Vera L. Negenborn

The Use of Autologous Fat Grafting for Treatment of Scar Tissue and Scar-Related Conditions: A Systematic Review.

Background: Scar tissue can cause cosmetic impairments, functional limitations, pain, and itch. It may also cause emotional, social, and behavioral problems, especially when it is located in exposed areas. To date, no gold standard exists for the treatment of scar tissue. Autologous fat grafting has been introduced as a promising treatment option for scar tissue-related symptoms. However, the scientific evidence for its effectiveness remains unclear. This systematic review aims to evaluate the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of autologous fat grafting for the treatment of scar tissue and scar-related conditions. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science. No language restrictions were imposed. Results: Twenty-six clinical articles were included, reporting on 905 patients in total. Meta-analysis was not performed because of the heterogeneous methodology demonstrated among the articles. Main outcome measures were scar appearance and skin characteristics, restoration of volume and/or (three-dimensional) contour, itch, and pain. All publications report a beneficial effect of autologous fat grafting on scar tissue. There is statistical significant improvement of the scar appearance, skin characteristics, and pain. Itch and restoration of volume and three-dimensional contour also improved. Conclusions: Autologous fat grafting is used to improve a variety of symptoms related to scar tissue. This systematic review suggests that autologous fat grafting provides beneficial effects with limited side effects. However, the level of evidence and methodological quality are quite low. Future randomized controlled trials with a methodologically strong design are necessary to confirm the effects of autologous fat grafting on scar tissue and scar-related conditions.

Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction compared with immediate one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction augmented with an acellular dermal matrix: an open-label, phase 4, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND The evidence justifying the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is limited. We did a prospective randomised trial to compare the safety of IBBR with an ADM immediately after mastectomy with that of two-stage IBBR. METHODS We did an open-label, randomised, controlled trial in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible women were older than 18 years with breast carcinoma or a gene mutation linked with breast cancer who intended to undergo skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR. Randomisation was done electronically, stratified per centre and in blocks of ten to achieve roughly balanced groups. Women were assigned to undergo one-stage IBBR with ADM (Strattice, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ, USA) or two-stage IBBR. The primary endpoint was quality of life and safety was assessed by the occurrence of adverse outcomes. Analyses were done per protocol with logistic regression and generalised estimating equations. This study is registered at Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR5446. FINDINGS 142 women were enrolled between April 14, 2013, and May 29, 2015, of whom 59 (91 breasts) in the one-stage IBBR with ADM group and 62 (92 breasts) in the two-stage IBBR group were included in analyses. One-stage IBBR with ADM was associated with significantly higher risk per breast of surgical complications (crude odds ratio 3·81, 95% CI 2·67-5·43, p<0·001), reoperation (3·38, 2·10-5·45, p<0·001), and removal of implant, ADM, or both (8·80, 8·24-9·40, p<0·001) than two-stage IBBR. Severe (grade 3) adverse events occurred in 26 (29%) of 91 breasts in the one-stage IBBR with ADM group and in five (5%) of 92 in the two-stage IBBR group. The frequency of mild to moderate adverse events was similar in the two groups. INTERPRETATION Immediate one-stage IBBR with ADM was associated with adverse events and should be considered very carefully. Understanding of selection of patients, risk factors, and surgical and postsurgical procedures needs to be improved. FUNDING Pink Ribbon, Nuts-Ohra, and LifeCell.

Quality of life and patient satisfaction after one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage breast reconstruction (BRIOS): primary outcome of a randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND There is increasing interest in the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Suggested advantages are that ADMs facilitate one-stage IBBR and improve aesthetic outcomes. We compared immediate one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR with two-stage IBBR (current standard of care). Our previously reported secondary endpoint showed that one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR was associated with significantly more adverse outcomes. Here, we present the primary endpoint results aiming to assess whether one-stage IBBR with ADM provides higher patient-reported quality of life (QOL) compared with two-stage IBBR. METHODS This multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (BRIOS study) was done in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. We recruited women aged older than 18 years with breast carcinoma or a genetic predisposition who intended to undergo skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo one-stage IBBR with ADM (Strattice, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ, USA) or two-stage IBBR. Randomisation was stratified by centre and indication for surgery (oncological or prophylactic) in blocks of ten participants. The primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL, as measured with the BREAST-Q (ie, health-related QOL scales and satisfaction scales), in the modified intention-to-treat population. The study follow-up is complete. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR5446. FINDINGS Between April 14, 2013, and May 29, 2015, we enrolled 142 women, of whom 69 were randomly assigned to receive one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR and 73 to receive two-stage IBBR. After exclusions, the modified intention-to-treat population comprised 60 patients in the one-stage group and 61 patients in the two-stage group. Of these, 48 women (mean follow-up 17·0 months [SD 7·8]) in the one-stage group and 44 women (17·2 months [SD 6·7]) in the two-stage group completed the BREAST-Q at least 1 year after implant placement. We found no significant differences in postoperative patient-reported QOL domains, including physical wellbeing (one-stage mean 78·0 [SD 14·1] vs two-stage 79·3 [12·2], p=0·60), psychosocial wellbeing (72·6 [17·3] vs 72·8 [19·6], p=0·95), and sexual wellbeing (58·0 [17·0] vs 57·1 [19·5], p=0·82), or in the patient-reported satisfaction domains: satisfaction with breasts (63·4 [15·8] vs 60·3 [15·4], p=0·35) and satisfaction with outcome (72·8 [19·1] vs 67·8 [16·3], p=0·19). INTERPRETATION Taken together with our previously published findings, one-stage IBBR with ADM does not yield superior results in terms of patient-reported QOL compared with two-stage IBBR. Risks for adverse outcomes were significantly higher in the one-stage ADM group. Use of ADM for one-stage IBBM should be considered on a case-by-case basis. FUNDING Pink Ribbon, Nuts-Ohra, and LifeCell.

Predictors of complications after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix from a multicentre randomized clinical trial: Complications after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix

In the multicentre randomized trial BRIOS (Breast Reconstruction In One Stage), direct‐to‐implant (DTI) breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) was associated with a markedly higher postoperative complication rate compared with two‐stage tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. This study aimed to identify factors that contribute to the occurrence of complications after DTI ADM‐assisted breast reconstruction.

Intraoperative evaluation of perfusion in free flap surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Free flap survival relies on adequate tissue perfusion. We aim to give an overview of the available literature of all objective methods to intraoperatively assess free flap tissue perfusion, and the effects on (partial) flap loss.

Autologous Fat Grafting as a Last Resort for Unsustainable Pain in a Woman with Multiple Osteochondromas

Multiple osteochondromas (MO) is characterized by the formation of osteochondromas throughout the entire body. Although the evidence regarding its pathogenesis is well understood, no curative treatment for the disorder is available. Patients can be treated symptomatically by surgical removal of painful osteochondromas. Unfortunately, some patients still suffer from severe pain, even after surgery. We report on a case concerning a 48-year-old woman with a history of MO who presented with persistent pain after surgical removal of a symptomatic osteochondroma of the left scapula and multiple symptomatic osteochondromas of the left foot and trochanteric region. Several interventions to reduce the pain did not have any lasting effect. Subsequently, she was treated with autologous fat grafting (AFG). After each session she was pain-free for at least one year and reported only partial recurrence of the pain. This is the first case report describing AFG for the treatment of pain after both surgical removal of an osteochondroma and symptomatic osteochondromas in a patient suffering MO with promising results. The treatment is more effective and clearly continues to remain active longer than injection therapy or pain medication. Future studies are necessary to confirm our results.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy using a hemi-periareolar incision – Comment on the BREAST-Q analysis

With great interest we have read the article about nipplesparing mastectomy using a hemi-periareolar incision with or without minimal medial-lateral extensions by El Hage Chehade et al.1 The authors report on the clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction after immediate reconstruction with implants and acellular dermal matrix. Patient satisfaction was assessed with the BREAST-Q.2 However, results from this study are difficult to interpret, since the authors do not provide BREAST-Q scores obtained from the recommended Rasch Measurement Theory analysis (as automatically performed when using the recommended Q-score software). Instead, the authors converted crude BREAST-Q scores into percentages, of which a score 75% corresponded to being very satisfied, 50%e74% to a satisfied result and <50% to a dissatisfaction with the outcome. In order to clearly interpret their results, and to properly compare their results with other (future) studies with BREAST-Q as outcome, we suggest for the authors to report the crude BREAST-Q scores (as obtained by the Q-score software). Reducing heterogeneity in study outcomes is an important step towards better comparability between studies.3