Indexed on: 27 Oct '16Published on: 27 Oct '16Published in: Plastic and reconstructive surgery
The use of acellular dermal matrix has facilitated immediate prosthesis-based breast reconstruction. However, few studies directly compare surgical outcomes following acellular dermal matrix-based reconstruction with two of the most commonly available materials, AlloDerm and FlexHD. Those studies that are available often do not adequately control for the surgeon as a variable. The authors hypothesize that complication rates will not differ significantly between AlloDerm and FlexHD when practice and surgeon variables are properly controlled.Retrospective review was conducted to identify consecutive implant-based reconstruction procedures performed at a tertiary academic medical institution by a single plastic surgeon over 6 years. Univariate and binomial regression analyses were conducted to compare patient characteristics and clinical endpoints across acellular dermal matrix groups (AlloDerm/AlloDerm ready-to-use versus FlexHD Pliable/Perforated).Of the 233 patients that underwent matrix-based breast reconstruction, 11 (4.7 percent) developed surgical-site infection. The infection rate was not statistically different between patients who received FlexHD [n = 5 (5.0 percent)] versus AlloDerm [n = 6 (4.6 percent)] on either univariate (p = 0.89) or binomial regression analysis (p = 0.56). Likewise, there were no statistical differences in rates of seroma, hematoma, explantation, or delayed wound healing.Clinical endpoints of interest were all equivalent between acellular dermal matrix types. This study uniquely reports a single-surgeon case series comparing outcomes between different acellular dermal matrix types. Instead of focusing on acellular dermal matrix as a predictor of outcome, other patient and surgeon factors should be addressed to improve results and innovate better alternatives.Therapeutic, III.
Indexed on: 01 May '13
Published on: 01 May '13 in Plastic and reconstructive surgery