Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2022; 49(02): 158-165
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1744404
Breast/Trunk
Original Article

Comparison of Outcomes in Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Acellular Dermal Matrix versus Inferior Dermal Flap

Luís Mata Ribeiro
1   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Central, Hospital São José, Lisbon, Portugal
,
Rita P. Meireles
2   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
,
Irís M. Brito
2   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
,
Patrícia M. Costa
1   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Central, Hospital São José, Lisbon, Portugal
,
Marco A. Rebelo
3   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal
,
Rui F. Barbosa
3   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal
,
Miguel P. Choupina
3   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal
,
Carlos J. Pinho
3   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal
,
Matilde P. Ribeiro
3   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved tremendously in the last decades, mainly due to the development of new products and techniques that make the procedure safer and more reliable. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes in immediate one-stage breast reconstruction between acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and inferior dermal flap (IDF).

Methods We conducted a retrospective comparative study of patients submitted to immediate breast reconstructions with an anatomical implant and ADM or IDF in a single center between 2016 and 2018. Outcomes evaluated included major complications, early complications, reinterventions, readmissions, and reconstruction failure. Simple descriptive statistics and univariate analysis were performed.

Results A total of 118 breast reconstructions (85 patients) were included in the analysis. Patients in the IDF group had a higher body mass index (median = 27.0) than patients in the ADM group (median = 24). There were no statistically significant differences among both groups regarding immediate major complication, early complications, readmissions, and reinterventions.

Conclusion There are no significant differences in complications between the ADM and IDF approach to immediate implant breast reconstruction. In patients with higher body mass index and large, ptotic breasts, we recommend an immediate implant reconstruction with IDF.

Keywords

acellular dermis - breast implants - mammaplasty - mastectomy - retrospective studies

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by L.M.R. and R.M. L.M.R. wrote the first draft of the manuscript and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


Availability of Data and Material

The data was collected from the digital clinical files of the patients operated in Hospital IPO Porto in January 2020.


Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Instituto Português de Oncologia–Porto (IPO Porto) (IRB No. CES 237/021).


Informed Consent

Patient consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.




Publication History

Article published online:
06 April 2022

© 2022. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

Comment to this article:

Commentary: Comparison of Outcomes in Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Acellular Dermal Matrix versus Inferior Dermal FlapArch Plast Surg 2022; 49(02): V2-V2
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777251

Comment to this article:

Commentary: Comparison of Outcomes in Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Acellular Dermal Matrix versus Inferior Dermal FlapArch Plast Surg 2022; 49(02): V1-V1
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777219

 

  • References

  • 1 Nair A, Jaleel S, Abbott N, Buxton P, Matey P. Skin-reducing mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction as an indispensable tool in the provision of oncoplastic breast services. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17 (09) 2480-2485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ellabban MA, Nawar A, Milad H, Ellabban MG. Single-stage immediate breast reconstruction using anatomical silicone-based implant and the hammock technique of dermal-muscle flap in large and ptotic breasts: a multicenter study. World J Surg 2020; 44 (06) 1925-1931
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tasoulis MK, Teoh V, Khan A, Montgomery C, Mohammed K, Gui G. Acellular dermal matrices as an adjunct to implant breast reconstruction: analysis of outcomes and complications. Eur J Surg Oncol 2020; 46 (4 Pt A): 511-515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Krishnan NM, Fischer JP, Basta MN, Nahabedian MY. Is single-stage prosthetic reconstruction cost effective? A cost-utility analysis for the use of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction relative to expander-implant reconstruction in postmastectomy patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (03) 537-547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Remington AC, Gurtner GC, Wan DC, Nguyen D, Momeni A. Identifying risk factors for postoperative major complications in staged implant-based breast reconstruction with AlloDerm. Breast J 2019; 25 (04) 597-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Greig H, Roller J, Ziaziaris W, Van Laeken N. A retrospective review of breast reconstruction outcomes comparing AlloDerm and DermaCELL. JPRAS Open 2019; 22: 19-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Israeli Ben-Noon H, Farber N, Weissman O. et al. Israeli Ben-noon H. The effect of acellular dermal matrix on drain secretions after immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2013; 47 (04) 308-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hon HH, Mubang RN, Wernick BD. et al. Acellular dermal matrix versus inferior deepithelialized flap breast reconstruction: equivalent outcomes, with increased cost. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (06) e1382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bostwick J. Prophylactic (risk-reducing) mastectomy and reconstruction. In: Bostwick J. ed. Plastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery. Vol. II. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing; 1990: 1369-1373
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Hammond DC, Capraro PA, Ozolins EB, Arnold JF. Use of a skin-sparing reduction pattern to create a combination skin-muscle flap pocket in immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110 (01) 206-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Jepsen C, Hallberg H, Pivodic A, Elander A, Hansson E. Complications, patient-reported outcomes, and aesthetic results in immediate breast reconstruction with a dermal sling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2019; 72 (03) 369-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hansson E, Jepsen C, Hallberg H. Breast reconstruction with a dermal sling: a systematic review of surgical modifications. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2019; 53 (01) 1-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dietz J, Lundgren P, Veeramani A. et al. Autologous inferior dermal sling (autoderm) with concomitant skin-envelope reduction mastectomy: an excellent surgical choice for women with macromastia and clinically significant ptosis. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19 (10) 3282-3288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lee KT, Hong SH, Jeon BJ, Pyon JK, Mun GH, Bang SI. Predictors for prolonged drainage following tissue expander-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (01) 9e-17e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chandarana MN, Jafferbhoy S, Marla S, Soumian S, Narayanan S. Acellular dermal matrix in implant-based immediate breast reconstructions: a comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral approach. Gland Surg 2018; 7 (Suppl. 01) S64-S69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 King ICC, Harvey JR, Bhaskar P. One-stage breast reconstruction using the inferior dermal flap, implant, and free nipple graft. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2014; 38 (02) 358-364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ladizinsky DA, Sandholm PH, Jewett ST, Shahzad F, Andrews K. Breast reconstruction with the Bostwick autoderm technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (02) 261-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Patrinely JR, Farinas A, Al-Majed B, Forte AJ, TerKonda S, Perdikis G. Acellular dermal matrix performance compared with latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap in expander-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (09) e2414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar