Cargando…

Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM

BACKGROUND: The majority of two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction has been described utilizing acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Although reports of prepectoral breast reconstruction without ADM exist, there is a paucity of comparative studies. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salibian, Ara A., Bekisz, Jonathan M., Kussie, Hudson C., Thanik, Vishal D., Levine, Jamie P., Choi, Mihye, Karp, Nolan S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8354628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34386310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003745
_version_ 1783736629705310208
author Salibian, Ara A.
Bekisz, Jonathan M.
Kussie, Hudson C.
Thanik, Vishal D.
Levine, Jamie P.
Choi, Mihye
Karp, Nolan S.
author_facet Salibian, Ara A.
Bekisz, Jonathan M.
Kussie, Hudson C.
Thanik, Vishal D.
Levine, Jamie P.
Choi, Mihye
Karp, Nolan S.
author_sort Salibian, Ara A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The majority of two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction has been described utilizing acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Although reports of prepectoral breast reconstruction without ADM exist, there is a paucity of comparative studies. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients undergoing immediate prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from 2017 to 2019. Short-term reconstructive and aesthetic complications were compared between cases that utilized ADM for support and those that did not. RESULTS: In total, 76 cases (51 patients) were identified, of which 35 cases utilized ADM and 41 did not. Risk factors and demographics were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of body mass index, which was higher in the ADM cohort (29.3 versus 25.4, P = 0.011). Average follow-up length was also longer in patients who received ADM (20.3 versus 12.3 months, P < 0.001). Intraoperative expander fill was higher in patients who did not receive ADM (296.8 cm(3) versus 151.4 cm(3), P < 0.001) though final implant size was comparable in both cohorts (P = 0.584). There was no significant difference in the rate of any complication between the ADM and no ADM cohorts (25.7% versus 17.1%, respectively P = 0.357), including major mastectomy flap necrosis (P = 0.245), major infection (P = 1.000), seroma (P = 0.620), expander explantation (P = 1.000), capsular contracture (P = 1.000), implant dystopia (P = 1.000), and rippling (P = 0.362). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with tissue expanders has comparable rates of short-term complications with or without ADM support. Safety of prepectoral expander placement without ADM may warrant more selective ADM use in these cases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8354628
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83546282021-08-11 Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM Salibian, Ara A. Bekisz, Jonathan M. Kussie, Hudson C. Thanik, Vishal D. Levine, Jamie P. Choi, Mihye Karp, Nolan S. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Breast BACKGROUND: The majority of two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction has been described utilizing acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Although reports of prepectoral breast reconstruction without ADM exist, there is a paucity of comparative studies. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients undergoing immediate prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from 2017 to 2019. Short-term reconstructive and aesthetic complications were compared between cases that utilized ADM for support and those that did not. RESULTS: In total, 76 cases (51 patients) were identified, of which 35 cases utilized ADM and 41 did not. Risk factors and demographics were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of body mass index, which was higher in the ADM cohort (29.3 versus 25.4, P = 0.011). Average follow-up length was also longer in patients who received ADM (20.3 versus 12.3 months, P < 0.001). Intraoperative expander fill was higher in patients who did not receive ADM (296.8 cm(3) versus 151.4 cm(3), P < 0.001) though final implant size was comparable in both cohorts (P = 0.584). There was no significant difference in the rate of any complication between the ADM and no ADM cohorts (25.7% versus 17.1%, respectively P = 0.357), including major mastectomy flap necrosis (P = 0.245), major infection (P = 1.000), seroma (P = 0.620), expander explantation (P = 1.000), capsular contracture (P = 1.000), implant dystopia (P = 1.000), and rippling (P = 0.362). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with tissue expanders has comparable rates of short-term complications with or without ADM support. Safety of prepectoral expander placement without ADM may warrant more selective ADM use in these cases. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-08-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8354628/ /pubmed/34386310 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003745 Text en Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , 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 without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Breast
Salibian, Ara A.
Bekisz, Jonathan M.
Kussie, Hudson C.
Thanik, Vishal D.
Levine, Jamie P.
Choi, Mihye
Karp, Nolan S.
Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM
title Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM
title_full Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM
title_fullStr Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM
title_full_unstemmed Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM
title_short Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM
title_sort do we need support in prepectoral breast reconstruction? comparing outcomes with and without adm
topic Breast
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8354628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34386310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003745
work_keys_str_mv AT salibianaraa doweneedsupportinprepectoralbreastreconstructioncomparingoutcomeswithandwithoutadm
AT bekiszjonathanm doweneedsupportinprepectoralbreastreconstructioncomparingoutcomeswithandwithoutadm
AT kussiehudsonc doweneedsupportinprepectoralbreastreconstructioncomparingoutcomeswithandwithoutadm
AT thanikvishald doweneedsupportinprepectoralbreastreconstructioncomparingoutcomeswithandwithoutadm
AT levinejamiep doweneedsupportinprepectoralbreastreconstructioncomparingoutcomeswithandwithoutadm
AT choimihye doweneedsupportinprepectoralbreastreconstructioncomparingoutcomeswithandwithoutadm
AT karpnolans doweneedsupportinprepectoralbreastreconstructioncomparingoutcomeswithandwithoutadm