Comparing Outcomes of Wise-Pattern, Two-Stage Breast Reduction-Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix

被引:5
|
作者
Patel, Ashraf A.
Kayaleh, Hana
Sala, Luke A.
Peterson, Dylan J.
Upadhyaya, Prashant K. [1 ]
机构
[1] SUNY Upstate Med Univ, Dept Surg, 750 East Adams St, Syracuse, NY 13210 USA
关键词
AESTHETIC OUTCOMES; CAPSULE FORMATION; IMPLANTS; OBESITY; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1097/PRS.0000000000008298
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Aesthetic results in breast reconstruction for ptotic/obese breasts may be improved when using Wise-pattern closures compared with nipple-sparing mastectomies. In two-stage reconstruction, acellular dermal matrix is commonly used to support the prosthesis. This study tests the efficacy of an alternate technique that uses deepithelialized excess breast skin in lieu of acellular dermal matrix. To better understand whether acellular dermal matrix is necessary, the authors compared postoperative outcomes from reduction-reconstructions that used matrix to those that did not. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of patients who underwent staged breast reconstruction following Wise-pattern closures between September of 2016 and October of 2019. Two cohorts were created based on whether acellular dermal matrix was used. Charts were reviewed for incidence of postoperative complications. Results: A total of 164 breasts were reconstructed in 85 female patients. The acellular dermal matrix cohort consisted of 68 breasts, whereas the non-acellular dermal matrix cohort included 96 breasts. After the first stage, the incidence of one or more complications was similar between cohorts (acellular dermal matrix, 32.4 percent; nonmatrix, 35.4 percent; p = 0.684). Minor infection rates were significantly higher in reconstructions using acellular dermal matrix (16.2 percent versus 6.3 percent; p = 0.040). After the second stage, the complication incidence was also similar between cohorts (acellular dermal matrix, 16.2 percent; nonmatrix, 13.5 percent; p = 0.638). Final follow-up time was 445.2 days. Conclusions: Overall complication rates following both stages of reconstruction were similar with and without acellular dermal matrix. When acellular dermal matrix was used, minor infection rates were higher following expander placement. In patients desiring a reduction-reconstruction, the authors find the deepithelialized dermal flap provides ample prosthesis support, without the need for acellular dermal matrix.
引用
收藏
页码:511 / 521
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Clinical Outcomes in Breast Reconstruction Patients Using a Sterile Acellular Dermal Matrix Allograft
    Juan A. Ortiz
    Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2017, 41 : 542 - 550
  • [32] The BREASTrial Stage III: Acellular Dermal Matrix Breast Reconstruction Outcomes from 3 Months to 2 Years Postoperatively
    Mendenhall, Shaun D.
    Moss, Whitney D.
    Graham, Emily M.
    Carter, Gentry
    Agarwal, Jayant P.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2023, 151 (01) : 17 - 24
  • [33] Comparison of one-stage direct-to-implant with acellular dermal matrix and two-stage immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-a cohort study
    Brunbjerg, Mette Eline
    Jensen, Thomas Bo
    Overgaard, Jens
    Christiansen, Peer
    Damsgaard, Tine Engberg
    GLAND SURGERY, 2021, 10 (01) : 207 - 218
  • [34] Immediate one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction without an acellular dermal matrix in Japanese breast cancer patients
    Okumura, Seiko
    Tatibana, Satsuki
    Narita, Chikayoshi
    Hyodo, Ikuo
    Sawaki, Masataka
    Hattori, Masaya
    Yoshimura, Akiyo
    Ishiguro, Junko
    Kotani, Haruru
    Gondo, Naomi
    Adati, Yayoi
    Iwata, Hiroji
    Kamei, Yuzuru
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2018, 78 (04)
  • [35] Prepectoral Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with Poly-4-Hydroxybutyrate for Pocket Control without the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix: A 4-Year Review
    Movassaghi, Kiya
    Gilson, Aaron
    Stewart, Christopher N.
    Cusic, Jenna
    Movassaghi, Aria
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2024, 154 (01) : 15 - 24
  • [36] Single-Stage Breast Reconstruction Using Implants and Acellular Dermal Matrix: Outcomes From A Tertiary Care, Oncoplastic Breast Unit
    Mirza, M. H.
    Jalali, A.
    Tormey, S.
    Merrigan, A.
    Buckley, J.
    Baban, C.
    IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 193 : S25 - S25
  • [37] Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction is safer than immediate one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction augmented with an acellular dermal matrix: a multicentre randomized controlled trial
    Dikmans, R.
    Negenborn, V.
    Bouman, M. B.
    Hay, W.
    Twisk, J.
    Ruhe, Q.
    Mureau, M.
    Smit, J. M.
    Tuinder, S.
    Eltahir, Y.
    Posch, N.
    Meesters-Caberg, M.
    Ritt, M.
    Mullender, M.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2016, 57 : S3 - S3
  • [38] One-stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix
    Benson, John R.
    LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2018, 19 (09): : 1141 - 1143
  • [39] Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix: Have We Come Full Circle?
    Schmidt, Volker J.
    Toyserkani, Navid Mohamadpour
    JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2022, 12 (10):
  • [40] Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Without the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix: A 3-Year Review
    Poveromo, Luke P.
    Franck, Philipp
    Ellison, Angela
    Janhofer, David E.
    Asadourian, Paul A.
    Otterburn, David M.
    ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2022, 88 (03) : S205 - S208