BACKGROUND: Sterile ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix, introduced as an alternative to aseptic freeze-dried acellular dermal matrix for implant-based breast reconstruction, has been investigated in a limited number of studies. This study compared outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction with ready-to-use and freeze-dried acellular dermal matrix. METHODS: The authors analyzed patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction with either freeze-dried or ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix, including demographics, clinical variables, and outcomes. An a priori power analysis was performed and logistic regression modeling was used to quantify the effect of acellular dermal matrix on outcomes while controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 1285 consecutive patients undergoing 2039 immediate prosthetic breast reconstructions constituted the population: 612 (n = 910 breasts) with freeze-dried matrix and 673 (n = 1129 breasts) with ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix. The freeze-dried matrix cohort had a significantly higher rate of explantation compared with the ready-to-use matrix cohort (18.0 percent versus 12.0 percent; p = 0.0036), but surgical-site infection, wound dehiscence, mastectomy flap necrosis, seroma, and hematoma did not differ significantly between groups. On multivariate regression, patients undergoing reconstruction with freeze-dried matrix, compared to ready-to-use matrix, did not have higher odds of experiencing surgical-site infections (OR, 1.064; p = 0.7455), but did have higher odds of explantation (OR, 1.570; p = 0.0161). Tobacco use (OR, 2.809; p = 0.0002) and body mass index (OR, 1.054; p < 0.0001) were also independent predictors of explantation. CONCLUSION: Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with sterile ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix has a comparable overall safety profile and a lower rate of prosthetic explantations compared with aseptic freeze-dried acellular dermal matrix. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
BACKGROUND: Sterile ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix, introduced as an alternative to aseptic freeze-dried acellular dermal matrix for implant-based breast reconstruction, has been investigated in a limited number of studies. This study compared outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction with ready-to-use and freeze-dried acellular dermal matrix. METHODS: The authors analyzed patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction with either freeze-dried or ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix, including demographics, clinical variables, and outcomes. An a priori power analysis was performed and logistic regression modeling was used to quantify the effect of acellular dermal matrix on outcomes while controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 1285 consecutive patients undergoing 2039 immediate prosthetic breast reconstructions constituted the population: 612 (n = 910 breasts) with freeze-dried matrix and 673 (n = 1129 breasts) with ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix. The freeze-dried matrix cohort had a significantly higher rate of explantation compared with the ready-to-use matrix cohort (18.0 percent versus 12.0 percent; p = 0.0036), but surgical-site infection, wound dehiscence, mastectomy flap necrosis, seroma, and hematoma did not differ significantly between groups. On multivariate regression, patients undergoing reconstruction with freeze-dried matrix, compared to ready-to-use matrix, did not have higher odds of experiencing surgical-site infections (OR, 1.064; p = 0.7455), but did have higher odds of explantation (OR, 1.570; p = 0.0161). Tobacco use (OR, 2.809; p = 0.0002) and body mass index (OR, 1.054; p < 0.0001) were also independent predictors of explantation. CONCLUSION: Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with sterile ready-to-use acellular dermal matrix has a comparable overall safety profile and a lower rate of prosthetic explantations compared with aseptic freeze-dried acellular dermal matrix. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Adeyiza O Momoh; Ji Qi; Jennifer B Hamill; Jessica Billig; Hyungjin M Kim; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Alfred P Yoon; Ji Qi; David L Brown; Hyungjin M Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Jessica Erdmann-Sager; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins Journal: Breast Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Orion P Keifer; Eugenia K Page; Alexandra Hart; Randall Rudderman; Grant W Carlson; Albert Losken Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2016-07-13
Authors: Kasey Leigh Wood; Ilana G Margulies; Paul L Shay; Andrew Y Ashikari; C Andrew Salzberg Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2020-03-20
Authors: Heather R Faulkner; Lauren Shikowitz-Behr; Matthew McLeod; Eric Wright; John Hulsen; William G Austen Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 5.169