Impact of Dermal Matrix Brand in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Outcomes.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1529-4242
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2022
01 07 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
3
5
2022
medline:
2
7
2022
entrez:
2
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Implant-based reconstruction is the most common procedure for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Acellular dermal matrix is used to provide additional coverage in subpectoral and prepectoral implant placement. In this study, the authors compared postoperative outcomes between AlloDerm (LifeCell, Branchburg, N.J.) and DermACELL (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Mich.), two acellular dermal matrix brands. A retrospective review of implant-based breast reconstruction from 2016 to 2020 was conducted. Patient demographics and comorbidities, implant size and location, acellular dermal matrix choice, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Primary outcomes assessed were seroma and infection compared between two acellular dermal matrix brands. Independent clinical parameters were assessed with multiple logistic regression models for the primary outcomes. Reconstruction was performed in 150 patients (241 breasts). Eighty-eight patients underwent expander placement with AlloDerm and 62 patients with DermACELL. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. There was a significantly higher incidence of seroma in the AlloDerm group in univariate (AlloDerm 21.7 percent versus DermACELL 8.2 percent, p < 0.005) and multivariate analyses ( p = 0.04; 95 percent CI, 1.02 to 6.07). Acellular dermal matrix use (regardless of type) was not associated with higher rates of infection ( p = 0.99), but body mass index was ( p = 0.004). Both AlloDerm and DermACELL had similar infection rates regardless of contributing risk factors. AlloDerm was found to be a risk factor for seroma formation in the postoperative period. As such, it is important to be aware of this complication when performing implant-based reconstruction with this brand of acellular dermal matrix. Therapeutic, III.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Implant-based reconstruction is the most common procedure for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Acellular dermal matrix is used to provide additional coverage in subpectoral and prepectoral implant placement. In this study, the authors compared postoperative outcomes between AlloDerm (LifeCell, Branchburg, N.J.) and DermACELL (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Mich.), two acellular dermal matrix brands.
METHODS
A retrospective review of implant-based breast reconstruction from 2016 to 2020 was conducted. Patient demographics and comorbidities, implant size and location, acellular dermal matrix choice, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Primary outcomes assessed were seroma and infection compared between two acellular dermal matrix brands. Independent clinical parameters were assessed with multiple logistic regression models for the primary outcomes.
RESULTS
Reconstruction was performed in 150 patients (241 breasts). Eighty-eight patients underwent expander placement with AlloDerm and 62 patients with DermACELL. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. There was a significantly higher incidence of seroma in the AlloDerm group in univariate (AlloDerm 21.7 percent versus DermACELL 8.2 percent, p < 0.005) and multivariate analyses ( p = 0.04; 95 percent CI, 1.02 to 6.07). Acellular dermal matrix use (regardless of type) was not associated with higher rates of infection ( p = 0.99), but body mass index was ( p = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS
Both AlloDerm and DermACELL had similar infection rates regardless of contributing risk factors. AlloDerm was found to be a risk factor for seroma formation in the postoperative period. As such, it is important to be aware of this complication when performing implant-based reconstruction with this brand of acellular dermal matrix.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic, III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35499525
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009178
pii: 00006534-202207000-00004
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
17-25Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Références
American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 Plastic surgery statistics report. Available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics?sub=2018+Plastic+Surgery+Statistics . Accessed October 15, 2018.
Bertozzi N PM, Santi P, et al. Tissue expansion for breast reconstruction: Methods and techniques. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2017;21:33–44.
Frey JD, Salibian AA, Karp NS, Choi M. Implant-based breast reconstruction: Hot topics, controversies, and new directions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:404e–416e.
Liu DZ, Mathes DW, Neligan PC, Said HK, Louie O. Comparison of outcomes using AlloDerm versus FlexHD for implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:503–507.
Kim YW, Kim YJ, Kong JS, Cheon YW. Use of the pectoralis major, serratus anterior, and external oblique fascial flap for immediate one-stage breast reconstruction with implant. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2014;38:704–710.
Glassey N, Perks GB, McCulley SJ. A prospective assessment of shoulder morbidity and recovery time scales following latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:1334–1340.
Walia GS, Aston J, Bello R, et al. Prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander placement: A clinical and quality of life outcomes study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1731.
Zienowicz RJ, Karacaoglu E. Implant-based breast reconstruction with allograft. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:373–381.
Gravina PR, Pettit RW, Davis MJ, Winocour SJ, Selber JC. Evidence for the use of acellular dermal matrix in implant-based breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg. 2019;33:229–235.
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;136:10–20.
Zhao X, Wu X, Dong J, Liu Y, Zheng L, Zhang L. A meta-analysis of postoperative complications of tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2015;39:892–901.
Hallberg H, Rafnsdottir S, Selvaggi G, et al. Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2018;52:130–147.
Vashi C. Clinical outcomes for breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and reconstruction with use of DermACELL, a sterile, room temperature acellular dermal matrix. Plast Surg Int. 2014;2014:704323.
Hinchcliff KM, Orbay H, Busse BK, Charvet H, Kaur M, Sahar DE. Comparison of two cadaveric acellular dermal matrices for immediate breast reconstruction: A prospective randomized trial. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70:568–576.
Pittman TA, Fan KL, Knapp A, Frantz S, Spear SL. Comparison of different acellular dermal matrices in breast reconstruction: The 50/50 study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:521–528.
Zenn MR, Salzberg CA. A direct comparison of AlloDerm-Ready To Use (RTU) and DermACELL in immediate breast implant reconstruction. Eplasty 2016;16:e23.
Cheng A, Saint-Cyr M. Comparison of different ADM materials in breast surgery. Clin Plast Surg. 2012;39:167–175.
Francis SH, Ruberg RL, Stevenson KB, et al. Independent risk factors for infection in tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1790–1796.
Nilsen TJ, Dasgupta A, Huang YC, Wilson H, Chnari E. Do processing methods make a difference in acellular dermal matrix properties? Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36:S7–S22.
Rose JF, Zafar SN, Ellsworth Iv WA. Does acellular dermal matrix thickness affect complication rate in tissue expander based breast reconstruction? Plast Surg Int. 2016;2016:2867097.
Xiao SC, Xia ZF, Ben DF, et al. The role of pores in acellular dermal matrix substitute. Ann Burns Fire Disasters 2006;19:192–195.
Wood KL, Margulies IG, Shay PL, Ashikari AY, Salzberg CA. Complications after perforated versus nonperforated acellular dermal matrix use in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: A propensity score analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8:e2690.
Wu C, Cipriano J, Osgood G Jr, Tepper D, Siddiqui A. Human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm) dimensional changes and stretching in tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66:1376–1381.
Cole WE. DermACELL: Human acellular dermal matrix allograft: A case report. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2016;106:133–137.
Buseman J, Wong L, Kemper P, et al. Comparison of sterile versus nonsterile acellular dermal matrices for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:497–499.
Greig H, Roller J, Ziaziaris W, Van Laeken N. A retrospective review of breast reconstruction outcomes comparing AlloDerm and DermACELL. JPRAS Open 2019;22:19–26.
Urquia LN, Hart AM, Liu DZ, Losken A. Surgical outcomes in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8:e2744.
Li L, Su Y, Xiu B, et al. Comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomies: A systematic review and meta analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:1542–1550.
Nahabedian MY. Prosthetic breast reconstruction and red breast syndrome: Demystification and a review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019;7:e2108.