No abstract

Background: Antifibrinolytic medications, such as tranexamic acid, have recently garnered increased attention. Despite its ability to mitigate intraoperative blood loss and need for blood transfusion, there remains a paucity of research in breast reconstruction. The authors investigate whether intravenous tranexamic acid safely reduces the risk of hematoma following implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed to analyze all consecutive patients undergoing immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy between 2015 and 2016. The incidence of postoperative hematomas and thromboembolic events among all patients was reviewed. The patients in the intervention group received 1000 mg of intravenous tranexamic acid before mastectomy incision and 1000 mg at the conclusion of the procedure. Fisher’s exact test and the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test were used. Multivariate logistic regression models were performed to study the impact of intravenous tranexamic acid after adjusting for possible confounders. Results: A total of 868 consecutive breast reconstructions (499 women) were reviewed. Overall, 116 patients (217 breasts) received intravenous tranexamic acid, whereas 383 patients (651 breasts) did not. Patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar between the two the groups. Patients who received tranexamic acid were less likely to develop hematomas [n = 1 (0.46 percent)] than patients who did not [n = 19 (2.9 percent)] after controlling for age, hypertension, and type of reconstruction (prepectoral and subpectoral) (p = 0.018). Adverse effects of intravenous tranexamic acid, including thromboembolic phenomena were not observed. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age and hypertension independently increase risk for hematoma. Conclusions: Intravenous tranexamic acid safely reduces risk of hematoma in implant-based breast reconstruction. Further prospective randomized studies are warranted to further corroborate these findings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Background: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity because of advantages over the subpectoral technique. Acellular dermal matrix use with implant-based breast reconstruction has become common because of its perceived superior aesthetic outcome. Matrices are expensive, however, and recent evidence has pointed to several potential complications. This article reports a series of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions with and without acellular dermal matrix and compared their outcomes. Methods: This is a single-surgeon retrospective review of patients who underwent staged prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy over two periods. Patients with well-perfused mastectomy skin flaps with a homogeneous thickness underwent reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix initially. On evolution of the practice, it was not used. Patient demographics, operative data, and complications were analyzed. Aesthetic outcome was measured by the BREAST-Q survey and the Aesthetic Item Scale. A cost analysis was also performed. Results: Forty patients were included (acellular dermal matrix group, n = 19; non–acellular dermal matrix group, n = 21). The nonmatrix group had one case (5 percent) of seroma and one case (5 percent) with hematoma; there were none in the acellular dermal matrix group. Average BREAST-Q and Aesthetic Item Scale scores were 82.3 versus 81.6 (p = 0.954) and 20.98 versus 20.43 (p = 0.640) for the matrix and nonmatrix groups, respectively. The direct cost savings for the authors’ institution over 1 year if matrix was not used in all cases of implant-based breast reconstruction would be estimated at $3,105,960 to $6,211,920 for unilateral and bilateral cases, respectively, for Medicare reimbursement. Conclusions: With adequate patient selection, acellular dermal matrix is not always required during two-stage prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction for good aesthetic outcomes. The economic burden on patients and the health care system could be lessened with selective matrix use. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.