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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eichler, Christian, Vogt, Nadine, Brunnert, Klaus, Sauerwald, Axel, Puppe, Julian, Warm, Mathias
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