Implant-based immediate reconstruction in prophylactic mastectomy: is the caudal dermis flap a reliable alternative to synthetic mesh or acellular dermal matrix?

INTRODUCTION: The demand for prophylactic mastectomy has increased significantly over the last 10 years. This can be explained by a substantial gain of knowledge about the clinical risk and outcome of patients with high risk mutations such as BRCA1 and 2, the improved diagnostic possibilities for detecting the genetic predisposition for the development of breast cancer and the awareness for those mutations by health care professionals as well as patients. In addition to expander-to-implant reconstruction and microsurgical flap surgery, definitive immediate reconstruction with subpectoral insertion of breast implants is often preferred. The prosthesis is covered at its inferior pole by a synthetic mesh or acellular dermal matrix. In these cases, in addition to the silicone prosthesis, a further foreign body must be implanted. This can be exposed in the event of wound healing disorder or necrosis of the usually thin soft tissue covering after subcutaneous mastectomy, thus calling into question the reconstructive result. In this study, the coverage of the lower pole by a caudal deepithelialized dermis flap, which allows the implant to be completely covered with well vascularized tissue, is compared to coverage by a synthetic mesh or acellular dermal matrix. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2014 to June 2020, 74 patients (106 breasts) underwent breast reconstruction following uni or bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Reconstruction was performed with autologous tissue (15 breasts), with tissue expander or implant without implant support (15 breasts), with implant and use of an acellular dermal matrix or synthetic mesh (39 breasts) and with implant and caudal dermis flap (37 breasts). In this study, we compared the patients with implant and dermal matrix/mesh to the group reconstructed with implant and dermal flap. RESULTS: In the group with the caudal dermis flap, 4 patients developed skin necrosis, which all healed conservatively due to the sufficient blood supply through the dermis flap. In the group with the use of a synthetic mesh or acellular dermal matrix, skin necrosis was found in three cases. In one of these patients the implant was exposed and had to be removed. DISCUSSION: For patients with excess skin or macromastia, the caudal dermis flap is a reliable and less expensive option for complete coverage of an implant after prophylactic mastectomy. In particular, the vascularized dermis flap can protect the implant from the consequences of skin necrosis after prophylactic mastectomy.