Use of acellular dermal matrix in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: Are all Acellular dermal matrices created equal?

Kavitha Ranganathan, Katherine B. Santosa, Daniel A. Lyons, Simanjit Mand, Minqiang Xin, Kelley Kidwell, David L. Brown, Edwin G. Wilkins, Adeyiza O. Momoh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: AlloDerm and FlexHD are two types of acellular dermal matrices commonly used in implant-based reconstruction. Although the use of acellular dermal matrix has revolutionized immediate breast reconstruction in the setting of breast cancer, it remains unclear which type of acellular dermal matrix is best. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare postoperative complication rates between these two types of acellular dermal matrix. Methods: The authors reviewed the records of all patients who underwent implant- based breast reconstruction at their institution between 1998 and 2013. Dependent variables of seroma, hematoma, infection, delayed wound healing, implant exposure, and return to the operating room for management of complications were recorded. Results: A total of 309 consecutive patients were identified. Of these, AlloDerm was used in 123 patients (39.8 percent) and FlexHD was used in 186 patients (60.2 percent). Most patients in the authors' cohort underwent immediate reconstruction [n = 288 (93.2 percent)], with a mean follow-up of 20.0 months. Patients receiving AlloDerm were half as likely to have major infections compared with patients receiving FlexHD (OR, 0.50; 95 percent CI, 0.16 to 1.00; p < 0.05). The rates of other complications were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: There are significantly increased odds of a major infection in patients who undergo implant-based breast reconstruction using FlexHD compared with AlloDerm.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)647-653
Number of pages7
JournalPlastic and reconstructive surgery
Volume136
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Acellular Dermis
Mammaplasty
Infection
Seroma
Operating Rooms
Hematoma
Wound Healing
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Breast Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Use of acellular dermal matrix in postmastectomy breast reconstruction : Are all Acellular dermal matrices created equal? / Ranganathan, Kavitha; Santosa, Katherine B.; Lyons, Daniel A.; Mand, Simanjit; Xin, Minqiang; Kidwell, Kelley; Brown, David L.; Wilkins, Edwin G.; Momoh, Adeyiza O.

In: Plastic and reconstructive surgery, Vol. 136, No. 4, 01.10.2015, p. 647-653.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ranganathan, Kavitha ; Santosa, Katherine B. ; Lyons, Daniel A. ; Mand, Simanjit ; Xin, Minqiang ; Kidwell, Kelley ; Brown, David L. ; Wilkins, Edwin G. ; Momoh, Adeyiza O. / Use of acellular dermal matrix in postmastectomy breast reconstruction : Are all Acellular dermal matrices created equal?. In: Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2015 ; Vol. 136, No. 4. pp. 647-653.
@article{026abaedc59b43c7ac4f2a2fdbd03c22,
title = "Use of acellular dermal matrix in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: Are all Acellular dermal matrices created equal?",
abstract = "Background: AlloDerm and FlexHD are two types of acellular dermal matrices commonly used in implant-based reconstruction. Although the use of acellular dermal matrix has revolutionized immediate breast reconstruction in the setting of breast cancer, it remains unclear which type of acellular dermal matrix is best. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare postoperative complication rates between these two types of acellular dermal matrix. Methods: The authors reviewed the records of all patients who underwent implant- based breast reconstruction at their institution between 1998 and 2013. Dependent variables of seroma, hematoma, infection, delayed wound healing, implant exposure, and return to the operating room for management of complications were recorded. Results: A total of 309 consecutive patients were identified. Of these, AlloDerm was used in 123 patients (39.8 percent) and FlexHD was used in 186 patients (60.2 percent). Most patients in the authors' cohort underwent immediate reconstruction [n = 288 (93.2 percent)], with a mean follow-up of 20.0 months. Patients receiving AlloDerm were half as likely to have major infections compared with patients receiving FlexHD (OR, 0.50; 95 percent CI, 0.16 to 1.00; p < 0.05). The rates of other complications were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: There are significantly increased odds of a major infection in patients who undergo implant-based breast reconstruction using FlexHD compared with AlloDerm.",
author = "Kavitha Ranganathan and Santosa, {Katherine B.} and Lyons, {Daniel A.} and Simanjit Mand and Minqiang Xin and Kelley Kidwell and Brown, {David L.} and Wilkins, {Edwin G.} and Momoh, {Adeyiza O.}",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0000000000001569",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "136",
pages = "647--653",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of acellular dermal matrix in postmastectomy breast reconstruction

T2 - Are all Acellular dermal matrices created equal?

AU - Ranganathan, Kavitha

AU - Santosa, Katherine B.

AU - Lyons, Daniel A.

AU - Mand, Simanjit

AU - Xin, Minqiang

AU - Kidwell, Kelley

AU - Brown, David L.

AU - Wilkins, Edwin G.

AU - Momoh, Adeyiza O.

PY - 2015/10/1

Y1 - 2015/10/1

N2 - Background: AlloDerm and FlexHD are two types of acellular dermal matrices commonly used in implant-based reconstruction. Although the use of acellular dermal matrix has revolutionized immediate breast reconstruction in the setting of breast cancer, it remains unclear which type of acellular dermal matrix is best. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare postoperative complication rates between these two types of acellular dermal matrix. Methods: The authors reviewed the records of all patients who underwent implant- based breast reconstruction at their institution between 1998 and 2013. Dependent variables of seroma, hematoma, infection, delayed wound healing, implant exposure, and return to the operating room for management of complications were recorded. Results: A total of 309 consecutive patients were identified. Of these, AlloDerm was used in 123 patients (39.8 percent) and FlexHD was used in 186 patients (60.2 percent). Most patients in the authors' cohort underwent immediate reconstruction [n = 288 (93.2 percent)], with a mean follow-up of 20.0 months. Patients receiving AlloDerm were half as likely to have major infections compared with patients receiving FlexHD (OR, 0.50; 95 percent CI, 0.16 to 1.00; p < 0.05). The rates of other complications were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: There are significantly increased odds of a major infection in patients who undergo implant-based breast reconstruction using FlexHD compared with AlloDerm.

AB - Background: AlloDerm and FlexHD are two types of acellular dermal matrices commonly used in implant-based reconstruction. Although the use of acellular dermal matrix has revolutionized immediate breast reconstruction in the setting of breast cancer, it remains unclear which type of acellular dermal matrix is best. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare postoperative complication rates between these two types of acellular dermal matrix. Methods: The authors reviewed the records of all patients who underwent implant- based breast reconstruction at their institution between 1998 and 2013. Dependent variables of seroma, hematoma, infection, delayed wound healing, implant exposure, and return to the operating room for management of complications were recorded. Results: A total of 309 consecutive patients were identified. Of these, AlloDerm was used in 123 patients (39.8 percent) and FlexHD was used in 186 patients (60.2 percent). Most patients in the authors' cohort underwent immediate reconstruction [n = 288 (93.2 percent)], with a mean follow-up of 20.0 months. Patients receiving AlloDerm were half as likely to have major infections compared with patients receiving FlexHD (OR, 0.50; 95 percent CI, 0.16 to 1.00; p < 0.05). The rates of other complications were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: There are significantly increased odds of a major infection in patients who undergo implant-based breast reconstruction using FlexHD compared with AlloDerm.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942413670&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84942413670&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001569

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001569

M3 - Article

C2 - 26397242

AN - SCOPUS:84942413670

VL - 136

SP - 647

EP - 653

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

IS - 4

ER -