Effect of Tissue Expanders Filled With Saline Versus Air on Longitudinal Breast Reconstruction Outcomes
Mohammed Shaheen, JD; Rachna Goli, BA; Pooja Yesantharao, MD; Connor Arquette, MD; Nathan Makarewicz, BA; Rahim S. Nazerali, MD MHS
© 2024 HMP Global. All Rights Reserved.
Any views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and/or participants and do not necessarily reflect the views, policy, or position of ePlasty or HMP Global, their employees, and affiliates.
Abstract
Background. Intraoperative expansion with air, as compared with saline, has been associated with fewer first-stage complications in 2-stage expander-implant breast reconstruction. However, longitudinal reconstructive outcomes, postoperative medication use indicating pain or discomfort, as well as patient-reported outcome measures after intraoperative air versus saline fill have not yet been investigated.
Methods. This is a retrospective cohort investigation of 69 patients who underwent 2-stage expander-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix in 2017 and 2018. Patients underwent intraoperative tissue expander (TE) fill with air or saline during stage 1 of reconstruction and underwent expander-implant exchange in stage 2. Air versus saline cohorts were compared with regards to time to definitive reconstruction and postoperative pain/opioid use.
Results. Of the 69 patients studied, 47 (68.1%) had tissue expanders filled with air and 22 (31.9%) filled with saline. In multivariable regression analysis, air-filled TEs were associated with significantly lower odds of requiring an opioid prescription refill (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.27; P = .009) and breast pain (aOR = 0.10; P < .001). The use of air instead of saline TEs also had no adverse impact on the length of time or number of office visits between stages.
Conclusions. Intraoperative air versus saline TE fill appears to impact longitudinal reconstructive outcomes in expander-implant based reconstruction. Our results demonstrated that air-filled TEs were associated with significantly lower odds of opioid refills and breast pain. Our study also indicates that timing and office visits between stages do not appear to be affected by TE fill medium.
Introduction
Immediate 2-stage breast reconstruction with tissue expanders (TEs) and implants is one of the most common forms of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in the United States.1,2 The technique provides for reduced strain on the mastectomy skin flap and any inframammary incisions when compared with certain alternatives, such as fixed-volume implants.3
Saline's biocompatibility has popularized it as the standard TE fill material used in stage 1 of 2-stage breast reconstruction. Despite its benefits, however, saline has been criticized for unevenly filling TEs with pooling in the lower pole.4 In addition, saline is a noncompressible fluid that maintains a constant volume in normal conditions—unlike air, which readily decreases in volume in response to pressure.5 These features of saline increase the risk of dehiscence and can compromise wound healing and tissue necrosis.4,6
Intraoperative air-filled TEs offer a potential solution to some of the drawbacks associated with saline. Prior studies have demonstrated that, in contrast to saline, air-filled TEs offer the benefit of evenly distributed expansion and, consequently, reduced pressure on the mastectomy skin flap and incisions.4,6-9 Prior studies have likewise found air tissue expansion to be associated with similar or lower odds of complications than saline tissue expansion following stage 1 reconstruction.7,10-14 However, there remains an absence of research investigating what effect, if any, air-filled TEs in stage 1 of 2-stage breast reconstruction may have on longitudinal outcomes. We therefore conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who had expander-implant breast reconstruction to examine these effects. We hypothesized that the benefits of air-filled TEs observed in the first stage of breast reconstruction would translate to improved longitudinal outcomes.
Methods
Study design
A retrospective chart review that was approved by Stanford's institutional review board (Protocol: 49366) was performed on female adult (>18 years old) patients who underwent 2-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomy (for breast cancer or as a prophylaxis) between January 2017 and December 2018 at the senior author's institution. All patients had air- or saline-filled TEs in stage 1 and underwent implant-based reconstruction in stage 2. Patients with missing data, a history of chronic or recent opioid use within 30 days prior to stage 1, or fewer than 30 days clinical follow-up after stage 2 were excluded.
Operative details
For stage 1, mastectomy was performed by 1 of 6 breast surgeons immediately followed by prepectoral TE placement performed by 1 of 5 plastic surgeons. Three brands of TEs and 6 brands of acellular dermal matrix (ADM; for anterior implant coverage) were used among all patients. As noted in our prior study,10 the choice of air versus saline TEs was not made on a patient-by-patient basis. Retrospective data instead show that there was a general change in institutional practice patterns from saline to air TEs during the study period. Patients who underwent saline fill continued to undergo expansion with saline postoperatively. Patients who initially had air-filled TEs had their TEs replaced with saline at 4 weeks' postoperatively. Patients then continued to undergo saline expansion until stage 2 was undertaken with exchange of TEs for implants. For stage 2, implant-based breast reconstruction was performed by 1 of 5 plastic surgeons using 3 brands of implants. The plastic surgeon who performed the stage 1 breast reconstruction was typically the same plastic surgeon who performed the stage 2 breast reconstruction. The choice of the type of implant was at the discretion of the plastic surgeon performing the surgery.
Independent variables
Independent variables obtained from chart review included body mass index (BMI), history of tobacco use, comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status classification, breast cancer treatment (neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation), and operative details for first stage of reconstruction (plastic surgeon, ADM type, TE type, TE fill medium/volumes) and second stage of reconstruction (plastic surgeon, ADM type, final volume, and implant type).
Dependent variables
Dependent variables of interest included opioid use and breast pain in each 30-day postoperative period following both stage 1 and stage 2 of breast reconstruction, respectively, as well as length of time (in days) and number of office visits between both stages. Postoperative breast pain was captured through review of clinical notes, and patient-reported pain symptoms on postoperative follow-up visits were recorded and correlated with need for opiate prescription refills.
Statistical analysis
Analyses were conducted in accordance with Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines and were completed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute) with a 2-sided level of significance of sim.15 The Schapiro-Wilk test was used to determine whether continuous variables were normally distributed. Chi-square and Fisher exact testing (for categorical variables) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal Wallis testing (for continuous variables) were used to determine significant differences between study cohorts (air vs saline fill). Logistic regression was used to compare odds of opioid refills and breast pain, with and without risk adjustment for patient characteristics. Post-hoc analyses were completed using G*Power Software (HHU).
Results
Patient characteristics
A total of 69 patients (119 breasts) met inclusion criteria, 22 (31.9%) of whom received intraoperative saline fill and 47 (68.1%) of whom received air fill (Table 1). Of the 119 breasts, 36 (30.3%) breasts were expanded intraoperatively with saline, while 83 (69.7%) were expanded intraoperatively with air. Across all patients, mean age was 48 years, 33.3% (23 patients) were obese, 24.6% (17 patients) had a smoking history, 39.1% (27 patients) had comorbidities (diabetes and hypertension), and 29% (20 patients) were categorized as having an ASA > 3 (Table 1). Patient demographics were similar between study cohorts (Table 1), with no significant difference (P > .05) in mean age, BMI, history of tobacco use, or comorbidities (diabetes and hypertension). The proportion of patients categorized as having an ASA > 3 was higher in the air-fill cohort (38.3% vs. 9.0%; P = .03) (Table 1).
Breast cancer/reconstructive characteristics
Most patients in each cohort underwent bilateral (vs unilateral) breast procedures (77.8% in saline-fill cohort and 86.7% in air-fill cohort), and the laterality (unilateral vs bilateral) of breast procedures in each cohort was similar (Table 2). There was no significant difference in neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation therapy between cohorts, but none of the patients in the saline-fill cohort received postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT; Table 2). Nipple-sparing mastectomy was predominantly used across both study cohorts (98 breasts, 82.4%). Intraoperative TE fill volumes, along with the proportion of patients receiving textured TEs, were similar between study cohorts (P > .05).
Opioid refills and postoperative breast pain
Air fill (vs saline fill) was associated with a significantly lower percentage and odds of requiring an opioid refill (25.3% vs 63.9%, P < .001; odds ratio [OR] 0.19, P < .001) and reporting breast pain at postoperative follow-up (15.7% vs 63.9%, P < .001; OR 0.15, P = .002) when evaluated by breast (Table 3) during the reconstructive process. Even after adjusting for potential confounders (ASA > 3, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking history) in multivariable regression analysis, air fill (vs saline fill) was associated with significantly lower odds of requiring an opioid refill (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.27, P = .009) and reporting breast pain (aOR = 0.10, P < .001; Table 3). These associations were also observed independently in the 30-day period following stage 1 (requiring an opioid refill: aOR = 0.21, P = .003 and reported breast pain: aOR = 0.11, P < .001) and in the 30-day period following stage 2 (required an opioid refill: aOR = 0.21, P = .008 and reported breast pain: aOR = 0.15, P = .003; Table 3).
Office visits and days between stages
No significant difference was observed between the air and saline cohorts in the number of office visits or the number of days that elapsed between stages 1 and 2 breast reconstruction, regardless of whether evaluated by breast or by patient (Table 5).
Post-hoc power analyses
In post-hoc power analyses, the observed effect size between the saline and air cohorts with respect to opioid refills, breast pain, office visits, and time between stages had significant statistical power (> .8).
Discussion
Postmastectomy breast reconstruction patients may face debilitating postoperative pain, with cancer patients particularly susceptible to prolonged opioid use.16-18 Therefore, efforts to reduce breast pain and opioid use are critical to prevent postmastectomy breast reconstruction patients from facing the deleterious sequelae associated with chronic opioid use. In the current study, we found that intraoperative air-filled TEs during stage 1 were associated with significantly lower odds of opioid refills and breast pain overall and during each stage of the reconstructive process. While the TE medium's effect on breast pain and opioid use in stage 2 reconstruction does not appear to have been previously investigated, studies that have evaluated breast pain between stages 1 and 2 have found air-filled TEs to result in similar or lower pain than saline-filled TEs. For example, 2 studies found no significant difference in pain between TE mediums;7,14 another found pain with air-filled TEs to be on the lower end of the pain scale in a single-arm study;19 and another found pain to be a more common reason for expander removal among saline- (vs air-) filled patients.20
Intraoperative air- (vs saline-) filled TE during stage 1 may result in longitudinally reduced levels of breast pain and opioid use for several reasons. First, air-filled TEs during stage 1 may facilitate postoperative mastectomy flap healing, thereby providing a more robust soft tissue pocket into which an implant can be placed in stage 2 with reduced pain. Unlike saline, which is denser and applies dependent pressure to the inferior mastectomy flap, air filling provides a more uniform pressure distribution within the implant shell.4,10 This reduces the outward pressure to the skin flap and inframammary incisions and leads to less discomfort to the patient. The increased density of saline, together with the disproportionate pressure at the lower pole of the breast pocket and any inframammary incisions, may also result in compressed microvascular circulation, reduced perfusion of breast skin, and ultimately more compromised mastectomy flaps with potential delayed wound healing.21 Second, air insufflation can be more effective in achieving ADM engraftment than saline. ADM better defines the mastectomy space, provides support to soft tissue, and helps maintain the implant in the optimal position.22,23 However, several studies have demonstrated a higher incidence of postoperative complications, including infection, skin flap necrosis, and reconstructive failure, with the use of ADM in prosthetic reconstructions.24-26 These outcomes may be the result of improper ADM engraftment. Analogous to skin grafts in this context, inosculation and vascularization of the ADM is critical for proper incorporation and prevention of encapsulation.27 ADM and the mastectomy skin must therefore achieve close apposition which prevents fluid from collecting between the ADM and the mastectomy skin and allows for better ADM engraftment.28 However, simply increasing TE fill volumes with saline to achieve such apposition may compromise perfusion of the mastectomy skin and cause skin necrosis.28-31 Air insufflation may decrease dead space and provide the pressure necessary for proper ADM engraftment without excess pressure associated with saline fill.10,24 The enhanced ADM engraftment after stage 1 reconstruction may translate to reduced pain and opioid use after stage 2 reconstruction.
Prior studies have also shown that severity of postoperative pain is associated with the development of chronic pain.32,33 Perioperative opioid consumption has similarly been associated with the development of persistent pain following breast reconstruction.34 Similar to the findings in prior studies,19,20 we observed that the use of intraoperative air-filled TEs were associated with significantly lower odds of opioid refills and breast pain in stage 1. The reduced breast pain and opioid use we observed in post–stage 2 reconstruction may be the result of reduced overall pain between stage 1 and stage 2 of breast reconstruction with air (vs saline) tissue expansion.
Prior studies have found air-filled TEs to have shorter expansion and overall reconstruction times compared to saline-filled TEs.7,11,14,35 While we did not observe shorter expansion and overall reconstruction times, we found that the use of air-based (vs saline-based) expansion does not adversely affect the number of office visits or days elapsed between stage 1 and stage 2 of breast reconstruction. The discrepancy in outcomes in timing that was observed in the current study and prior studies may be attributable to the difference in the duration of time air-fill TEs were used in the studies. The senior author's institution uses air insufflation in the intraoperative and immediate postoperative time periods, after which continued postoperative expansion is completed with saline. This institutional protocol allows patients to undergo radiation treatment with traditional saline, which avoids potential toxicity or underdosing associated with radiotherapy that has not been adjusted to account for an air medium.12 In addition, given the inherent properties of air, the air-fill medium in TEs tends to dissipate in soft tissue and leak out of the TE at a higher rate over time than saline-fill TEs. The institutional protocol of switching to saline-fill TEs to complete the postoperative expansion therefore allows for more accurate volume determination for stage 2 reconstruction. This institutional protocol may also allow for a smoother transition to implants in the second stage of reconstruction, as saline TEs better approximate the weight and sensation of breast implants.10 Most prior studies, however, that observed shorter expansion times used air expansion for the entire period between stages. This may have allowed patients to garner increased expansion with air insufflation. Further studies are needed to determine whether the benefits of air expansion for the entire period between stages outweighs its drawbacks.
Prolonged opioid use for postoperative pain has been shown to result in long-term, chronic opioid use.17 Studies have demonstrated that over 60% of patients on >90 days of prescription opioids remain on opioids almost 5 years later.36 States that have taken initiatives to curb excessive opioid prescribing practices have observed a marked decline in morbidity and mortality related to opioid use—highlighting the effectiveness of methods that reduce opioid use.37,38 Given that breast reconstruction represents one of the most common cancer reconstructions performed,39 studies investigating breast reconstruction techniques and practices that reduce opioid use without compromising patient care are critical. This study demonstrates that an alternative surgical technique significantly reduces opioid use and breast pain during the reconstructive process without adversely affecting the length of time to definitive reconstruction. Future studies are needed to compare, among other factors, actual narcotic use and patient perspectives, but air-fill TEs appear to offer a promising means to effectively reduce opioid usage in 2-stage expander-implant breast reconstruction.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. Since our data was collected through a chart review, the accuracy of our results relies on the accuracy of what was documented in the patients' charts by numerous health care providers. Patients were also treated by different breast and plastic surgeons and had different brands of TEs and implants; these differences may play a role in the differing outcomes observed in this study. In addition, breast pain was evaluated based on subjective patient experience and variations may be partially due to patients and not necessarily the TE medium. Breast pain was also assessed in this study based on patient-reported pain symptoms in our review of clinical notes. Given the retrospective nature of our analysis, a standardized pain scale was not employed in this study, precluding a nuanced quantification of pain severity. This approach inherently limited our ability to capture the multidimensional aspects of pain experience and its potential variability across individuals. Future prospective studies could benefit from the incorporation of validated pain scales to allow for a more detailed and comparative evaluation of pain intensity and character. Lastly, none of the patients in the saline-fill cohort received PMRT, and this may have impacted the results of our study. For example, PMRT has been associated with postoperative complications and may be masking a difference in the number of office visits or days elapsed between stages.40,41 Due to postoperative complications associated with PMRT, patients undergoing air-fill TE may have needed additional office visits or longer healing time between stages than those undergoing saline fill TE. Similarly, the difference in opioid use and breast pain observed in our study may have also been underestimated due to the lack of PMRT in the saline-fill cohort.
Conclusions
Air-fill tissue expansion is a relatively new method that prior studies have shown offers distinct advantages over traditional saline after stage 1 reconstruction. This study is the first to our knowledge that investigates whether use of air-fill TEs in stage 1 also affects post-stage 2 outcomes. In our retrospective chart review of 69 patients who underwent intraoperative tissue expansion with air or saline in 2-stage breast reconstruction, we found air-filled TEs to be associated with significantly lower odds of opioid refills and breast pain overall and during each stage of the reconstructive process. We also observed that air-filled (vs saline-filled) TEs did not adversely impact the length of time or number of office visits between stages. Larger, multicenter, and randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and further explore safety considerations and patient perspectives. The results of this study supplement existing studies evaluating air-filled tissue expansion as an alternative to traditional saline and should help counsel postmastectomy patients about their reconstructive options.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Mohammed Shaheen, JD1; Rachna Goli, BA2; Pooja Yesantharao, MD1; Connor Arquette, MD1; Nathan Makarewicz, BA1; Rahim S. Nazerali, MD MHS1
Affiliations: 1Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; 2Division of Plastic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
Correspondence: Rahim S. Nazerali, MD, MHS; rahimn@stanford.edu
The abstract for this manuscript was presented at Plastic Surgery The Meeting 2022, the 91st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, held in Boston, Massachusetts, October 27-30, 2022.
Disclosures: None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript. No funding was received directly for this work.
References
1. Adkinson JM, Miller NF, Eid SM, Miles MG, Murphy RX. Tissue expander complications predict permanent implant complications and failure of breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2015 Jul;75(1):24-28. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000142
2. Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(1):15-23. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729cde
3. 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(9):1205-1214. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30378-4
4. Becker H, Zhadan O. Filling the spectrum expander with air - a new alternative. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017 Oct 25;5(10):e1541. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000001541
5. Marano AA, Henderson PW, Prince MR, Dashnaw SM, Rohde CH. Effect of MRI on breast tissue expanders and recommendations for safe use. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg JPRAS. 2017;70(12):1702-1707. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2017.07.012
6. Green M, Tafazal H, Vidya R. A novel technique of breast reconstruction: inflation of breast tissue expander with air. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(12):e2036. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000002036
7. Ascherman JA, Zeidler K, Morrison KA, et al. Carbon dioxide-based versus saline tissue expansion for breast reconstruction: results of the XPAND Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(6):1161-1170. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002784
8. Khavanin N, Jordan S, Lovecchio F, Fine NA, Kim J. Synergistic interactions with a high intraoperative expander fill volume increase the risk for mastectomy flap necrosis. J Breast Cancer. 2013;16(4):426-431. doi:10.4048/jbc.2013.16.4.426
9. Connell TF. Results from the ASPIRE study for breast reconstruction utilizing the AeroFormTM patient controlled carbon dioxide-inflated tissue expanders. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg JPRAS. 2015;68(9):1255-1261. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2015.05.001
10. Yesantharao PS, Rizk N, Martin SA, Tevlin R, Lee GK, Nazerali RS. Air versus saline: the effect of tissue expander fill on outcomes of prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150(1):28-36. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000009191
11. Zeidler KR, Berkowitz RL, Chun YS, et al. AeroForm patient controlled tissue expansion and saline tissue expansion for breast reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72 Suppl 1:S51-S55. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000175
12. Chopra K, Singh D, Hricz N, Brassard K, Orlov V, Holton Iii LH. Two-stage prosthetic prepectoral breast reconstruction: comparing tissue expansion with carbon dioxide and saline. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(3):e2051. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000002051
13. Kraenzlin FS, Darrach H, Chopra K, Rosson GD, Broderick KP, Sacks JM. Prepectoral 2-stage breast reconstruction with carbon dioxide tissue expansion. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020;8(5):e2850. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000002850
14. Bae J, Lee KT, Jeon BJ, Mun GH, Bang SI, Pyon JK. Impact of initial filling medium on outcomes of subpectoral two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: air versus saline. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024 Mar 1;153(3):581-589.
15. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-349.
16. Kulkarni AR, Pusic AL, Hamill JB, et al. Factors associated with acute postoperative pain following breast reconstruction. JPRAS Open. 2017;11:1-13. doi:10.1016/j.jpra.2016.08.005
17. Marcusa DP, Mann RA, Cron DC, et al. Prescription opioid use among opioid-naive women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6):1081-1090. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000003832
18. Carmichael AN, Morgan L, Del Fabbro E. Identifying and assessing the risk of opioid abuse in patients with cancer: an integrative review. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2016;7:71-79. doi:10.2147/SAR.S85409
19. Ascherman JA, Zeidler K, Morrison KA, et al. Results of XPAND II: A multicenter, prospective, continued-access clinical trial using the AeroForm tissue expander for two-stage breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(1):21e-29e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000006395
20. Porter BE, Vonu PM, Mast BA. Comparison of saline expanders and air expanders for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;84(6S Suppl 5):S396-S400. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000002154
21. Crosby MA, Dong W, Feng L, Kronowitz SJ. Effect of intraoperative saline fill volume on perioperative outcomes in tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(3):1065-1072. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820436fa
22. JoAnna Nguyen T, Carey JN, Wong AK. Use of human acellular dermal matrix in implant- based breast reconstruction: evaluating the evidence. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg JPRAS. 2011;64(12):1553-1561. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2011.02.001
23. Sorkin M, Qi J, Kim HM, et al. Acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander/implant breast reconstruction: a multicenter assessment of risks and benefits. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6):1091-1100. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000003842
24. Lanier ST, Wang ED, Chen JJ, et al. The effect of acellular dermal matrix use on complication rates in tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64(5):674-678. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181dba892
25. Antony AK, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, et al. Acellular human dermis implantation in 153 immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstructions: determining the incidence and significant predictors of complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(6):1606-1614. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d4fb2a
26. Chun YS, Verma K, Rosen H, et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(2):429-436. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c82d90
27. Moyer HR, Hart AM, Yeager J, Losken A. A histological comparison of two human acellular dermal matrix products in prosthetic-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(12):e1576. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000001576
28. Selber JC, Wren JH, Garvey PB, et al. Critical evaluation of risk factors and early complications in 564 consecutive two-stage implant-based breast reconstructions using acellular dermal matrix at a single center. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(1):10-20. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001327
29. Sbitany H, Serletti JM. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(6):1162-1169. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318230c29e
30. Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, Hwang BH, Chan LS, Wong AK. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68(4):346-356. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e31823f3cd9
31. Kim JYS, Davila AA, Persing S, et al. A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(1):28-41. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182361fd6
32. Tokita HK, Polanco TO, Shamsunder MG, et al. Non-narcotic perioperative pain management in prosthetic breast reconstruction during an opioid crisis: a systematic review of paravertebral blocks. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 Jun 14;7(6):e2299. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000002299
33. Hickey OT, Burke SM, Hafeez P, Mudrakouski AL, Hayes ID, Shorten GD. Severity of acute pain after breast surgery is associated with the likelihood of subsequently developing persistent pain. Clin J Pain. 2010;26(7):556-560. doi:10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181dee988
34. Hickey OT, Nugent NF, Burke SM, Hafeez P, Mudrakouski AL, Shorten GD. Persistent pain after mastectomy with reconstruction. J Clin Anesth. 2011;23(6):482-488. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2011.01.009
35. Ascherman JA, Zeidler KR, Jacoby A, et al. Carbon dioxide versus saline tissue expanders: does it matter? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(1):31-35. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001865
36. Martin BC, Fan MY, Edlund MJ, Devries A, Braden JB, Sullivan MD. Long-term chronic opioid therapy discontinuation rates from the TROUP study. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(12):1450-1457. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1771-0
37. Strickler GK, Kreiner PW, Halpin JF, Doyle E, Paulozzi LJ. Opioid prescribing behaviors - Prescription Behavior Surveillance System, 11 States, 2010-2016. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020;69(1):1-14. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6901a1
38. Johnson H, Paulozzi L, Porucznik C, Mack K, Herter B, Hal Johnson Consulting and Division of Disease Control and Health Promotion, Florida Department of Health. Decline in drug overdose deaths after state policy changes - Florida, 2010-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63(26):569-574.
39. Plastic Surgery Statistics. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Accessed August 4, 2022. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics
40. Hill RP, Zaidi A, Mahmood J, Jelveh S. Investigations into the role of inflammation in normal tissue response to irradiation. Radiother Oncol. 2011;101(1):73-79. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2011.06.017
41. Robinson DW. Surgical problems in the excision and repair of radiated tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1975;55(1):41-49. doi:10.1097/00006534-197501000-00007