Literature DB >> 22094736

Retrospective review of 331 consecutive immediate single-stage implant reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix: indications, complications, trends, and costs.

Amy S Colwell1, Branimir Damjanovic, Bita Zahedi, Laura Medford-Davis, Catherine Hertl, William G Austen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Immediate single-stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix optimizes aesthetics by preserving the mastectomy skin envelope. The authors report trends, early complications, and costs.
METHODS: A retrospective review of three surgeons' experience was performed for immediate single-stage implant reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix and tissue expander reconstruction without it at Massachusetts General Hospital.
RESULTS: Two hundred eleven patients had 331 direct-to-implant reconstructions using AlloDerm following nipple-sparing (n = 66) or skin-sparing (n = 265) mastectomy for cancer (n = 216) or prophylaxis (n = 115). The number of single-stage implant reconstructions increased from seven in 2006 to 116 in 2009. The percentage performed for prophylaxis increased from 29 percent to 41 percent. Fifty-one patients underwent preoperative (n = 33) or postoperative (n = 18) irradiation. Total complications included 10 infections (3.0 percent), five seromas (1.5 percent), four hematomas (1.2 percent), and 30 reconstructions (9.1 percent), with skin necrosis leading to five implant losses (1.5 percent). Tissue expander reconstruction without AlloDerm had a similar total complication rate (158 reconstructions) (p = 0.18), including nine infections (5.7 percent), three seromas (1.9 percent), three hematomas (1.9 percent), and 16 reconstructions (10.1 percent), with skin necrosis leading to 11 implant losses (7.0 percent). A higher complication rate occurred in the surgeons' combined first year performing single-stage implant reconstruction (21.4 percent) compared with subsequent years (10.9 percent) (p < 0.02) and in one- or two-stage reconstruction patients undergoing irradiation (p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in total overall costs (p = 0.8).
CONCLUSIONS: Immediate single-stage implant reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix offers a cost-effective reconstruction with a low complication rate. This may be the procedure of choice in select patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22094736     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318230c2f6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  66 in total

1.  Acellular dermal matrices: Use in reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery.

Authors:  Sheina A Macadam; Peter A Lennox
Journal:  Can J Plast Surg       Date:  2012

Review 2.  Current strategies with 1-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Amy S Colwell
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2015-04

Review 3.  Current opinions on indications and algorithms for acellular dermal matrix use in primary prosthetic breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Michael M Vu; John Y S Kim
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2015-06

4.  Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Amy S Colwell
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2012-11

Review 5.  Implant Reconstruction in Nipple Sparing Mastectomy.

Authors:  Carrie K Chu; Matthew J Davis; Amjed Abu-Ghname; Sebastian J Winocour; Albert Losken; Grant W Carlson
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 2.314

Review 6.  Evidence for the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Paula R Gravina; Rowland W Pettit; Matthew J Davis; Sebastian J Winocour; Jesse C Selber
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 2.314

Review 7.  Breast reconstruction following prophylactic or therapeutic mastectomy for breast cancer: Recommendations from an evidence-based provincial guideline.

Authors:  Melissa Shea-Budgell; May Lynn Quan; Blair Mehling; Claire Temple-Oberle
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 0.947

Review 8.  Breast Reconstruction Following Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Bernd Gerber; Mario Marx; Michael Untch; Andree Faridi
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 9.  Implant-based breast reconstruction following conservative mastectomy: one-stage vs. two-stage approach.

Authors:  Maurice Y Nahabedian
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2016-02

10.  Remodeling Characteristics and Collagen Distributions of Biologic Scaffold Materials Biopsied From Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction Sites.

Authors:  Jaime A Cavallo; Noopur Gangopadhyay; Jason Dudas; Andres A Roma; Mateusz S Jasielec; Jack Baty; Sara Baalman; Margaret M Frisella; Marissa M Tenenbaum; Terence M Myckatyn; Brent D Matthews; Corey R Deeken
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.539

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.