Single-Stage Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix after Breast Cancer: Comparative Study and Evaluation of Breast Reconstruction Outcomes

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Breast reconstruction is an important part of the treatment of breast cancer. In modern implant-based immediate breast reconstruction, it is common to use acellular dermal or synthetic meshes in combination with an implant. Here, we describe a prospective cohort study to report the use of a breast implant only versus an implant with a biological mesh in the immediate reconstruction. Breast reconstruction was performed after two types of therapeutic mastectomies (skin-sparing or nipple-sparing), in order to improve aesthetic results and patient wellbeing, and to decrease morbidities and surgical complications. We assessed the patient satisfaction with their breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q questionnaire, that allows the measuring of the level of satisfaction with the professional, the achieved results and self-perception. We try to contribute in establishment of biological matrices use to achieve the best result in such a delicate moment which is mastectomy therapeutic decision. ABSTRACT: We evaluate postoperative complications, aesthetic results and satisfaction outcomes in patients with breast cancer after intervening with a skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy with an immediate prosthetic reconstruction with or without a biological mesh. Patients with multifocal breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ with an indication for a mastectomy and cT2 tumors with no response to primary systemic treatment were included, whereas patients aged >75 years, with inflammatory carcinoma, and severe circulatory disorders were excluded. Patients in the control group were reconstructed using a prosthesis, whereas the study group included patients reconstructed using a prosthesis and biological acellular porcine dermal mesh (Strattice™). In both groups, the result was assessed using the BREAST-Q instrument. A total of 51 patients (62 intervened breasts) were included in the study group and 38 patients (41 intervened breasts) in the control group. Implant loss and removal occurred in three patients in the study group (5.9%) and nine patients in the control group (24.3%; p = 0.030). Infections appeared in three patients in the study group (4.8%) and three patients in the control group (7.3%; p = 1.00). Skin necrosis appeared in 5 patients in the study group (12.2%) and 11 patients in the control group (21.6%; p = 0.367). Seroma appeared in five patients in the study group (12.2%) and five patients in the control group (8.1%; p = 0.514). The BREAST-Q questionnaire is a comparison between both groups regarding “satisfaction with breasts after surgery” (p = 0.026), “sexual well-being after intervention” (p = 0.010) and “satisfaction with the information received” (p = 0.049). We have noted a statistically significant decrease in implant loss in women receiving an implant with a biological mesh. A higher satisfaction was observed in patients reconstructed using Strattice™, with statistically significant differences in three items.