Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Human Acellular Dermis versus Submuscular Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Multivariate Analysis of Short-Term Complications

  • Davila, Armando A. (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine) ;
  • Seth, Akhil K. (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine) ;
  • Wang, Edward (Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine) ;
  • Hanwright, Philip (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine) ;
  • Bilimoria, Karl (Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine) ;
  • Fine, Neil (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, John Y.S. (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2012.09.19
  • Accepted : 2012.11.07
  • Published : 2013.01.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) allografts and their putative benefits have been increasingly described in prosthesis based breast reconstruction. There have been a myriad of analyses outlining ADM complication profiles, but few large-scale, multi-institutional studies exploring these outcomes. In this study, complication rates of acellular dermis-assisted tissue expander breast reconstruction were compared with traditional submuscular methods by evaluation of the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) registry. Methods Patients who underwent immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction from 2006-2010 were identified using surgical procedure codes. Two hundred forty tracked variables from over 250 participating sites were extracted for patients undergoing acellular dermis-assisted versus submuscular tissue expander reconstruction. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes and captured risk factors for complications were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 9,159 patients underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction; 1,717 using acellular dermis and 7,442 with submuscular expander placement. Total complications and reconstruction related complications were similar in both cohorts (5.5% vs. 5.3%, P=0.68 and 4.7% vs. 4.3%, P=0.39, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression revealed body mass index and smoking as independent risk factors for reconstructive complications in both cohorts (P<0.01). Conclusions The NSQIP database provides large-scale, multi-institutional, independent outcomes for acellular dermis and submuscular breast reconstruction. Both thirty-day complication profiles and risk factors for post operative morbidity are similar between these two reconstructive approaches.

Keywords

References

  1. Wainwright DJ. Use of an acellular allograft dermal matrix (AlloDerm) in the management of full-thickness burns. Burns 1995;21:243-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4179(95)93866-I
  2. Kim JY, Bullocks JM, Basu CB, et al. Dermal composite flaps reconstructed from acellular dermis: a novel method of neourethral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;115:96e- 100e. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000164495.58132.7A
  3. Buinewicz B, Rosen B. Acellular cadaveric dermis (Allo- Derm): a new alternative for abdominal hernia repair. Ann Plast Surg 2004;52:188-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000100895.41198.27
  4. Nahabedian MY. AlloDerm performance in the setting of prosthetic breast surgery, infection, and irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:1743-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181bf8087
  5. Buck DW 2nd, Heyer K, DiBardino D, et al. Acellular dermisassisted breast reconstruction with the use of crescentric tissue expansion: a functional cosmetic analysis of 40 consecutive patients. Aesthet Surg J 2010;30:194-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X10366547
  6. Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Koch RM, et al. An 8-year experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm). Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127:514-24. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318200a961
  7. Breuing KH, Colwell AS. Inferolateral AlloDerm hammock for implant coverage in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2007;59:250-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31802f8426
  8. Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, et al. Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008;32:418-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-008-9128-8
  9. Losken A. Early results using sterilized acellular human dermis (NeoForm) in post-mastectomy tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;123:1654-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31819c4337
  10. Rawlani V, Buck DW 2nd, Johnson SA, et al. Tissue expander breast reconstruction using prehydrated human acellular dermis. Ann Plast Surg 2011;66:593-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181f3ed0a
  11. Sbitany H, Sandeen SN, Amalfi AN, et al. Acellular dermisassisted prosthetic breast reconstruction versus complete submuscular coverage: a head-to-head comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:1735-40. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181bf803d
  12. Antony AK, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, et al. Acellular human dermis implantation in 153 immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstructions: determining the incidence and significant predictors of complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125:1606-14. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d4fb2a
  13. Chun YS, Verma K, Rosen H, et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125: 429-36. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c82d90
  14. Lanier ST, Wang ED, Chen JJ, et al. The effect of acellular dermal matrix use on complication rates in tissue expander/ implant breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2010;64:674-8.
  15. Liu AS, Kao HK, Reish RG, et al. Postoperative complications in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127:1755-62. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820cf233
  16. Kim JY, Davila AA, Persing S, et al. A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129:28-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182361fd6
  17. Sbitany H, Serletti JM. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128:1162-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318230c29e
  18. ACS NSQIP data: participant use data file. American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program [Internet]. Chicago, IL: American College of Sur geons; c2002-2012 [cited 2012 Feb 15]. Available from: http://acsnsqip.org/puf/PufRequestHomepage.aspx.
  19. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs' NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome- based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg 1998;228:491-507. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199810000-00006
  20. User guide for the 2010 participant use data file. American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program [Internet]. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; [cited 2012 Jun 21]. Available from: http://site. acsnsqip.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2010-User- Guide_FINAL.pdf.
  21. Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol 2007;165:710-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwk052
  22. McCarthy CM, Mehrara BJ, Riedel E, et al. Predicting complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction: an outcomes analysis based on preoperative clinical risk. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:1886-92. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31817151c4
  23. Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Kim HM, et al. Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;109:2265-74. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200206000-00015
  24. Kronowitz SJ, Robb GL. Radiation therapy and breast reconstruction: a critical review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:395-408. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aee987
  25. Hirsch EM, Seth AK, Dumanian GA, et al. Outcomes of tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction in the setting of prereconstruction radiation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129: 354-61. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823ae8b1

Cited by

  1. Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database in 19,100 Patients Undergoing Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Complication Rates with Acellular Dermal Matrix vol.132, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3182a3beec
  2. Bilateral involvement in patients with granulomatous mastitis: Surgical treatment and case report vol.2, pp.9, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4236/crcm.2013.29137
  3. Risk factors for mastectomy flap necrosis following immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction vol.48, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3109/2000656x.2014.884973
  4. Tissue Reinforcement in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction vol.2, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000000140
  5. Problems Associated with Alloplastic Materials in Rhinoplasty vol.55, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2014.55.6.1617
  6. SERI Surgical Scaffold, Prospective Clinical Trial of a Silk-Derived Biological Scaffold in Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction: 1-Year Data vol.135, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000000987
  7. Systematic review and critical appraisal of the impact of acellular dermal matrix use on the outcomes of implant‐based breast reconstruction vol.102, pp.9, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9804
  8. Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Are All Acellular Dermal Matrices Created Equal? vol.136, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000001569
  9. Updated Evidence of Acellular Dermal Matrix Use for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis vol.23, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4873-9
  10. A Complication Analysis of 2 Acellular Dermal Matrices in Prosthetic-based Breast Reconstruction vol.4, pp.7, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000000790
  11. Acellular dermal matrices in breast reconstructions - a literature review vol.50, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3109/2000656x.2016.1140053
  12. Direct Hospital Cost of Outcome Pathways in Implant-Based Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrices vol.4, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000000848
  13. Surgeon-Controlled Study and Meta-Analysis Comparing FlexHD and AlloDerm in Immediate Breast Reconstruction Outcomes vol.138, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000002616
  14. One-Stage Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Concise Review vol.2017, pp.None, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6486859
  15. Evidence-Based Medicine: Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction vol.140, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000003472
  16. Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis vol.52, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656x.2017.1419141
  17. Bovine Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Retrospective, Observational Study with SurgiMend vol.141, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000003982
  18. Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction in Women Older than 65 Years: A Retrospective Analysis of Complication Rate and Overall Outcomes vol.141, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004015
  19. Improving Outcome in Immediate Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction, an Algorithm for Operative Decision Making vol.6, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000001845
  20. Does acellular dermal matrix expand in response to tissue expander inflation? vol.46, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2018.00304