dorsi flap after skin sparing mastectomy. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2006;18:134–140. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Mast BA, Simoneau DK. Latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction utilizing functional muscle transfer and tissue expansion. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;56:36–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Eriksen C, Stark B. The latissimus dorsi flap–still a valuable tool in breast reconstruction: report of 32 cases. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2008;42:132–137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bostwick J, 3rd, Scheflan M, Nahai F, et al. The “reverse” latissimus dorsi muscle and musculocutaneous flap: anatomical and clinical considerations. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;65:395–399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Olivari N. The latissimus flap. Br J Plast Surg. 1976;29:126–128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sternberg EG, Perdikis G, McLaughlin SA, et al. Latissimus dorsi flap remains an excellent choice for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;56:31–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Freeman ME, Perdikis G, Sternberg EG, et al. Latissimus dorsi reconstruction: a good option for patients with failed breast conservation therapy. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;57:134–137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Duncan DI. Correction of implant rippling using allograft dermis. Aesthet Surg J. 2001;21:81–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Bindingnavele V, Gaon M, Ota KS, et al. Use of acellular cadaveric dermis and tissue expansion in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60:1214–1218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Woo KJ, Park JW, Mun GH, et al. Does the use of acellular dermal matrix increase postoperative complications of the first-stage reconstruction of immediate expander-implant breast reconstruction: a matched cohort study. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;79:341–345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Forsberg CG, Kelly DA, Wood BC, et al. Aesthetic outcomes of acellular dermal matrix in tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:S116–S120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.de Blacam C, Momoh AO, Colakoglu S, et al. Cost analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69:516–520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Johnson RK, Wright CK, Gandhi A, et al. Cost minimisation analysis of using acellular dermal matrix (strattice™) for breast reconstruction compared with standard techniques. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:242–247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Berlin NL, Hamill JB, Qi J, et al. Nonresponse bias in survey research: lessons from a prospective study of breast reconstruction. J Surg Res. 2018;224:112–120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Chun YS, Verma K, Rosen H, et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:429–436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Liu AS, Kao HK, Reish RG, et al. Postoperative complications in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1755–1762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Preminger BA, McCarthy CM, Hu QY, et al. The influence of alloderm on expander dynamics and complications in the setting of immediate tissue expander/implant reconstruction: a matched-cohort study. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;60:510–513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.De Mey A, Lejour M, Declety A, et al. Late results and current indications of latissimus dorsi breast reconstructions. Br J Plast Surg. 1991;44:1–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kankam HKN, Hourston GJM, Fopp LJ, et al. Trends in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction types at a breast cancer tertiary referral centre before and after introduction of acellular dermal matrices. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:21–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Youssef MM, Pucher PH, Kennedy K, et al. Use of acellular dermal matrix versus latissimus dorsi flap for breast reconstruction: clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Breast J. 2016;22:702–704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.DeLong MR, Tandon VJ, Rudkin GH, et al. Latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction-A nationwide inpatient sample review. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78(5 Suppl 4):S185–S188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:346–356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Feng J, Pardoe CI, Mota AM, et al. Two-stage latissimus dorsi flap with implant for unilateral breast reconstruction: getting the size right. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43:197–203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Cook J, Waughtel J, Brooks C, et al. The muscle-sparing latissimus dorsi flap for breast reconstruction: a retrospective review of 126 consecutive flaps. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78(6S Suppl 5):S263–S268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Sood R, Easow JM, Konopka G, et al. Latissimus dorsi flap in breast reconstruction: recent innovations in the workhorse flap. Cancer Control. 2018;25:1073274817744638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Perdikis G, Koonce S, Collis G, et al. Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction: bad rap or good flap? Eplasty. 2011;11:e39. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Cai R, Xie Z, Zhou L, et al. Pedicled descending branch latissimus dorsi mini-flap for repairing partial mastectomy defect: a new technique. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Fracol M, Grim M, Lanier ST, et al. Vertical skin paddle orientation for the latissimus dorsi flap in breast reconstruction: a modification to simultaneously correct inferior pole constriction and improve projection. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:598–601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:293–302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kazzazi F, Ching RC, Malata CM. Postmastectomy breast reconstruction with the totally autologous latissimus dorsi flap in the thin, small-breasted woman: give it more thought! Eplasty. 2018;18:e13. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Johns N, Fairbairn N, Trail M, et al. Autologous breast reconstruction using the immediately lipofilled extended latissimus dorsi flap. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:201–208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Streit L, Dražan L, Schneiderová M, et al. Intraoperative fat grafting into the pectoralis and latissimus dorsi muscles-novel modification of autologous breast reconstruction with extended latissimus dorsi flap. Acta Chir Plast. 2017;59:72–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Garusi C, Manconi A, Lanni G, et al. Shoulder function after breast reconstruction with the latissimus dorsi flap: a prospective cohort study - combining DASH score and objective evaluation. Breast. 2016;27:78–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Eyjolfsdottir H, Haraldsdottir B, Ragnarsdottir M, et al. A prospective analysis on functional outcomes following extended latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction. Scand J Surg. 2017;106:152–157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Kim IK, Park SO, Chang H, et al. Inhibition mechanism of acellular dermal matrix on capsule formation in expander-implant breast reconstruction after postmastectomy radiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2279–2287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Basu CB, Jeffers L. The role of acellular dermal matrices in capsular contracture: a review of the evidence. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(5 Suppl 2):118S–124S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Hester TR, Jr, Ghazi BH, Moyer HR, et al. Use of dermal matrix to prevent capsular contracture in aesthetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(5 Suppl 2):126S–136S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Kilchenmann AJ, Lardi AM, Ho-Asjoe M, et al. An evaluation of resource utilisation of single stage porcine acellular dermal matrix assisted breast reconstruction: a comparative study. Breast. 2014;23:876–882. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Losken A, Nicholas CS, Pinell XA, et al. Outcomes evaluation following bilateral breast reconstruction using latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flaps. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;65:17–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]