Literature DB >> 25894022

Does acellular dermal matrix really improve aesthetic outcome in tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction?

Ahmed M S Ibrahim1, Pieter G L Koolen, Oren Ganor, Mark K Markarian, Adam M Tobias, Bernard T Lee, Samuel J Lin, Marc A M Mureau.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The expectation for improved results by women undergoing postmastectomy reconstruction has steadily risen. A majority of these operations are tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstructions. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) offers numerous advantages in these procedures. Thus far, the evidence to justify improved aesthetic outcome has solely been based on surgeon opinion. The purpose of this study was to assess aesthetic outcome following ADM use in tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction by a panel of blinded plastic surgeons.
METHODS: Mean aesthetic results of patients who underwent tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction with (n = 18) or without ADM (n = 20) were assessed with objective grading of preoperative and postoperative photographs by five independent blinded plastic surgeons. Absolute observed agreement as well as weighted Fleiss Kappa (κ) test statistics were calculated to assess inter-rater variability.
RESULTS: When ADM was incorporated, the overall aesthetic score was improved by an average of 12.1 %. In addition, subscale analyses revealed improvements in breast contour (35.2 %), implant placement (20.7 %), lower pole projection (16.7 %), and inframammary fold definition (13.8 %). Contour (p = 0.039), implant placement (p = 0.021), and overall aesthetic score (p = 0.022) reached statistical significance. Inter-rater reliability showed mostly moderate agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: Mean aesthetic scores were higher in the ADM-assisted breast reconstruction cohort including the total aesthetic score which was statistically significant. Aesthetic outcome alone may justify the added expense of incorporating biologic mesh. Moreover, ADM has other benefits which may render it cost-effective. Larger prospective studies are needed to provide plastic surgeons with more definitive guidelines for ADM use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25894022     DOI: 10.1007/s00266-015-0484-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg        ISSN: 0364-216X            Impact factor:   2.326


  20 in total

Review 1.  Long term effects of modern breast cancer surgery.

Authors:  Abhishek Chatterjee
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2018-08

2.  DermACELL Acellular Dermal Matrix in Oncologic Breast Reconstruction: A Cohort Study and Systematic Review.

Authors:  Austin R Swisher; Mark J Landau; Nikita Kadakia; Stephanie W Holzmer; Hahns Y Kim
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-06-20

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

4.  Optimization of Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Roberto Cuomo; Francesco Ruben Giardino; Alessandro Neri; Giuseppe Nisi; Cesare Brandi; Irene Zerini; Han Jingjian; Luca Grimaldi
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Comparisons of Therapeutic and Aesthetic Effects of One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with and without Biological Matrix.

Authors:  Peng Gao; Zhongzhao Wang; Xiangyi Kong; Xiangyu Wang; Yi Fang; Jing Wang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 3.989

6.  Complication Rates With Human Acellular Dermal Matrices: Retrospective Review of 211 Consecutive Breast Reconstructions.

Authors:  Robert H Schnarrs; Claire M Carman; Chase Tobin; Serena A Chase; Kerri A Rossmeier
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2016-11-21

7.  Evaluation of Complication Rates after Breast Surgery Using Acellular Dermal Matrix: Median Follow-Up of Three Years.

Authors:  Felix J Paprottka; Nicco Krezdorn; Heiko Sorg; Sören Könneker; Stiliano Bontikous; Ian Robertson; Christopher L Schlett; Nils-Kristian Dohse; Detlev Hebebrand
Journal:  Plast Surg Int       Date:  2017-06-12

8.  The BREASTrial Stage II: ADM Breast Reconstruction Outcomes from Definitive Reconstruction to 3 Months Postoperative.

Authors:  Shaun D Mendenhall; Layla A Anderson; Jian Ying; Kenneth M Boucher; Leigh A Neumayer; Jayant P Agarwal
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2017-01-25

Review 9.  Novel devices for implant-based breast reconstruction: is the use of meshes to support the lower pole justified in terms of benefits? A review of the evidence.

Authors:  Lorna Jane Cook; Tibor Kovacs
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2018-01-10

10.  Titanium-coated polypropylene mesh as innovative bioactive material in conservatives mastectomies and pre-pectoral breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Pietro Gentile; Marco Bernini; Lorenzo Orzalesi; Silvia Sordi; Icro Meattini; Francesca Lessi; Ashutosh Kothari; Claudio Calabrese
Journal:  Bioact Mater       Date:  2021-05-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.