TY - JOUR
T1 - Complications in tissue expander breast reconstruction
T2 - A comparison of AlloDerm, DermaMatrix, and FlexHD acellular inferior pole dermal slings
AU - Brooke, Sebastian
AU - Mesa, John
AU - Uluer, Mehmet
AU - Michelotti, Brett
AU - Moyer, Kurtis
AU - Neves, Rogerio I.
AU - MacKay, Donald
AU - Potochny, John
PY - 2012/10
Y1 - 2012/10
N2 - Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently used in tissue expander breast reconstruction (TEBR) for coverage of the inferior pole. Several published studies have suggested increased rates of complications with the use of ADM. It is unknown, however, if the type of ADM used for TEBR impacts complication rates. The aim of this study is to compare 3 different types of ADM for TEBR in regard to clinically significant complications, specifically infection. We performed a retrospective analysis of primary breast cancer-related TEBR with or without ADM. Exclusion criteria consisted of prior major breast surgery, inadequate data, or loss to follow-up. Reconstructions were grouped by dermal sling type, AlloDerm, DermaMatrix (DM), FlexHD (FHD), or no ADM. Complications included cellulitis, abscess, seroma, expander leak or puncture, skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, or hematoma. Those requiring admission to hospital or reoperation were considered significant. Of 284 breasts reconstructed, 49 used AlloDerm, 110 used DM, 62 used FHD, and 64 used no ADM. The total complication rate with AlloDerm was 22% [95% confidence interval (CI), 11-34], with DM was 15% (95% CI, 8-21), and with FHD was 18% (95% CI, 8-28) (P = 0.47). Infectious complication rates for AlloDerm, DM, and FHD were equal at 10% (P = 0.97). The total complication rate of all ADM reconstructions as a grouped cohort was 17% compared to 11% without ADM (P = 0.48). The overall incidence of infectious complications with ADM was 10% compared to 2% without ADM (P = 0.09). There is no difference in the clinically significant overall complication rate or incidence of infection between AlloDerm, DM, and FHD. Isolating infectious complications, there is a trend toward increased incidence with ADM compared to reconstructions without.
AB - Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently used in tissue expander breast reconstruction (TEBR) for coverage of the inferior pole. Several published studies have suggested increased rates of complications with the use of ADM. It is unknown, however, if the type of ADM used for TEBR impacts complication rates. The aim of this study is to compare 3 different types of ADM for TEBR in regard to clinically significant complications, specifically infection. We performed a retrospective analysis of primary breast cancer-related TEBR with or without ADM. Exclusion criteria consisted of prior major breast surgery, inadequate data, or loss to follow-up. Reconstructions were grouped by dermal sling type, AlloDerm, DermaMatrix (DM), FlexHD (FHD), or no ADM. Complications included cellulitis, abscess, seroma, expander leak or puncture, skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, or hematoma. Those requiring admission to hospital or reoperation were considered significant. Of 284 breasts reconstructed, 49 used AlloDerm, 110 used DM, 62 used FHD, and 64 used no ADM. The total complication rate with AlloDerm was 22% [95% confidence interval (CI), 11-34], with DM was 15% (95% CI, 8-21), and with FHD was 18% (95% CI, 8-28) (P = 0.47). Infectious complication rates for AlloDerm, DM, and FHD were equal at 10% (P = 0.97). The total complication rate of all ADM reconstructions as a grouped cohort was 17% compared to 11% without ADM (P = 0.48). The overall incidence of infectious complications with ADM was 10% compared to 2% without ADM (P = 0.09). There is no difference in the clinically significant overall complication rate or incidence of infection between AlloDerm, DM, and FHD. Isolating infectious complications, there is a trend toward increased incidence with ADM compared to reconstructions without.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866596969&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866596969&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31824b3d97
DO - 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31824b3d97
M3 - Article
C2 - 22868313
AN - SCOPUS:84866596969
SN - 0148-7043
VL - 69
SP - 347
EP - 349
JO - Annals of plastic surgery
JF - Annals of plastic surgery
IS - 4
ER -