Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1758638

A Nationwide Analysis Evaluating the Safety of Using Acellular Dermal Matrix with Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction  

Jessica Luo (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine)
Whitney D. Moss (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine)
Giovanna R. Pires (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine)
Irfan A. Rhemtulla (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine)
Megan Rosales (Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine)
Gregory J. Stoddard (Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine)
Jayant P. Agarwal (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine)
Alvin C. Kwok (Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine)
Publication Information
Archives of Plastic Surgery / v.49, no.6, 2022 , pp. 716-723 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background In March 2021, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication cautioned against the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) products in breast reconstruction and reiterated that the FDA does not approve ADM use in breast surgery. This study aims to assess the safety of ADM use in breast reconstruction. Methods Women who underwent ADM and non-ADM assisted tissue expander (TE)-based breast reconstruction were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2012-2019). Trends of ADM use over time, and 30-day outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI), dehiscence, and unplanned reoperation were assessed. Results Of the 49,049 TE-based breast reconstructive cases, 42.4% were ADM assisted and 57.6% non-ADM assisted. From 2012 to 2019, the use of ADM increased from 26.1 to 55.6% (relative risk [RR] =1.10; p < 0.01). Higher rates of SSI (3.9 vs. 3.4%; p = 0.003) and reoperation (7.4 vs. 6.0%; p < 0.001) were seen in the ADM cohort. There was no significant difference seen in dehiscence rates (0.7 vs. 0.7%; p = 0.73). The most common reoperation within 30 days for the ADM group (17.6%) was removal of TE without insertion of implant (current procedural terminology: 11,971). ADM-assisted breast reconstruction was associated with increased relative risk of SSI by 10% (RR = 1.10, confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.21; p = 0.03) and reoperation by 15% (RR = 1.15, CI: 1.08-1.23; p < 0.001). Conclusions ADM-assisted breast reconstruction more than doubled from 2012 to 2019. There are statistically higher complication rates of SSI (0.5%) and reoperation (1.4%) with ADM use in TE-based breast reconstruction, suggesting that reconstruction without ADM is safe when comparing immediate postoperative outcomes.
Keywords
tissue expander; breast reconstruction; outcomes; acellular dermal matrix;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 5  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) Products Used in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Differ in Complication Rates. FDA Safety Communication. Accessed April 24, 2021, at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/acellular-dermal-matrix-adm-products-used-implant-based-breast-reconstruction-differ-complication 
2 Winocour S, Martinez-Jorge J, Habermann E, Thomsen K, Lemaine V. Early surgical site infection following tissue expander breast reconstruction with or without acellular dermal matrix: national benchmarking using national surgical quality improvement program. Arch Plast Surg 2015;42(02):194-200    DOI
3 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 
4 Uroskie TW, Colen LB. History of breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg 2004;18(02):65-69    DOI
5 Gruber RP, Kahn RA, Lash H, Maser MR, Apfelberg DB, Laub DR. Breast reconstruction following mastectomy: a comparison of submuscular and subcutaneous techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 1981;67(03):312-317    DOI
6 DeLong MR, Tandon VJ, Bertrand AA, et al. Review of outcomes in prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction with and without surgical mesh assistance. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;147(02):305-315    DOI
7 Craig ES, Clemens MW, Koshy JC, et al. Outcomes of acellular dermal matrix for immediate tissue expander reconstruction with radiotherapy: a retrospective cohort study. Aesthet Surg J 2019;39(03):279-288    DOI
8 Safran T, Al-Halabi B, Viezel-Mathieu A, Boileau JF, Dionisopoulos T. Skin-reducing mastectomy with immediate prepectoral reconstruction: surgical, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes with and without dermal matrices. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;147(05):1046-1057    DOI
9 Ganesh Kumar N, Berlin NL, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Kozlow JH, Wilkins EG. Development of an evidence-based approach to the use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander-implant-based breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021;74(01):30-40    DOI
10 Surgeons AC. User Guide for the 2016 ACS NSQIP Participant Use File. 2018 
11 Wong AK, Schonmeyer BH, Singh P, Carlson DL, Li S, Mehrara BJ. Histologic analysis of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in acellular human dermis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121(04):1144-1152    DOI
12 Ibrahim AMS, Shuster M, Koolen PGL, et al. Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database in 19,100 patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction: complication rates with acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;132(05):1057-1066    DOI
13 Daar DA, Gandy JR, Clark EG, Mowlds DS, Paydar KZ, Wirth GA. Plastic surgery and acellular dermal matrix: highlighting trends from 1999 to 2013. World J Plast Surg 2016;5(02):97-108 
14 Margulies IG, Salzberg CA. The use of acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction: evolution of techniques over 2 decades. Gland Surg 2019;8(01):3-10    DOI
15 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
16 Bi S, Liu R, Wu B, et al. Breast implants for mammaplasty: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of multiple complications. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020;44(06):1988-1996    DOI
17 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
18 Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, Hwang BH, Chan LS, Wong AK. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2012;68(04):346-356    DOI
19 Jordan SW, Khavanin N, Kim JYS. Seroma in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137(04):1104-1116    DOI
20 Lohmander F, Lagergren J, Roy PG, et al. Implant based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: safety data from an open-label, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in the setting of breast cancer treatment. Ann Surg 2019;269(05):836-841    DOI
21 Bachour Y, Bargon CA, de Blok CJM, Ket JCF, Ritt MJPF, Niessen FB. Risk factors for developing capsular contracture in women after breast implant surgery: a systematic review of the literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018;71(09):e29-e48    DOI
22 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
23 Scheflan M, Allweis TM, Ben Yehuda D, Maisel Lotan A. Meshed acellular dermal matrix in immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8(11):e3265 
24 Maisel Lotan A, 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
25 Headon H, Kasem A, Mokbel K. Capsular contracture after breast augmentation: an update for clinical practice. Arch Plast Surg 2015;42(05):532-543    DOI
26 Hidalgo DA, Weinstein AL. Surgical treatment for capsular contracture: a new paradigm and algorithm. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;146(03):516-525    DOI
27 Dikmans RE, Negenborn VL, Bouman MB, et al. Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction compared with immediate one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction augmented with an acellular dermal matrix: an open-label, phase 4, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18(02):251-258    DOI
28 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
29 Aliotta RE, Duraes EFR, Scomacao I, et al. A controlled cost and outcomes analysis of acellular dermal matrix and implant-based reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2020;74(06):1229-1238 
30 de Blacam C, Momoh AO, Colakoglu S, Slavin SA, Tobias AM, Lee BT. Cost analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg 2012;69(05):516-520    DOI
31 Alluri RK, Leland H, Heckmann N. Surgical research using national databases. Ann Transl Med 2016;4(20):393