Archives of Plastic Surgery

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

DOI QR Code

Daily Serum Collection after Acellular Dermal Matrix-Assisted Breast Reconstruction

  • Caputo, Glenda Giorgia (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Surgery and Odontology Department, University Hospital of Verona) ;
  • Franchini, Zeno (General Surgery, Surgery and Odontology Department, University Hospital of Verona) ;
  • Maritan, Monia (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Surgery and Odontology Department, University Hospital of Verona) ;
  • Pozza, Edoardo Dalla (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Surgery and Odontology Department, University Hospital of Verona) ;
  • Vigato, Enrico (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Surgery and Odontology Department, University Hospital of Verona) ;
  • Tedeschi, Umberto (General Surgery, Surgery and Odontology Department, University Hospital of Verona) ;
  • Governa, Maurizio (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Surgery and Odontology Department, University Hospital of Verona)
  • Received : 2014.09.05
  • Accepted : 2014.11.05
  • Published : 2015.05.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background The acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-assisted breast reconstruction technique is widely known, but discouraging results due to early postoperative complications have been reported. As the literature identifies seroma as the most common issue after breast surgery without identifying its pathogenesis, we aimed to report the trend of postoperative daily serum collection after ADM-assisted breast reconstruction and compare it with data in the literature in order to discover more about this little-known topic. Methods A retrospective study on 28 consecutive patients who received ADM-assisted breast reconstruction between February 2013 and February 2014 was performed. In order to reduce the number of variables that could affect serum production, only one brand of ADM was used and all tissues were handled gently and precisely. The daily drainage volume was recorded per patient during the first four days of hospitalization. Likewise, postoperative complications were noted during routine follow-up. Results In total, five (17.9%) bilateral and 23 (82.1%) unilateral ADM-assisted breast reconstructions (33 implants) were performed. The mean age, body mass index, and length of hospital stay were 53.6 years, $21.3kg/m^2$, and 4.5 days, respectively. One major complication led to implant loss (3.0%), and nine minor complications were successfully treated with ambulatory surgery (27.3%). Serum collection linearly decreased after 24 hours postoperatively. Conclusions Daily drainage decreased following the theoretical decline of acute inflammation. In concordance with the literature, daily serum production may not be related to the use of ADM.

Keywords

References

  1. 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
  2. Johnson RK, Wright CK, Gandhi A, et al. Cost minimisation analysis of using acellular dermal matrix (Strattice) for breast reconstruction compared with standard techniques. Eur J Surg Oncol 2013;39:242-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2012.12.002
  3. Zienowicz RJ, Karacaoglu E. Implant-based breast reconstruction with allograft. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;120:373-81. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000267340.31742.1
  4. Hoppe IC, Yueh JH, Wei CH, et al. Complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction utilizing acellular dermal matrix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eplasty 2011;11:e40.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Kuroi K, Shimozuma K, Taguchi T, et al. Evidence-based risk factors for seroma formation in breast surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2006;36:197-206. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyl019
  8. Srivastava V, Basu S, Shukla VK. Seroma formation after breast cancer surgery: what we have learned in the last two decades. J Breast Cancer 2012;15:373-80. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2012.15.4.373
  9. Zielinski J, Jaworski R, Irga N, et al. Analysis of selected factors influencing seroma formation in breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy. Arch Med Sci 2013;9:86-92.
  10. Michelotti BF, Brooke S, Mesa J, et al. Analysis of clinically significant seroma formation in breast reconstruction using acellular dermal grafts. Ann Plast Surg 2013;71:274-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182923dc9
  11. Brzezienski MA, Jarrell JA 4th, Mooty RC. Classification and management of seromas in immediate breast reconstruction using the tissue expander and acellular dermal matrix technique. Ann Plast Surg 2013;70:488-92. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31827eac93
  12. Carlson TL, Lee KW, Pierce LM. Effect of cross-linked and non-cross-linked acellular dermal matrices on the expression of mediators involved in wound healing and matrix remodeling. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;131:697-705. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182818a3d
  13. Mestak O, Spurkova Z, Benkova K, et al. Comparison of cross-linked and non-cross-linked acellular porcine dermal scaffolds for long-term full-thickness hernia repair in a small animal model. Eplasty 2014;14:e22.
  14. Porter KA, O'Connor S, Rimm E, et al. Electrocautery as a factor in seroma formation following mastectomy. Am J Surg 1998;176:8-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(98)00093-2
  15. Ozdogan M, Yilmaz KB, Ozaslan C, et al. Scalpel versus electrocautery dissections: the effect on wound complications and pro-inflammatory cytokine levels in wound fluid. Turk J Med Sci 2008;38:111-6.
  16. Van den Broek PJ, Buys LF, Van Furth R. Interaction of povidone-iodine compounds, phagocytic cells, and microorganisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982;22:593-7. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.22.4.593
  17. Adams WP Jr, Conner WC, Barton FE Jr, et al. Optimizing breast pocket irrigation: an in vitro study and clinical implications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105:334-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200001000-00051
  18. Salzberg CA. Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix. In: Spear SL, Robb GL, Hammond DC, et al., editors. Surgery of the breast: principles and art. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010. p.412-9.
  19. Ganske I, Verma K, Rosen H, et al. Minimizing complications with the use of acellular dermal matrix for immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 71:464-70. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182a7cc9b
  20. Lawrence T, Willoughby DA, Gilroy DW. Anti-inflammatory lipid mediators and insights into the resolution of inflammation. Nat Rev Immunol 2002;2:787-95. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri915
  21. Szecsi PB, Larsen J, Horby J, et al. Seroma production after breast cancer surgery has a pro-inflammatory component. Open Breast Cancer J 2012;4:11-7. https://doi.org/10.2174/1876817201204010011
  22. Sampathraju S, Rodrigues G. Seroma formation after mastectomy: pathogenesis and prevention. Indian J Surg Oncol 2010;1:328-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-011-0067-5
  23. Badylak SF. Decellularized allogeneic and xenogeneic tissue as a bioscaffold for regenerative medicine: factors that influence the host response. Ann Biomed Eng 2014;42:1517-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0963-7
  24. Lin YP, Yin WJ, Yan TT, et al. Risk factors for postoperative seromas in Chinese breast cancer patients. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011;124:1300-4.
  25. Gonzalez EA, Saltzstein EC, Riedner CS, et al. Seroma formation following breast cancer surgery. Breast J 2003;9:385-8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4741.2003.09504.x

Cited by

  1. Predictive Factors for Drainage Volume after Expander-based Breast Reconstruction vol.4, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000000752
  2. Comparison of the Amount of Drainage in 3 Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study vol.23, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14730/aaps.2017.23.2.68
  3. Drainage Collection After Endoscopic-Assisted Transaxillary Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty Using Cold or Electrosurgical Separation of Interpectoral Space vol.28, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1177/2292550319880913
  4. Drain secretion and seroma formation after immediate breast reconstruction with a biological and a synthetic mesh, respectively: A randomized controlled study vol.26, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13921
  5. Direct‐to‐implant, prepectoral breast reconstruction with Braxon® dermal matrix: A single‐center experience with 111 cases vol.27, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.14193
  6. Quality of Life and Early Functional Evaluation in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy: A Comparative Study Between Prepectoral Versus Dual-Plane Reconstruction vol.21, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2020.11.013
  7. Commentary on “Skin Reducing Mastectomy and Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction in Large Ptotic Breasts” by Maruccia et al. vol.45, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02162-1