BACKGROUND: Allogenic acellular dermal matrix can be used in single-stage, expander-based immediate and delayed breast reconstructions to provide inferolateral prosthesis coverage and reconstruction of the inframammary fold. Two allogenic dermal matrix products currently available, AlloDerm and DermaMatrix, differ in method of storage, cost, and intraoperative preparation. The purpose of this study was to determine, first, whether there are any significant differences in the rates of postoperative complications, material compliance, or capsule characteristics; and second, if differences are present, whether they had any impact on final outcome. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 30 patients (50 breasts) who underwent immediate expander-based breast reconstructions using either AlloDerm (n = 25) or DermaMatrix (n = 25) dermal substitutes was performed. Primary endpoints were (1) incidence of seroma, (2) wound infection, (3) number of days requiring drains, (4) rate of tissue expansion, (5) final expanded volume, (6) final implant volume, and (7) neovascularization. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 6.7 months. During this time, no significant differences in the complication profile were found between the two groups. Both dermal substitutes were found to be well incorporated, with evidence of neovascularization, on histologic examination. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated no significant differences in the rate of complications or material compliance. The total complication rate was 4 percent, with seroma and wound infection being the most common complications. The authors' preliminary findings indicate no significant difference between implant/expander-based reconstructions using AlloDerm and those using DermaMatrix.
BACKGROUND: Allogenic acellular dermal matrix can be used in single-stage, expander-based immediate and delayed breast reconstructions to provide inferolateral prosthesis coverage and reconstruction of the inframammary fold. Two allogenic dermal matrix products currently available, AlloDerm and DermaMatrix, differ in method of storage, cost, and intraoperative preparation. The purpose of this study was to determine, first, whether there are any significant differences in the rates of postoperative complications, material compliance, or capsule characteristics; and second, if differences are present, whether they had any impact on final outcome. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 30 patients (50 breasts) who underwent immediate expander-based breast reconstructions using either AlloDerm (n = 25) or DermaMatrix (n = 25) dermal substitutes was performed. Primary endpoints were (1) incidence of seroma, (2) wound infection, (3) number of days requiring drains, (4) rate of tissue expansion, (5) final expanded volume, (6) final implant volume, and (7) neovascularization. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 6.7 months. During this time, no significant differences in the complication profile were found between the two groups. Both dermal substitutes were found to be well incorporated, with evidence of neovascularization, on histologic examination. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated no significant differences in the rate of complications or material compliance. The total complication rate was 4 percent, with seroma and wound infection being the most common complications. The authors' preliminary findings indicate no significant difference between implant/expander-based reconstructions using AlloDerm and those using DermaMatrix.
Authors: Michael Sorkin; Ji Qi; Hyungjin M Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Jeffrey H Kozlow; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Miguel S Cabalag; Marie Rostek; George S Miller; Michael P Chae; Tam Quinn; Warren M Rozen; David J Hunter-Smith Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2016-04