Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction
Background:. Prepectoral implant placement has many potential advantages in immediate breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are commonly used in these surgeries. ADM meshing may enhance integration, decrease seroma and infection rates, and reduce surgical costs. Methods:. This was...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer
2020-11-01
|
| Series: | Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open |
| Online Access: | http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003265 |
| _version_ | 1818351782240190464 |
|---|---|
| author | Michael Scheflan, MD Tanir M. Allweis, MD Dafna Ben Yehuda, BSc Adi Maisel Lotan, MD |
| author_facet | Michael Scheflan, MD Tanir M. Allweis, MD Dafna Ben Yehuda, BSc Adi Maisel Lotan, MD |
| author_sort | Michael Scheflan, MD |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background:. Prepectoral implant placement has many potential advantages in immediate breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are commonly used in these surgeries. ADM meshing may enhance integration, decrease seroma and infection rates, and reduce surgical costs.
Methods:. This was a retrospective, single-center study of 49 women (71 breasts) undergoing immediate, prepectoral, implant-based breast reconstruction with 2:1 meshed, bovine-derived ADM (SurgiMend). Outcomes were compared against those of 77 patients (105 breasts) undergoing a similar procedure but with partial subpectoral implant placement.
Results:. In the prepectoral group, the mean age was 49.1 years and mean body mass index was 24.7 kg/m2. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics versus the partial subpectoral control group. Mean follow-up was 18.6 months (prepectoral) and 21.3 months (partial subpectoral). Mean time to drain removal was reduced in the prepectoral group (6.5 versus 8.5 days; P < 0.001). Rates of minor and major complications with prepectoral implant placement were 15.5% and 11.3%, respectively – similar to partial subpectoral placement (15.2% and 14.3%) (overall P = 0.690). Capsular contracture and explantation were associated with radiation therapy, and rates were similar between groups.
Conclusions:. Prepectoral implant placement with meshed ADM is a safe and reproducible alternative to partial muscle coverage with meshed ADM. Recovery may be easier and animation deformity avoided. It could therefore become the standard of care for implant-based breast reconstruction. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T18:43:12Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e461f16c01784fada53712be4e1a43d6 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2169-7574 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T18:43:12Z |
| publishDate | 2020-11-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-e461f16c01784fada53712be4e1a43d62022-12-21T23:35:08ZengWolters KluwerPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open2169-75742020-11-01811e326510.1097/GOX.0000000000003265202011000-00004Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Prepectoral Implant-based Breast ReconstructionMichael Scheflan, MD0Tanir M. Allweis, MD1Dafna Ben Yehuda, BSc2Adi Maisel Lotan, MD3From the * Assuta Medical Center, Tel Aviv, IsraelFrom the * Assuta Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel‡ Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, IsraelFrom the * Assuta Medical Center, Tel Aviv, IsraelBackground:. Prepectoral implant placement has many potential advantages in immediate breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are commonly used in these surgeries. ADM meshing may enhance integration, decrease seroma and infection rates, and reduce surgical costs. Methods:. This was a retrospective, single-center study of 49 women (71 breasts) undergoing immediate, prepectoral, implant-based breast reconstruction with 2:1 meshed, bovine-derived ADM (SurgiMend). Outcomes were compared against those of 77 patients (105 breasts) undergoing a similar procedure but with partial subpectoral implant placement. Results:. In the prepectoral group, the mean age was 49.1 years and mean body mass index was 24.7 kg/m2. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics versus the partial subpectoral control group. Mean follow-up was 18.6 months (prepectoral) and 21.3 months (partial subpectoral). Mean time to drain removal was reduced in the prepectoral group (6.5 versus 8.5 days; P < 0.001). Rates of minor and major complications with prepectoral implant placement were 15.5% and 11.3%, respectively – similar to partial subpectoral placement (15.2% and 14.3%) (overall P = 0.690). Capsular contracture and explantation were associated with radiation therapy, and rates were similar between groups. Conclusions:. Prepectoral implant placement with meshed ADM is a safe and reproducible alternative to partial muscle coverage with meshed ADM. Recovery may be easier and animation deformity avoided. It could therefore become the standard of care for implant-based breast reconstruction.http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003265 |
| spellingShingle | Michael Scheflan, MD Tanir M. Allweis, MD Dafna Ben Yehuda, BSc Adi Maisel Lotan, MD Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open |
| title | Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction |
| title_full | Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction |
| title_fullStr | Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction |
| title_full_unstemmed | Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction |
| title_short | Meshed Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction |
| title_sort | meshed acellular dermal matrix in immediate prepectoral implant based breast reconstruction |
| url | http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003265 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT michaelscheflanmd meshedacellulardermalmatrixinimmediateprepectoralimplantbasedbreastreconstruction AT tanirmallweismd meshedacellulardermalmatrixinimmediateprepectoralimplantbasedbreastreconstruction AT dafnabenyehudabsc meshedacellulardermalmatrixinimmediateprepectoralimplantbasedbreastreconstruction AT adimaisellotanmd meshedacellulardermalmatrixinimmediateprepectoralimplantbasedbreastreconstruction |