Safety Profile Comparison of 2 Smooth Tissue Expander Types: Artoura and CPX4.
Journal
Annals of plastic surgery
ISSN: 1536-3708
Titre abrégé: Ann Plast Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7805336
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jul 2024
05 Jul 2024
Historique:
medline:
9
7
2024
pubmed:
9
7
2024
entrez:
9
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
With the recent transition to smooth tissue expanders (TEs), functional differences between TE subtypes have not been fully elucidated. This study evaluated the differences in TE characteristics and complications between 2 commonly used Mentor smooth TE models, Artoura and CPX4. A retrospective review of patients who received either smooth Mentor Artoura or CPX4 TE from 2012 to 2022 was conducted. Demographic data, perioperative information, pain scores, TE variables, cancer characteristics, and complications were collected. A multivariate analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between TE subtype and complications while controlling for demographic, TE characteristics, radiation, and chemotherapy exposure. During the study period, 62 smooth Artoura TEs and 79 smooth CPX4 TEs were used. Patients who received CPX4 smooth implants tended to be older (51.09 vs 46.18 years old, P = 0.02) and have a higher body mass index (28.66 vs 23.50 kg/m2, P < 0.001). There were no differences among patient comorbidities. CPX4 required on average a greater total fill volume (422.23 vs 348.07 mL, P = 0.01) and had a greater drain duration (16.91 vs 14.33 days, P = 0.05). There were no differences in TE plane placement between Artoura and CPX4. Additionally, there were no differences in complication rates, including infection, hematomas, seromas, wound breakdown, TE replacement, and capsular contracture. When controlling for body mass index, diabetes, TE plane placement, acellular dermal matrix use, radiation exposure, and chemotherapy, there was no association between TE subtype and any individual complication. Differences in total fill volume and drain duration were significantly different between Mentor Artoura and CPX4 implants, which may influence TE subtype selection. However, Artoura and CPX4 have excellent and equivalent safety profiles with similar complication rates, even when controlling for demographic and TE characteristics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38980932
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000004019
pii: 00000637-990000000-00492
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: This study was completed in part with financial support from a research grant from the Mentor Corporation.
Références
Negenborn VL, Young-Afat DA, Dikmans REG, et al. 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. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1205–1214.
American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2020 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report: ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2020/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2020.pdf. Published 2020. Accessed April 3, 2023.
Yesantharao PS, Rizk N, Martin SA, et al. Air versus saline: the effect of tissue expander fill on outcomes of prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150:28–36.
Lee KT, Park HY, Jeon BJ, et al. Does the textured-type tissue expander affect the outcomes of two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction? A propensity score matching analysis between macrotextured and microtextured expanders. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147:545–555.
Kadakia N, Swisher AR, Lewis PG, et al. Are large intraoperative fill volumes associated with increased complications after tissue expander placement? Eplasty. 2023;23:e12.
Bamba R, Christopher L, Mailey BA, et al. Evaluation of prepectoral breast tissue expander reconstruction intraoperative fill: air or saline? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;151:577e–580e.
Mentor Worldwide LLC. MENTOR® CPX4 Breast Tissue Expander. https://www.jnjmedtech.com/en-US/product/mentor-cpx4-tissue-expander. Published 2021. Updated 2/5/2021. Accessed.
Mentor Worldwide LLC. MENTOR® Artoura® Breast Tissue Expanders. https://www.jnjmedtech.com/en-US/product/mentor-artoura-breast-tissue-expanders. Published 2021. Updated 2/5/2021. Accessed.
Mentor Worldwide LLC. Mentor Artoura Breast Tissue Expander Lanches. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mentor-artoura-breast-tissue-expander-launches-300095256.html. Published 2015. Accessed April 3, 2023.
Najafali D, Liu FC, Raman K, et al. The best under stress: an analysis of breast tissue expander response to external forces. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2023;5:ojad018.
Collett DJ, Rakhorst H, Lennox P, et al. Current risk estimate of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in textured breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(3S A Review of Breast Implant–Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma):30s–40s.
Matros E, Shamsunder MG, Rubenstein RN, et al. Textured and smooth implant use reported in the tracking operations and outcomes for plastic surgeons database: epidemiologic implications for BIA-ALCL. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021;9:e3499.
Fairchild B, Ellsworth W, Selber JC, et al. Safety and efficacy of smooth surface tissue expander breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40:53–62.
Di Valerio E, Rao AN, Leyngold M, et al. Outcomes analysis of textured versus smooth tissue expanders in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2022;89:622–625.
McLaughlin C, Hughes AJ, Parham CS, et al. Smooth versus textured tissue expander breast reconstruction: complications and efficacy. Ann Plast Surg. 2022;88:S288–S292.
Chiu W-K, Fracol M, Feld LN, et al. Judging an expander by its cover: a propensity-matched analysis of the impact of tissue expander surface texture on first-stage breast reconstruction outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147:1e–6e.
Nelson JA, Rubenstein RN, Vorstenbosch J, et al. Textured versus smooth tissue expanders: a comparison of complications in 3526 breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;153:262e–272e.
Maxwell D, Estes MM, Walcott JM, et al. Safety of CPX4 breast tissue expanders in primary reconstruction patients. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021;9:e3425.
Walia GS, Aston J, Bello R, et al. Prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander placement: a clinical and quality of life outcomes study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1731.
Patel AA, Borrelli MR, Cai L, et al. Comparing prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander placement outcomes in delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;84(5S Suppl 4):S329–s335.
Kraenzlin F, Darrach H, Khavanin N, et al. Tissue expander–based breast reconstruction in the prepectoral versus subpectoral plane: an analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Plast Surg. 2021;86:19–23.
Zhu L, Mohan AT, Abdelsattar JM, et al. Comparison of subcutaneous versus submuscular expander placement in the first stage of immediate breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:e77–e86.
Lee KT, Hong SH, Jeon BJ, et al. Predictors for prolonged drainage following tissue expander–based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144:9e–17e.
Nahabedian MY. Acellular dermal matrices in primary breast reconstruction: principles, concepts, and indications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(5 Suppl 2):44S–53S.
Hallberg H, Rafnsdottir S, Selvaggi G, et al. Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2018;52:130–147.