Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1744408

Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix for Two-Staged Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: An Institutional Experience  

Luo, Jessica (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah)
Willis, Rhett N. Jr (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah)
Ohlsen, Suzanna M. (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah)
Piccinin, Meghan (Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine)
Moores, Neal (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah)
Kwok, Alvin C. (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah)
Agarwal, Jayant P. (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah)
Publication Information
Archives of Plastic Surgery / v.49, no.2, 2022 , pp. 166-173 More about this Journal
Abstract
The introduction of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to breast reconstruction has allowed surgeons to reexplore the prepectoral implant placement technique in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Our institution adopted a novel approach using meshed ADM to lessen the financial burden of increased ADM utilization with the prepectoral breast reconstruction. This is a retrospective, single-center review of two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction using meshed human-derived ADM for anterior prosthesis coverage. Patient demographics, oncologic data, perioperative characteristics, and complications were examined and reported as means with standard deviations. Cost-saving with the meshed technique was evaluated. Forty-eight patients (72 breasts) with a mean age of 48.5 ± 15.0 years (range 26-70 years) were included in the study. The mean follow-up time was 13.2 ± 4.4 months (range 4.1-25.8 months). Nineteen breasts (24.6%) experienced complications, with seromas being the most common complication (12.5%, n = 9). Expander removal and reoperation occurred at a rate of 8.3 and 9.7%, respectively. The average time to drain removal was 18.8 ± 6.6 days (range 8-32 days). Meshed ADM provided an average cost savings of $6,601 for unilateral and $13,202 for bilateral reconstructions. Our study found that human-derived meshed ADM can be safely used in two-staged prepectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction and can result in significant cost savings.
Keywords
acellular dermal matrix; prepectoral; breast reconstruction; meshed; case reports;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Bloom JA, Patel K, Cohen S, et al. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: an overview of the history, technique, and reported complications. Open Access Surg 2020;13:1-9   DOI
2 Zenn MR. Indications and controversies for implant-based breast reconstruction utilizing biological meshes. Clin Plast Surg 2018;45(01):55-63   DOI
3 Sigalove S. Options in acellular dermal matrix-device assembly. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140(6S Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction):39S-42S   DOI
4 Hagarty SE, Yen LL, Luo J, Fosco CR, Gomez K, Khare M. Decreased length of postoperative drain use, parenteral opioids, length of stay, and complication rates in patients receiving meshed versus unmeshed acellular dermal matrix in 194 submuscular tissue expander-based breast reconstructions: a single-surgeon cohort study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;145(04):889-897   DOI
5 Uzunismail A, Duman A, Perk C, et al. The effects of acellular dermal allograft (AlloDerm®) interface on silicone-related capsule formation-experimental study. Eur J Plast Surg 2008;31:179-185   DOI
6 Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Berry C, Hunsicker LM. Acellular dermal matrix-assisted direct-to-implant breast reconstruction and capsular contracture: a 13-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;138(02):329-337   DOI
7 Paprottka FJ, Krezdorn N, Sorg H, et al. Evaluation of complication rates after breast surgery using acellular dermal matrix: median follow-up of three years. Plast Surg Int 2017;2017:1283735   DOI
8 Gravina PR, Pettit RW, Davis MJ, Winocour SJ, Selber JC. Evidence for the use of acellular dermal matrix in implant-based breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg 2019;33(04):229-235   DOI
9 Hallberg H, Rafnsdottir S, Selvaggi G, et al. Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2018;52(03):130-147   DOI
10 Nealon KP,Weitzman RE, Sobti N, et al. Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: safety outcome endpoints and delineation of risk factors. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;145(05):898e-908e   DOI
11 Baker BG, Irri R, MacCallum V, Chattopadhyay R, Murphy J, Harvey JR. A prospective comparison of short-term outcomes of subpectoral and prepectoral Strattice-based immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018;141(05):1077-1084   DOI
12 Wormer BA, Valmadrid AC, Ganesh Kumar N, et al. Reducing expansion visits in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: a comparative study of prepectoral and subpectoral expander placement. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;144(02):276-286   DOI
13 Lee JS, Kim JS, Lee JH, et al. Prepectoral breast reconstruction with complete implant coverage using double-crossed acellular dermal matrixs. Gland Surg 2019;8(06):748-757   DOI
14 Lee KT, Mun GH. Updated evidence of acellular dermal matrix use for implant-based breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23(02):600-610   DOI
15 Heidemann LN, Gunnarsson GL, Salzberg CA, Sorensen JA, Thomsen JB. Complications following nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate acellular dermal matrix implant-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6(01):e1625   DOI
16 Martin JB, Moore R, Paydar KZ, Wirth GA. Use of fenestrations in acellular dermal allograft in two-stage tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;134(05):901-904   DOI
17 Palaia DA, Arthur KS, Cahan AC, Rosenberg MH. Incidence of seromas and infections using fenestrated versus nonfenestrated acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015;3(11):e569   DOI
18 Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: rationale, indications, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;139(02):287-294   DOI
19 Wirth GA, Mowlds DS, Guidotti P, et al. Acellular dermal matrix fenestrations and their effect on breast shape. Eur J Plast Surg 2015;38:267-272   DOI
20 Cottler PS, Olenczak JB, Ning B, et al. Fenestration improves acellular dermal matrix biointegration: an investigation of revascularization with photoacoustic microscopy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143(04):971-981   DOI
21 Kim JYS, Mlodinow AS. What's new in acellular dermal matrix and soft-tissue support for prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140(5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction):30S-43S   DOI
22 Lotan AM, Ben Yehuda D, Allweis TM, Scheflan M. Comparative study of meshed and nonmeshed acellular dermal matrix in immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;144(05):1045-1053   DOI
23 Zammit D, Kanevsky J, Meng FY, et al. Meshed acellular dermal matrix: technique and application in implant based breast reconstruction. Plast Aesthet Res 2016;3:254-256   DOI
24 Ibrahim AM, Koolen PG, Ashraf AA, et al. Acellular dermal matrix in reconstructive breast surgery: survey of current practice among plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015;3(04):e381   DOI
25 Bank J, Phillips NA, Park JE, Song DH. Economic analysis and review of the literature on implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of the acellular dermal matrix. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2013;37(06):1194-1201   DOI
26 Nahabedian MY. Acellular dermal matrices in primary breast reconstruction: principles, concepts, and indications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;130(5, Suppl 2):44S-53S   DOI
27 Jafferbhoy S, Chandarana M, Houlihan M, et al. Early multicentre experience of pre-pectoral implant based immediate breast reconstruction using Braxon®. Gland Surg 2017;6(06):682-688   DOI
28 Hoppe IC, Yueh JH, Wei CH, Ahuja NK, Patel PP, Datiashvili RO. Complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction utilizing acellular dermal matrix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eplasty 2011;11:e40
29 Nahabedian MY. Prosthetic breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrices: achieving predictability and reproducibility. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016;4(05):e698   DOI
30 Kim SE. Prepectoral breast reconstruction. Yeungnam Univ J Med 2019;36(03):201-207   DOI