Advertisement

Allogeneic and Alloplastic Augmentation Grafts in Nipple–Areola Complex Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Pooled Outcomes Analysis of Complications and Aesthetic Outcomes

  • Jeremie D. OliverEmail author
  • Chase Beal
  • Michael S. Hu
  • Sammy Sinno
  • Ziyad S. Hammoudeh
Review Breast Surgery
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

Background

With advancements in materials engineering, many plastic surgeons have looked to allogeneic tissue and alloplastic materials as a possible source of structure for long-lasting nipple–areola complex reconstruction. Furthermore, in light of the recent mandate from the Food and Drug Administration restricting the marketing and direct indication of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in breast reconstruction, we sought to highlight the overall safety and efficacy demonstrated in the existing literature surrounding all alloplastic materials in nipple–areola complex reconstruction. In this study, the authors conduct a systematic review and pooled outcomes analysis on allogenic and alloplastic implant materials utilized to achieve long-lasting nipple projection stratified by specific material used and respective outcomes.

Methods

A comprehensive systematic review on allogenic and synthetic materials data utilized in nipple reconstruction was conducted utilizing Medline/PubMed database. Articles were stratified by (1) alloplastic material, as well as (2) objective and patient-reported outcomes.

Results

A total of 592 nipple–areola complexes on 482 patients were featured in 15 case series. In all studies, alloplastic or allograft material was utilized to achieve and maintain nipple projection. Subjective measurements revealed a patient satisfaction rate of 93.3% or higher with the majority of patients being very satisfied with their reconstruction. The alloplastic and allograft implants analyzed had an overall complication rate of 5.3% across all materials used. The most common complication reported was flap or graft necrosis with a pooled rate of 2.5%. Overall, the Ceratite implant presented with the highest complication rate (18%) including flap/graft necrosis (13%) and extrusion of the artificial bone (5%). Other rigid implants such as the biodesign nipple reconstruction cylinder reported complications of extrusion (3.6%), projection loss requiring revision (2.5%), wound dehiscence/drainage (1.5%), flap or graft necrosis (1.0%) and excessive bleeding (0.5%). ADM implants had reported complications of both insufficient projection (0.8%) and excessive projection (1.6%), which required surgical revision. Injectable materials had minimal reported complications of pain during injection (0.8%) with Radiesse and a false-positive PET scan result (0.8%) with DermaLive.

Conclusions

Allogeneic and alloplastic grafts are a reliable means of achieving satisfactory nipple projection, with a relatively low overall complication profile. The use of Ceratite (artificial bone) led to the highest complication rates. Further clinical studies are necessary to better understand the feasibility and longer-term outcomes of the use of allogeneic and synthetic augmentation grafts to improve nipple projection.

Level of evidence III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Keywords

Nipple reconstruction Nipple–areola complex Aesthetic plastic surgery Outcomes Alloplast Implant Patient satisfaction Review 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Cuomo R, Sisti A, Grimaldi L, D'Aniello C (2016) Modified arrow flap technique for nipple reconstruction. Breast J 22:710–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sisti A, Grimaldi L, Tassinari J et al (2016) Nipple-areola complex reconstruction techniques: a literature review. Eur J Surg Oncol J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol 42:441–465Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sisti A, Pica Alfieri E, Brandi C, Nisi G, Grimaldi L (2018) Nipple-areola complex reconstruction. Plast Reconstruct Surg 142:793eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sisti A, Tassinari J, Nisi G, Grimaldi L (2016) Autologous, allogeneic, and synthetic augmentation grafts in nipple reconstruction. Plast Reconstruct Surg 138:936e–e937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nahabedian MY (2007) Nipple reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 34:131–137 (abstract vii)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rowland JH, Dioso J, Holland JC, Chaglassian T, Kinne D (1995) Breast reconstruction after mastectomy: who seeks it, who refuses? Plast Reconstruct Surg 95:812–822 (discussion 23)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wellisch DK, Schain WS, Noone RB, Little JW 3rd (1987) The psychological contribution of nipple addition in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstruct Surg 80:699–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Few JW, Marcus JR, Casas LA, Aitken ME, Redding J (1999) Long-term predictable nipple projection following reconstruction. Plast Reconstruct Surg 104:1321–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruber RP (1979) Nipple-areola reconstruction: a review of techniques. Clinics Plast Surg 6:71–83Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Little JW 3rd (1984) Nipple-areola reconstruction. Clinics Plast Surg 11:351–364Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boccola MA, Savage J, Rozen WM et al (2010) Surgical correction and reconstruction of the nipple-areola complex: current review of techniques. J Reconstruct Microsurg 26:589–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farhadi J, Maksvytyte GK, Schaefer DJ, Pierer G, Scheufler O (2006) Reconstruction of the nipple-areola complex: an update. J Plast Reconst Aesthet Surg JPRAS 59:40–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nimboriboonporn A, Chuthapisith S (2014) Nipple-areola complex reconstruction. Gland Surgery 3:35–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheng MH, Ho-Asjoe M, Wei FC, Chuang DC (2003) Nipple reconstruction in Asian females using banked cartilage graft and modified top hat flap. Br J Plast Surg 56:692–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adams WM (1946) Labial transplant for correction of loss of the nipple. Plast Reconstr Surg 1949(4):295–298Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hartrampf CR Jr, Culbertson JH (1984) A dermal-fat flap for nipple reconstruction. Plast Reconstruct Surg 73:982–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lemperle G, Spitalny H (1980) Reconstruction of the nipple and areola after radical mastectomy. Acta Chir Belg 79:155–157PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Millard DR Jr (1972) Nipple and areola reconstruction by split-skin graft from the normal side. Plast Reconstruct Surg 50:350–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Winocour S, Saksena A, Oh C et al (2016) A systematic review of comparison of autologous, allogeneic, and synthetic augmentation grafts in nipple reconstruction. Plast Reconstruct Surg 137:14e–23eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brent B, Bostwick J (1977) Nipple-areola reconstruction with auricular tissues. Plast Reconstruct Surg 60:353–361Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bernard RW, Beran SJ (2003) Autologous fat graft in nipple reconstruction. Plast Reconstruct Surg 112:964–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guerra AB, Khoobehi K, Metzinger SE, Allen RJ (2003) New technique for nipple areola reconstruction: arrow flap and rib cartilage graft for long-lasting nipple projection. Ann Plast Surg 50:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yanaga H (2003) Nipple-areola reconstruction with a dermal-fat flap: technical improvement from rolled auricular cartilage to artificial bone. Plast Reconstruct Surg 112:1863–1869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nahabedian MY (2005) Secondary nipple reconstruction using local flaps and AlloDerm. Plast Reconstruct Surg 115:2056–2061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen WF, Barounis D, Kalimuthu R (2010) A novel cost-saving approach to the use of acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm) in postmastectomy breast and nipple reconstructions. Plast Reconstruct Surg 125:479–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garramone CE, Lam B (2007) Use of AlloDerm in primary nipple reconstruction to improve long-term nipple projection. Plast Reconstruct Surg 119:1663–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Colwell AS, Breuing KH (2009) Primary nipple reconstruction with AlloDerm: is a dermal flap always necessary? Plast Reconstruct Surg 124:260e–e262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seaman BJ, Akbari SR, Davison SP (2012) A novel technique for nipple-areola complex reconstruction: the acellular dermal matrix onlay graft. Plast Reconstruct Surg 129:580e–e581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tierney BP, Hodde JP, Changkuon DI (2014) Biologic collagen cylinder with skate flap technique for nipple reconstruction. Plast Surg Int 2014:194087PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Collins B, Williams JZ, Karu H, Hodde JP, Martin VA, Gurtner GC (2016) Nipple reconstruction with the biodesign nipple reconstruction cylinder: a prospective clinical study. Plast Reconstruct Surg Global Open 4:e832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Evans KK, Rasko Y, Lenert J, Olding M (2005) The use of calcium hydroxylapatite for nipple projection after failed nipple-areolar reconstruction: early results. Ann Plast Surg 55:25–29 (discussion 9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McCarthy CM, VanLaeken N, Lennox P, Scott AM, Pusic AL (2010) The efficacy of Artecoll injections for the augmentation of nipple projection in breast reconstruction. Eplasty 10:e7PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Panettiere P, Marchetti L, Accorsi D (2005) Filler injection enhances the projection of the reconstructed nipple: an original easy technique. Aesthet Plast Surgery 29:287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Craft RO, May JW Jr (2011) Staged nipple reconstruction with vascularized SurgiMend acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstruct Surg 127:148e–e149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hallock GG (1990) Polyurethane nipple prosthesis. Ann Plast Surg 24:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kim EK, Lee TJ (2011) Use of lyophilized allogeneic costal cartilage: is it effective to maintain the projection of the reconstructed nipple? Ann Plast Surg 66:128–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wong RK, Wichterman L, Parson SD (2008) Skin sparing nipple reconstruction with polytetrafluoroethylene implant. Ann Plast Surg 61:256–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Utah HealthSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Touro University College of Osteopathic MedicineHendersonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plastic SurgeryUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.TLKM Plastic SurgeryChicagoUSA
  5. 5.Division of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryUniversity of Southern California Keck School of MedicineLos AngelesUSA
  6. 6.University of Utah School of MedicineSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations