Safety Profile Comparison of 2 Smooth Tissue Expander Types: Artoura and CPX4

With the recent transition to smooth tissue expanders (TEs), functional differences between TE subtypes have not been fully elucidated. This study evaluated the differences in TE characteristics and complications between 2 commonly used Mentor smooth TE models, Artoura and CPX4.

A retrospective review of patients who received either smooth Mentor Artoura or CPX4 TE from 2012 to 2022 was conducted. Demographic data, perioperative information, pain scores, TE variables, cancer characteristics, and complications were collected. A multivariate analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between TE subtype and complications while controlling for demographic, TE characteristics, radiation, and chemotherapy exposure.

During the study period, 62 smooth Artoura TEs and 79 smooth CPX4 TEs were used. Patients who received CPX4 smooth implants tended to be older (51.09 vs 46.18 years old, P = 0.02) and have a higher body mass index (28.66 vs 23.50 kg/m 2 , P < 0.001). There were no differences among patient comorbidities. CPX4 required on average a greater total fill volume (422.23 vs 348.07 mL, P = 0.01) and had a greater drain duration (16.91 vs 14.33 days, P = 0.05). There were no differences in TE plane placement between Artoura and CPX4. Additionally, there were no differences in complication rates, including infection, hematomas, seromas, wound breakdown, TE replacement, and capsular contracture. When controlling for body mass index, diabetes, TE plane placement, acellular dermal matrix use, radiation exposure, and chemotherapy, there was no association between TE subtype and any individual complication.

Differences in total fill volume and drain duration were significantly different between Mentor Artoura and CPX4 implants, which may influence TE subtype selection. However, Artoura and CPX4 have excellent and equivalent safety profiles with similar complication rates, even when controlling for demographic and TE characteristics.