Cargando…
A Head-to-head Comparison between SurgiMend and Epiflex in 127 Breast Reconstructions
BACKGROUND: The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) has become a widely used option in breast reconstruction. A great deal of literature is available, totaling over 2400 ADM reconstructions. Nonetheless, head-to-head comparisons between SurgiMend and Epiflex are not yet reported. In fact, this is...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer Health
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494509/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26180740 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000409 |
_version_ | 1782380109044383744 |
---|---|
author | Eichler, Christian Vogt, Nadine Brunnert, Klaus Sauerwald, Axel Puppe, Julian Warm, Mathias |
author_facet | Eichler, Christian Vogt, Nadine Brunnert, Klaus Sauerwald, Axel Puppe, Julian Warm, Mathias |
author_sort | Eichler, Christian |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) has become a widely used option in breast reconstruction. A great deal of literature is available, totaling over 2400 ADM reconstructions. Nonetheless, head-to-head comparisons between SurgiMend and Epiflex are not yet reported. In fact, this is the first clinical data report on the use of Epiflex. This work will, therefore, compare postoperative complication rates and costs for these ADMs. METHODS: This analysis is a retrospective review of a single surgeon’s 6-year experience with both SurgiMend—an acellular bovine dermal collagen matrix for soft-tissue reconstruction and Epiflex—a decellularized human skin tissue from 2008 to 2013. RESULTS: One hundred patients had a total of 127 implant-based reconstructions using SurgiMend (64 cases; 50.4%) or Epiflex (63 cases; 49.6%). Gross complication rates were 11.1% for SurgiMend and 40.6% for Epiflex including hematoma, postoperative skin irritation, infection, necrosis, and revision surgery. The most common complication was postoperative red breast syndrome. Severe complications requiring revision surgery were significantly increased in patients treated with Epiflex (12.5%) compared with SurgiMend (4.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis favors the use of SurgiMend over Epiflex because of significantly lower gross complication rates. Severe complication rates are comparable with those reported in literature for both products. Although results promote the use of SurgiMend, the single surgeon retrospective nature of this work limits its clinical impact. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4494509 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer Health |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44945092015-07-15 A Head-to-head Comparison between SurgiMend and Epiflex in 127 Breast Reconstructions Eichler, Christian Vogt, Nadine Brunnert, Klaus Sauerwald, Axel Puppe, Julian Warm, Mathias Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Original Articles BACKGROUND: The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) has become a widely used option in breast reconstruction. A great deal of literature is available, totaling over 2400 ADM reconstructions. Nonetheless, head-to-head comparisons between SurgiMend and Epiflex are not yet reported. In fact, this is the first clinical data report on the use of Epiflex. This work will, therefore, compare postoperative complication rates and costs for these ADMs. METHODS: This analysis is a retrospective review of a single surgeon’s 6-year experience with both SurgiMend—an acellular bovine dermal collagen matrix for soft-tissue reconstruction and Epiflex—a decellularized human skin tissue from 2008 to 2013. RESULTS: One hundred patients had a total of 127 implant-based reconstructions using SurgiMend (64 cases; 50.4%) or Epiflex (63 cases; 49.6%). Gross complication rates were 11.1% for SurgiMend and 40.6% for Epiflex including hematoma, postoperative skin irritation, infection, necrosis, and revision surgery. The most common complication was postoperative red breast syndrome. Severe complications requiring revision surgery were significantly increased in patients treated with Epiflex (12.5%) compared with SurgiMend (4.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis favors the use of SurgiMend over Epiflex because of significantly lower gross complication rates. Severe complication rates are comparable with those reported in literature for both products. Although results promote the use of SurgiMend, the single surgeon retrospective nature of this work limits its clinical impact. Wolters Kluwer Health 2015-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4494509/ /pubmed/26180740 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000409 Text en Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. All rights reserved. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Eichler, Christian Vogt, Nadine Brunnert, Klaus Sauerwald, Axel Puppe, Julian Warm, Mathias A Head-to-head Comparison between SurgiMend and Epiflex in 127 Breast Reconstructions |
title | A Head-to-head Comparison between SurgiMend and Epiflex in 127 Breast Reconstructions |
title_full | A Head-to-head Comparison between SurgiMend and Epiflex in 127 Breast Reconstructions |
title_fullStr | A Head-to-head Comparison between SurgiMend and Epiflex in 127 Breast Reconstructions |
title_full_unstemmed | A Head-to-head Comparison between SurgiMend and Epiflex in 127 Breast Reconstructions |
title_short | A Head-to-head Comparison between SurgiMend and Epiflex in 127 Breast Reconstructions |
title_sort | head-to-head comparison between surgimend and epiflex in 127 breast reconstructions |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494509/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26180740 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000409 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT eichlerchristian aheadtoheadcomparisonbetweensurgimendandepiflexin127breastreconstructions AT vogtnadine aheadtoheadcomparisonbetweensurgimendandepiflexin127breastreconstructions AT brunnertklaus aheadtoheadcomparisonbetweensurgimendandepiflexin127breastreconstructions AT sauerwaldaxel aheadtoheadcomparisonbetweensurgimendandepiflexin127breastreconstructions AT puppejulian aheadtoheadcomparisonbetweensurgimendandepiflexin127breastreconstructions AT warmmathias aheadtoheadcomparisonbetweensurgimendandepiflexin127breastreconstructions AT eichlerchristian headtoheadcomparisonbetweensurgimendandepiflexin127breastreconstructions AT vogtnadine headtoheadcomparisonbetweensurgimendandepiflexin127breastreconstructions AT brunnertklaus headtoheadcomparisonbetweensurgimendandepiflexin127breastreconstructions AT sauerwaldaxel headtoheadcomparisonbetweensurgimendandepiflexin127breastreconstructions AT puppejulian headtoheadcomparisonbetweensurgimendandepiflexin127breastreconstructions AT warmmathias headtoheadcomparisonbetweensurgimendandepiflexin127breastreconstructions |