Literature DB >> 23429218

A comparative analysis of cryopreserved versus prehydrated human acellular dermal matrices in tissue expander breast reconstruction.

Akhil K Seth1, Scott Persing, Caitlin M Connor, Armando Davila, Elliot Hirsch, Neil A Fine, John Y S Kim.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of human acellular dermal matrices (HADMs) in breast reconstruction has become routine practice for many reconstructive surgeons. Comparative studies between 2 more common iterations of human acellular dermis are scarce. Our study evaluated reconstructive outcomes of cryopreserved and prehydrated HADMs in comparative fashion.
METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 369 consecutive tissue expander breast reconstructions performed by 2 board-certified plastic surgeons whose practice focuses on breast reconstruction. Data were collected independently by 2 reviewers, and a comparative analysis for statistical significance of outcomes was performed using the Fisher exact test, 2-tailed independent t tests, and regression analysis where appropriate.
RESULTS: Over a 5-year period, 255 patients (369 breasts) underwent breast reconstruction utilizing either cryopreserved or prehydrated HADM. Of the total, 136 breasts received cryopreserved and 233 breasts received prehydrated HADMs. The total complication rates for cryopreserved and prehydrated HADMs were 19.1% and 19.3% (P = 1.0), respectively. Additional complication rates were calculated for flap necrosis (8.1% vs 9.0%, P = 0.849), infection requiring intravenous antibiotics (10.3% vs 5.2%, P = 0.09), hematoma (2.9% vs 1.3%, P = 0.431), seroma (2.2% vs 1.0%, P = 1.0), expander exposure/dehiscence (5.9% vs 6.4%, P = 1.0), and number of breasts requiring autologous reconstruction after a complication (4.4% vs 6.4%, P = 0.491). On regression analysis, HADM type was not an independent risk factor for any complication subtype.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that there are no significant differences in complication rates between cryopreserved and prehydrated HADMs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23429218     DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318250f0b4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Plast Surg        ISSN: 0148-7043            Impact factor:   1.539


  11 in total

1.  Surveillance and Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Breast Oncologic Surgery with Immediate Reconstruction.

Authors:  Margaret A Olsen; Katelin B Nickel; Ida K Fox
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Infect Dis       Date:  2017-05-11

Review 2.  Alloplastic adjuncts in breast reconstruction.

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

3.  The relationship of human acellular dermal matrix thickness on complication rate and patient-reported outcomes in implant-based immediate breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Seung Eun Hong; Jung-Hoon Kim
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-01

Review 4.  Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review.

Authors:  Hugh Logan Ellis; Oluwatosin Asaolu; Vivien Nebo; Abdul Kasem
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 2.754

5.  Incidence of Seromas and Infections Using Fenestrated versus Nonfenestrated Acellular Dermal Matrix in Breast Reconstructions.

Authors:  David A Palaia; Karen S Arthur; Anthony C Cahan; Michael H Rosenberg
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2015-12-09

6.  An Alternative Technique for Immediate Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction-A Case Series.

Authors:  Ronald K Downs; Kellee Hedges
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2016-07-22

7.  Optimizing Outcomes of Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction With Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Review of Recent Clinical Data.

Authors:  Michael Zenn; Mark Venturi; Troy Pittman; Scott Spear; Geoffrey Gurtner; Geoffrey Robb; Alex Mesbahi; Joseph Dayan
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2017-06-12

8.  Effect of Noninfectious Wound Complications after Mastectomy on Subsequent Surgical Procedures and Early Implant Loss.

Authors:  Katelin B Nickel; Ida K Fox; Julie A Margenthaler; Anna E Wallace; Victoria J Fraser; Margaret A Olsen
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  Breast Reconstruction Using Contour Fenestrated AlloDerm: Does Improvement in Design Translate to Improved Outcomes?

Authors:  Jordan D Frey; Michael Alperovich; Katie E Weichman; Stelios C Wilson; Alexes Hazen; Pierre B Saadeh; Jamie P Levine; Mihye Choi; Nolan S Karp
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2015-09-04

10.  Comparison between Freeze-dried and Ready-to-use AlloDerm in Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  James C Yuen; Connie J Yue; Stephen W Erickson; Shannon Cooper; Cristiano Boneti; Ronda Henry-Tillman; Suzanne Klimberg
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2014-04-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.