Complications in Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction
Authors:
- Sebastian BrookeSebastian Brooke
- John MesaJMJohn Mesa
- Mehmet UluerMUMehmet Uluer
- Brett MichelottiBMBrett Michelotti
- Kurtis MoyerKMKurtis Moyer
- Rogerio I. NevesRogerio I. Neves
- Donald MackayDonald Mackay
- John PotochnyJPJohn Potochny
- 1 October 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Annals of Plastic Surgery
- Vol. 69 (4) , 347-349
Abstract
Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently used in tissue expander breast reconstruction (TEBR) for coverage of the inferior pole. Several published studies have suggested increased rates of complications with the use of ADM. It is unknown, however, if the type of ADM used for TEBR impacts complication rates. The aim of this study is to compare 3 different types of ADM for TEBR in regard to clinically significant complications, specifically infection. We performed a retrospective analysis of primary breast cancer-related TEBR with or without ADM. Exclusion criteria consisted of prior major breast surgery, inadequate data, or loss to follow-up. Reconstructions were grouped by dermal sling type, AlloDerm, DermaMatrix (DM), FlexHD (FHD), or no ADM. Complications included cellulitis, abscess, seroma, expander leak or puncture, skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, or hematoma. Those requiring admission to hospital or reoperation were considered significant. Of 284 breasts reconstructed, 49 used AlloDerm, 110 used DM, 62 used FHD, and 64 used no ADM. The total complication rate with AlloDerm was 22% [95% confidence interval (CI), 11-34], with DM was 15% (95% CI, 8-21), and with FHD was 18% (95% CI, 8-28) (P=0.47). Infectious complication rates for AlloDerm, DM, and FHD were equal at 10% (P=0.97). The total complication rate of all ADM reconstructions as a grouped cohort was 17% compared to 11% without ADM (P=0.48). The overall incidence of infectious complications with ADM was 10% compared to 2% without ADM (P=0.09). There is no difference in the clinically significant overall complication rate or incidence of infection between AlloDerm, DM, and FHD. Isolating infectious complications, there is a trend toward increased incidence with ADM compared to reconstructions without.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Meta-Analysis of Human Acellular Dermis and Submuscular Tissue Expander Breast ReconstructionPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2012
- Acellular Dermis–Assisted Prosthetic Breast ReconstructionPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2011
- Comparison of Implant-Based Immediate Breast Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal MatrixPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2011
- Acellular Dermal Matrix for the Treatment and Prevention of Implant-Associated Breast DeformitiesPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2011
- Acellular Human Dermis Implantation in 153 Immediate Two-Stage Tissue Expander Breast Reconstructions: Determining the Incidence and Significant Predictors of ComplicationsPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2010
- The Effect of Acellular Dermal Matrix Use on Complication Rates in Tissue Expander/Implant Breast ReconstructionAnnals of Plastic Surgery, 2010
- Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using Acellular Dermal Matrix and the Risk of Postoperative ComplicationsPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2010
- Acellular Dermis–Assisted Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction versus Complete Submuscular Coverage: A Head-to-Head Comparison of OutcomesPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2009
- Expander/Implant Reconstruction with AlloDerm: Recent ExperiencePlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2009
- The Effect of AlloDerm Envelopes on Periprosthetic Capsule Formation with and without RadiationPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2009