BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) allografts and their putative benefits have been increasingly described in prosthesis based breast reconstruction. There have been a myriad of analyses outlining ADM complication profiles, but few large-scale, multi-institutional studies exploring these outcomes. In this study, complication rates of acellular dermis-assisted tissue expander breast reconstruction were compared with traditional submuscular methods by evaluation of the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) registry. METHODS: Patients who underwent immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction from 2006-2010 were identified using surgical procedure codes. Two hundred forty tracked variables from over 250 participating sites were extracted for patients undergoing acellular dermis-assisted versus submuscular tissue expander reconstruction. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes and captured risk factors for complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 9,159 patients underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction; 1,717 using acellular dermis and 7,442 with submuscular expander placement. Total complications and reconstruction related complications were similar in both cohorts (5.5% vs. 5.3%, P=0.68 and 4.7% vs. 4.3%, P=0.39, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression revealed body mass index and smoking as independent risk factors for reconstructive complications in both cohorts (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The NSQIP database provides large-scale, multi-institutional, independent outcomes for acellular dermis and submuscular breast reconstruction. Both thirty-day complication profiles and risk factors for post operative morbidity are similar between these two reconstructive approaches.
BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) allografts and their putative benefits have been increasingly described in prosthesis based breast reconstruction. There have been a myriad of analyses outlining ADM complication profiles, but few large-scale, multi-institutional studies exploring these outcomes. In this study, complication rates of acellular dermis-assisted tissue expander breast reconstruction were compared with traditional submuscular methods by evaluation of the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) registry. METHODS:Patients who underwent immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction from 2006-2010 were identified using surgical procedure codes. Two hundred forty tracked variables from over 250 participating sites were extracted for patients undergoing acellular dermis-assisted versus submuscular tissue expander reconstruction. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes and captured risk factors for complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 9,159 patients underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction; 1,717 using acellular dermis and 7,442 with submuscular expander placement. Total complications and reconstruction related complications were similar in both cohorts (5.5% vs. 5.3%, P=0.68 and 4.7% vs. 4.3%, P=0.39, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression revealed body mass index and smoking as independent risk factors for reconstructive complications in both cohorts (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The NSQIP database provides large-scale, multi-institutional, independent outcomes for acellular dermis and submuscular breast reconstruction. Both thirty-day complication profiles and risk factors for post operative morbidity are similar between these two reconstructive approaches.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alloderm; Breast implantation; Complications; Mammaplasty; Tissue expansion devices
Authors: Steven T Lanier; Eric D Wang; John J Chen; Balvant P Arora; Steven M Katz; Mark A Gelfand; Sami U Khan; Alexander B Dagum; Duc T Bui Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: C Andrew Salzberg; Andrew Y Ashikari; R Michael Koch; Elizabeth Chabner-Thompson Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: S F Khuri; J Daley; W Henderson; K Hur; J Demakis; J B Aust; V Chong; P J Fabri; J O Gibbs; F Grover; K Hammermeister; G Irvin; G McDonald; E Passaro; L Phillips; F Scamman; J Spencer; J F Stremple Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Allen S Liu; Huang-Kai Kao; Richard G Reish; Charles A Hergrueter; James W May; Lifei Guo Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Hani Sbitany; Sven N Sandeen; Ashley N Amalfi; Mark S Davenport; Howard N Langstein Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Colleen M McCarthy; Babak J Mehrara; Elyn Riedel; Kristen Davidge; Akili Hinson; Joseph J Disa; Peter G Cordeiro; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.730
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
Authors: John Y S Kim; Alexei S Mlodinow; Nima Khavanin; Keith M Hume; Christopher J Simmons; Michael J Weiss; Robert X Murphy; Karol A Gutowski Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2015-06-05