ARTICLE | doi:10.20944/preprints202212.0004.v1
Subject: Medicine And Pharmacology, Immunology And Allergy Keywords: SMI (silicone mammary implants); FBR (foreign body response); wound healing; wound infection; capsular fibrosis; implant encapsulation; early-stage fibrosis; surface adsorption; immunomics; biomarkers
Online: 1 December 2022 (02:02:11 CET)
The etiology of exaggerated fibrous capsule formation around silicone mammary implants (SMI) is multifactorial but primarily induced by immune mechanisms toward the foreign material silicone. The aim of this work was to enlighten the disease progression from implant insertion and immediate tissue damage response reflected in (a) the acute wound proteome, and (b) the adsorption of chronic inflammatory wound proteins at implant surfaces. An intra-individual absolute quantitation TMT-liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry approach was applied to profile wound proteome formed around SMI the first five days post-implantation. Compared to plasma, the acute wound profile resembled a more complex composition comprising plasma-derived and locally differentially expressed proteins (DEPs). DEPs were subjected to functional enrichment analysis, which revealed the dysregulation of signaling pathways mainly involved in immediate inflammation response and ECM turnover. Moreover, we found time-course variations in protein enrichment immediately post-implantation and adsorbed to SMI surfaces after 6-8 months. Characterization of the expander-adhesive proteome by label-free approach uncovered a long-term adsorbed acute wound and the fibrosis-associated proteome. Our findings propose a wound biomarker panel for the early detection and diagnosis of excessive fibrosis that could potentially broaden insights into the characteristics of fibrotic implant encapsulation.
ARTICLE | doi:10.20944/preprints202212.0042.v1
Subject: Medicine And Pharmacology, Oncology And Oncogenics Keywords: nipple-sparing mastectomy; prophylactic implant-based breast reconstruction; SMI (silicone mammary implants); SMI surface topography; surface roughness; fibrosis; capsular contracture; aesthetic outcome; intra-individual comparison; titanised mesh implant pocket
Online: 2 December 2022 (07:40:06 CET)
The most common long-term complication of silicone breast implants (SMI) remains capsular fibrosis. The etiology of this exaggerated implant encapsulation is multifactorial but primarily induced by the host response towards the foreign material silicone. Identified risk factors included specific implant topographies. Of note, breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), has only been observed in response to textured surface implants. We hypothesize that reduction of SMI surface roughness causes less host response hence better cosmetic outcome with fewer complications for the patient. A total of 7 patients received the routinely used CPX®4 breast expander (~60 µM Ra) and the novel SmoothSilk® (~ 4 µM Ra), fixed prepectoral with a titanised mesh pocket and randomized to the left or right breast after bilateral prophylactic NSME (nipple-sparing mastectomy). We aimed to compare the postoperative outcome regarding capsule thickness, seroma formation, rippling, implant dislocation as well as comfortability and practicability. Our analysis shows that surface roughness is an influential parameter in controlling fibrotic implant encapsulation. First time intra-individually compared in patients, our data confirm an improved biocompatibility with minor capsule formation around SmoothSilk® implants with an average shell roughness of 4 µM and in addition an amplification of host response by titanised implant pockets.
ARTICLE | doi:10.20944/preprints202212.0044.v1
Subject: Medicine And Pharmacology, Oncology And Oncogenics Keywords: breast cancer; mastectomy; autologous breast reconstruction; PAP flap; DIEP flap; donor-site morbidity; quality of life; aesthetic outcome; scar quality; Breast Q
Online: 2 December 2022 (09:57:20 CET)
(1) Background: This work aimed to conduct the first comparative study providing long-term data about patient reported outcome measures as well as donor-site scar assessment and aesthetic evaluation of the reconstructed breasts in patients with DIEP versus PAP flap breast reconstruction. (2) Methods: This prospective, single-center, matched cohort study included a total of 36 patients after DIEP and PAP flap breast reconstruction. Evaluation was done using the Breast-Q and POSAS questionnaire as well as the Breast Aesthetic Scale for cosmetic analysis by four plastic surgeons. (3) Results: Post-operative Breast-Q evaluation revealed no significant differences between both patient groups for the categories physical well-being donor-site, physical well-being breast and satisfaction with the breast. Scar evaluation of the donor-site region showed equivalent results for the thigh and the abdomen concerning the overall opinion of patients and observers. There was no significant difference between both methods of reconstruction for all aspects of breast aesthetics. (4) Conclusions: Similar results of donor-site morbidity, scar quality and aesthetic outcome of the breast in both the DIEP and PAP patient group have been demonstrated. Hence, in cases suitable for both types of reconstruction, the decision can be based on factors such as patients’ lifestyle, leisure activities and preferences.