The aim of the study was to show significant differences regarding postoperative complications and outcomes using three different Acellular Dermal Matrices (ADM), namely Epiflex®, Strattice® and Braxon®, in immediate implant-based subpectoral breast reconstruction cases. Background: The use of Acellular Dermal Matrices for implant-based breast reconstruction cases continues to evolve. There is a wide variety of products which differ significantly in their biological features. It remains unclear if and how these differences manifest in clinical practice. Methods: 82 cases of primary breast reconstruction in the Department of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery of HELIOS Clinics Schwerin, Germany between 2010 and 2018 were analyzed. 25 patients received Strattice® acellular dermal matrix (SADM), 22 cases Epiflex® acellular dermal matrix (EADM) and the remaining 35 cases Braxon® acellular dermal matrix (BADM). The mean follow-up was 1.8 years. Cases were analyzed regarding minor or major complications and rate of capsular contracture grade III or IV (Baker Classification). Results: The overall complication rate was 34.1% for all groups (SADM = 40%, EADM = 50%, BADM = 20%, p-value = 0.051). Of all cases, 6 patients underwent implant exchange or secondary autologous reconstruction due to capsular contracture (7.3%). The mean time between revision due to capsular contracture and reconstruction was 35.8 ± 14.4 months. 50% of patients, who developed capsular contracture, received postoperative radiation. Mean hospitalization time was 8.2 ± 3 days (SADM = 8 ± 3.2 days, EADM = 10 ± 2.8 days, BADM = 6 ± 1.3 days). There were no significant differences between all three groups for demographics, overall complication rate or capsular contracture. However, patients receiving Braxon® matrix showed
References
[1]
Spear, S.L., Pelletiere, C.V. and Lockwood, M. (2006) Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Tissue Expanders and AlloDerm. In: Spear, S.L., Wiley, S.C., Robb, G.L., Hammond, D.C. and Nahabedian, M.Y., Eds., Surgery of the Breast, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 484-488.
[2]
Sbitany, H. and Langstein, H.N. (2011) Acellular Dermal Matrix in Primary Breast Reconstruction. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 31, 30S-37S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X11417577
[3]
Ibrahim, A.M.S., Koolen, P.G.L., Ganor, O., Markarian, M.K., Tobias, A.M., Lee, B.T., Mureau, M.A.M., et al. (2015) Does Acellular Dermal Matrix Really Improve Aesthetic Outcome in Tissue Expander/Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction? Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 39, 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0484-x
[4]
Forsberg, C.G., Kelly, D.A., Wood, B.C., Mastrangelo, S.L., DeFranzo, A.J., Thompson, J.T., Marks, M.W., et al. (2014) Aesthetic Outcomes of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Tissue Expander/Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 72, S116-S120. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000098
[5]
Myckatyn, T.M., Cavallo, J.A., Sharma, K., Gangopadhyay, N., Dudas, J.R., Roma, A.A., Deeken, C.R., et al. (2015) The Impact of Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy on the Remodeling of Acellular Dermal Matrices in Staged, Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 135, 43e-57e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000807
[6]
Vaughan, H.A., Loveland, B.E. and Sandrin, M.S. (1994) GALα(1,3)GAL Is the Major Xenoepitope Expressed on Pig Endothelial Cells Recognized by Naturally Occurring Cytotoxic Human Antibodies. Transplantation, 58, 879-882. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007890-199410270-00003
[7]
Gao, H.-W., Li, S.-B., Sun, W.Q., Yun, Z.-M., Zhang, X., Song, J.-W., Gong, F., et al. (2015) Quantification of α-Gal Antigen Removal in the Porcine Dermal Tissue by α-Galactosidase. Tissue Engineering Part C: Methods, 21, 1197-1204. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2015.0129
[8]
Roessner, E.D., Vitacolonna, M. and Hohenberger, P. (2012) Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy Evaluation of an Acellular Dermis Tissue Transplant (Epiflex®). PLoS ONE, 7, e45991. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045991
[9]
Moyer, H.R., Hart, A.M., Yeager, J. and Losken, A. (2017) A Histological Comparison of Two Human Acellular Dermal Matrix Products in Prosthetic-Based Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, 5, e1576. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001576
[10]
Glasberg, S.B. and Light, D. (2012) AlloDerm and Strattice in Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 129, 1223-1233. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824ec429
[11]
Keifer, O.P., Page, E.K., Hart, A., Rudderman, R., Carlson, G.W. and Losken, A. (2016) A Complication Analysis of 2 Acellular Dermal Matrices in Prosthetic-Based Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, 4, e800. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000790
[12]
Paprottka, F.J., Krezdorn, N., Sorg, H., Könneker, S., Bontikous, S., Robertson, I., Hebebrand, D., et al. (2017) Evaluation of Complication Rates after Breast Surgery Using Acellular Dermal Matrix: Median Follow-Up of Three Years. Plastic Surgery International, 2017, Article ID: 1283735. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1283735
[13]
Salzberg, C.A., Ashikari, A.Y., Koch, R.M. and Chabner-Thompson, E. (2011) An 8-Year Experience of Direct-to-Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction Using Human Acellular Dermal Matrix (AlloDerm). Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 127, 514-524. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318200a961
[14]
Deva, A.K., Adams, W.P. and Vickery, K. (2013) The Role of Bacterial Biofilms in Device-Associated Infection. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 132, 1319-1328. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a3c105
[15]
Breuing, K.H. and Colwell, A.S. (2007) Inferolateral AlloDerm Hammock for Implant Coverage in Breast Reconstruction. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 59, 250-255. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31802f8426
[16]
Liao, E.C. and Breuing, K.H. (2007) Breast Mound Salvage Using Vacuum-Assisted Closure Device as Bridge to Reconstruction with Inferolateral AlloDerm Hammock. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 59, 218-224. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31802c148c
[17]
Chun, Y.S., Verma, K., Rosen, H., Lipsitz, S., Morris, D., Kenney, P. and Eriksson, E. (2010) Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using Acellular Dermal Matrix and the Risk of Postoperative Complications. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 125, 429-436. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c82d90
[18]
Colwell, A.S., Damjanovic, B., Zahedi, B., Medford-Davis, L., Hertl, C. and Austen, W.G. (2011) Retrospective Review of 331 Consecutive Immediate Single-Stage Implant Reconstructions with Acellular Dermal Matrix. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 128, 1170-1178. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318230c2f6
[19]
Nahabedian, M.Y. (2012) Acellular Dermal Matrices in Primary Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 130, 44S-53S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825f2215
[20]
Jordan, S.W., Khavanin, N., Fine, N.A. and Kim, J.Y.S. (2014) An Algorithmic Approach for Selective Acellular Dermal Matrix Use in Immediate Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 134, 178-188. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000366
[21]
Kim, S.Y. and Bang, S.I. (2017) Impact of Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) Use under Mastectomy Flap Necrosis on Perioperative Outcomes of Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 41, 275-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0794-2
[22]
Rose, J.F., Zafar, S.N. and Ellsworth IV, W.A. (2016) Does Acellular Dermal Matrix Thickness Affect Complication Rate in Tissue Expander Based Breast Reconstruction? Plastic Surgery International, 2016, Article ID: 2867097. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2867097
[23]
Vittekova, M., Dragunova, J., Kabat, P., Bozikova, M., Bakos, D. and Koller, J. (2014) Cytotoxicity Testing of Scaffolds Potentially Suitable for the Preparation of Three-Dimensional Skin Substitutes. Cell Tissue Bank, 15, 345-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-013-9390-0
[24]
Eichler, C., Vogt, N., Brunnert, K., Sauerwald, A., Puppe, J. and Warm, M. (2015) A Head-to-Head Comparison between SurgiMend and Epiflex in 127 Breast Reconstructions. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, 3, e439. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000409
[25]
Gilbert, T.W., Freund, J.M. and Badylak, S.F. (2009) Quantification of DNA in Biologic Scaffold Materials. Journal of Surgical Research, 152, 135-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2008.02.013
[26]
Rawlani, V., Buck, D.W., Johnson, S.A., Heyer, K.S. and Kim, J.Y.S. (2011) Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction Using Prehydrated Human Acellular Dermis. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 66, 593-597. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181f3ed0a
[27]
Antony, A.K., McCarthy, C.M., Cordeiro, P.G., Mehrara, B.J., Pusic, A.L., Teo, E.H., Disa, J.J., et al. (2010) Acellular Human Dermis Implantation in 153 Immediate Two-Stage Tissue Expander Breast Reconstructions: Determining the Incidence and Significant Predictors of Complications. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 125, 1606-1614. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d4fb2a
[28]
Lee, C.-H., Cheng, M.-H., Wu, C.-W., Kuo, W.-L., Yu, C.-C. and Huang, J.-J. (2019) Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction after Recurrence from Previous Breast Conservation Therapy. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 82, S95-S102. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001696
[29]
Olson, J., Anderson, L.A., Ying, J., Zhang, M.-M. and Agarwal, J.P. (2017) Nipple Sparing Mastectomy in Patients with Prior Breast Scars. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 78, 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000818
[30]
Radovanovic, Z., Radovanovic, D., Golubovic, A., Ivkovic-Kapicl, T., Bokorov, B. and Mandic, A. (2010) Early Complications after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Silicone Prosthesis: Results of 214 Procedures. Scandinavian Journal of Surgery, 99, 115-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/145749691009900302
[31]
Lam, T.C., Hsieh, F., Salinas, J. and Boyages, J. (2018) Immediate and Long-Term Complications of Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction after Nipple- or Skin-Sparing Mastectomy. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, 6, e1977. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001977
[32]
Lardi, A.M., Ho-Asjoe, M., Junge, K. and Farhadi, J. (2017) Capsular Contracture in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction—The Effect of Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix. Gland Surgery, 6, 49-56. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2017.01.02
[33]
Berna, G., Cawthorn, S.J., Papaccio, G. and Balestrieri, N. (2017) Evaluation of a Novel Breast Reconstruction Technique Using the Braxon® Acellular Dermal Matrix: A New Muscle-Sparing Breast Reconstruction. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 87, 493-498. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.12849
[34]
Schmitz, M., Bertram, M., Kneser, U., Keller, A.K. and Horch, R.U. (2013) Experimental Total Wrapping of Breast Implants with Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Preventive Tool against Capsular Contracture in Breast Surgery? Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 66, 1382-1389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2013.05.020
[35]
Unger, J.G., Carrears, J.M., Nagarkar, P., Jeong, H.S. and Carpenter, W. (2016) Allergan Style 410 Implants for Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study in Efficacy, Safety, and Symmetry. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 138, 548-555. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002429
[36]
McGuire, P., Reisman, N.R. and Murphy, D.K. (2017) Risk Factor Analysis for Capsular Contracture, Malposition, and Late Seroma in Subjects Receiving Natrelle 410 Form-Stable Silicone Breast Implants. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 139, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002837
Monteiro, G.A., Rodriguez, N.L., Delossantos, A.I. and Wagner, C.T. (2013) Short-Term in Vivo Biological and Mechanical Remodeling of Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrices. Journal of Tissue Engineering, 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731413490182
[39]
Mulier, K.E., Nguyen, A.H., Delaney, J.P., et al. (2011) Comparison of PermacolTM and StratticeTM for the Repair of Abdominal Wall Defects. Hernia, 15, 315-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-010-0777-6
[40]
Pascual, G., Sotomayor, S., Rodríguez, M., Pérez-Köhler, B. and Bellón, J.M. (2012) Repair of Abdominal Wall Defects with Biodegradable Laminar Prostheses: Polymeric or Biological? PLoS ONE, 7, e52628. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052628
[41]
Molina, C., Giglio, R., Gandhi, R.M., Sicari, B.M., Londono, R., Hussey, G.S., Badylak, S.F., et al. (2019) Comparison of the Host Macrophage Response to Synthetic and Biologic Surgical Meshes Used for Ventral Hernia Repair. Journal of Immunology and Regenerative Medicine, 3, 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regen.2018.12.002
[42]
Dieterich, M. and Faridi, A. (2013) Biological Matrices and Synthetic Meshes Used in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction—A Review of Products Available in Germany. Geburths Frauenheilk, 73, 1100-1106. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1350930
[43]
Igbal, F.M., Bhatnagar, A. and Vidya, R. (2016) Host Integration of an Acellular Dermal Matrix: Braxon Mesh in Breast Reconstruction. Clinical Breast Cancer, 16, 209-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2016.06.009
