NovoSorb® biodegradable temporising matrix (BTM) in the reconstruction of cutaneous malignancies in a major cancer centre: a case series

Maxim Devine,Mark Edmondson,Peter Gearing,Elizabeth Concannon,Michael Findlay,Richard Zinn,Angela Webb
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.18914
IF: 1.7
2024-03-08
ANZ Journal of Surgery
Abstract:A prospective study reviewed the use of biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) for reconstructing cancer resection defects between February 2021 and February 2023. Twelve patients with various cancers underwent BTM reconstruction, showing an 83% overall matrix integration rate, with higher integration in non‐irradiated cases and potential benefits for cancer reconstruction due to its high success rate and minimal morbidity. Background Non‐graftable or composite defect reconstruction represents a major challenge to the reconstructive surgeon, with many wounds requiring local flap or free microvascular tissue transfer approaches. The recent advent of synthetic skin substitutes such as Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix (BTM) have revolutionized the management of complex defects including those caused by burns, trauma and infection, with low‐morbidity and low‐complexity surgery. However, limited data exist supporting their use in cancer reconstruction in Australia. Methods We performed a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing cancer resection and reconstruction with BTM between February 2021 and February 2023 in our institution. Reported outcomes included matrix integration, infection, and return to theatre. Results Twelve patients underwent reconstruction of primary or secondary defects following cancer resection during this period. Eight patients were male, four female, mean age at surgery was 70 years. Pathology resected included squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and melanoma of the head and neck, sarcoma resection of the lower limb, and osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the scalp. T‐stage of primary tumours ranged from T2 to T4 and one in‐transit metastasis of melanoma. Four patients were treated with radiotherapy, two of whom received postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) and two who received neoadjuvant radiotherapy, three additional patients had an intervention to a previously irradiated wound bed for recurrence or ORN. Overall matrix integration was 83% (10/12), with a 50% integration rate (2/4) observed in the post‐radiotherapy group, requiring return to theatre for alternative reconstructive approaches. Conclusion We report our experience with a synthetic dermal matrix (BTM) in cancer reconstruction, the largest cohort of this type in the Australian literature. BTM represents an exciting reconstructive tool for the cancer reconstructive surgeon, with a high rate of success and low morbidity.
surgery
What problem does this paper attempt to address?