Complications after Perforated versus Nonperforated Acellular Dermal Matrix Use in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score Analysis

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) were first incorporated into direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction by the senior author in 2001 and have since become foundational to implant-based reconstruction. ADM composition has evolved recently and now includes perforated types, which some speculate decrease the likelihood of seroma. The authors performed a retrospective review of perforated (P-ADM) and nonperforated (NP-ADM) ADM-assisted direct-to-implant breast reconstruction patients to evaluate differences in complication rates. METHODS: Retrospective review of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction patients operated on by a single surgeon (CAS) from 2011 to 2018 was conducted. Patient and operative characteristics, including ADM type, were recorded. A propensity score matching algorithm accounting for potentially confounding variables was developed, followed by univariate analysis to evaluate the association between ADM perforation and postoperative complications. RESULTS: The review began with 409 patients (761 breasts). Following exclusion of patients with missing demographic information, lack of ADM in their reconstruction, and follow-up times of less than 4 weeks, 364 patients (680 breasts) were included for analysis. A total of 530 (77.94%) and 150 (22.06%) breasts received NP-ADM and P-ADM, respectively. After propensity score matching, there were 294 breasts, composed of equal numbers of P-ADM and NP-ADM recipients. Univariate analysis showed no association between ADM type and any postoperative complication. CONCLUSIONS: The complication profile of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction appears to be unaffected by the use of P-ADM or NP-ADM. Current understanding of the association between ADM type and clinical outcomes would benefit from multi-institution, prospective, randomized trials.