National Trends in Acellular Dermal Matrix Utilization in Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based reconstruction is the most common method of immediate breast reconstruction in the United States, with acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) playing a significant role in implant support and coverage. This study evaluated recent national trends in ADM use in immediate breast reconstruction and assessed patient characteristics and 30-day complication rates. METHODS: The authors queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for all patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction from 2015 to 2020. Primary outcomes were major surgical and medical complications, as well as ADM use per year. Subset analysis was performed to compare patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction with ADM in 2015 versus 2020. RESULTS: In 39,800 immediate breast reconstructions, ADMs were used in 55.5% of cases ( n = 22,087). ADM usage increased annually from 2015 through 2020. Direct-to-implant reconstruction was significantly associated with ADM use ( P < 0.001). Compared with the no-ADM cohort, there was a significantly increased rate of return to the operating room for any reason ( P < 0.001). When comparing the 2015 and 2020 ADM cohorts, the 2020 ADM cohort had a significantly higher rate of superficial infections. Obesity, smoking history, and insulin-dependent diabetes were independent risk factors for superficial wounds in patients receiving ADM. CONCLUSIONS: ADM use in immediate breast reconstruction increased significantly from 2015 to 2020, likely reflecting national trends in increasing direct-to-implant and prepectoral breast reconstruction. Obesity, smoking history, and insulin-dependent diabetes were independent risk factors for superficial wound infections in the ADM cohort. Patients with ADM had a slight increased incidence of return to the operating room. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Acellular flowable dermal matrix for ostomy reconstruction: a safe and effective minimally invasive technique.

BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrices have long been used for complex abdominal wall closure and, more recently, for ostomy reconstruction. PURPOSE: To describe ostomy reconstruction with acellular flowable dermal matrix (AFDM) in a pediatric patient with a complex abdominal wall defect. CASE REPORT: A 14-year-old female who was diagnosed with unspecific hemorrhagic colitis at age 6 months and who underwent several abdominal surgeries (including total colectomy and terminal ileostomy) reported frequent, severe periostomy skin ulcerations secondary to improper fitting and ostomy bag leakage due to multiple periostomy skin retraction as a result of multiple abdominal scars. Under sedation, 2 small (5 mm) peristomal skin incisions were made, through which dissection and release of dermal scar tissue was performed. Afterwards, AFDM 40 mL was injected subcutaneously until a uniform, flat surface around the ostomy was achieved. The patient was discharged a few hours postoperatively, after verification of proper fit of the ostomy bag with no leakage. At 18-month follow-up, the patient was very satisfied with the result, with fewer ostomy bag changes and improved quality of life. CONCLUSION: This case report indicates that AFDM is a safe and effective minimally invasive technique for ostomy reconstruction, with minimal complications and satisfactory medium-term results.

Prepectoral Direct-To-Implant One-Stage Reconstruction With ADMs: Safety and Outcome in "Thin Patients".

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) represents a safe, fast, and successful option in breast reconstruction in a selected cohort of patients. Nowadays, this procedure is considered challenging in thin. Meanwhile, his cohort has not been accurately analyzed yet. METHODS: A single institution retrospective cohort study was performed between January 2019 and March 2023 in all women who underwent mastectomy. Biometrical and clinical data were recorded. Also, surgical technique, operating room (OR) time, mastectomy weights, implant choice, and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) types were properly noted. Postoperative complications represented the main topic: these were classified into early and late ones based on onset time. At least 12-month follow-up was required. A comparison between thin and ideal body mass index (BMI) populations was performed. RESULTS: Early complications did not seem to differ between the 2 groups with 37.8% and 38.9% of women having at least 1 early complication in thin and ideal-weight women, respectively (P = .919). In univariable regression analysis, compared with women with a BMI of 22.1 to 25.0, women with a BMI ≤ 22.0 were associated with an increased risk of late complications of 2.84 (1.13-7.14). Specifically, thin women appeared to have a 3-fold increased risk (OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.08-8.18) of ripples/wrinkles compared with women with ideal weight. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral reconstruction with ADM in thin patients may be considered as safe as in standard BMI patients. Rippling may be more frequent, but, whenever needed, easy to correct with a few sessions of lipo-grafts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Quantity of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Breast Reconstruction and Outcomes.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the impact of the quantity of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), "ADM burden," used in implant-based breast reconstruction on infection, drain duration, and seroma formation. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective review from 2015 to 2020 was conducted for patients who underwent immediate, implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Three cohorts were generated based on the amount of ADM used: (1) total ADM, (2) sling ADM, and (3) no ADM. RESULTS: In total, there were 374 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria yielding 641 breasts with 143, 432, and 66 breasts in the total ADM, sling ADM, and no-ADM groups, respectively. The no-ADM group had higher mastectomy weights (788.4 g) than the sling (654.2 g) and total ADM (503.4 g) groups (F = 10.8, P < 0.001). Total ADM had higher rates of explantation secondary to infection compared with no ADM (P < 0.001). Linear regression analysis for drain duration was significant for body mass index (P < 0.0001) but not for ADM quantity (P = 0.52). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated a higher risk of infection in the total ADM group (odds ratio [OR], 5.4; P < 0.0001). Diabetes mellitus was a risk factor for both infection (OR, 3.6; P = 0.05) and seroma formation (OR, 0.04; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Higher ADM burden is associated with an increased risk of infections and device explantation secondary to those infections. Although ADM has created new avenues in breast reconstruction, these findings indicate a need to evolve the technique to minimize the ADM burden. By doing so, patients can minimize their risk of postoperative complications while reducing the financial impact on institutions.

Skin Reducing Mastectomy and Immediate Tissue Expander Reconstruction: A Critical Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Complications of implant-based reconstruction have been shown to be related to increasing body mass index (BMI) and breast size. The impact of skin reducing mastectomy (SRM) with a dermal flap is examined. METHODS: A retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience with immediate submuscular tissue expander (TE) reconstruction from 2011 to 2019 was performed. The outcomes of SRM were compared with those of skin sparing mastectomy (SSM). RESULTS: A total of 162 patients (292 breasts) were identified. Mastectomy types were as follows: SRM, 73 (136 breasts) and SSM, 89 (156 breasts). Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) was used to supplement TE coverage in 65.4% of SRM cases. Mean BMI was 29.2 among SRM patients and 25.9 in SSM patients (P < 0.001). Obesity (BMI ≥ 30) was more prevalent in the SRM group (SRM, 38.4% vs SSM, 22.5%; P = 0.03). Mean mastectomy weight was higher in the SRM group (SRM, 833.6 g vs SSM, 425.6 g; P < 0.001). Mean BMI and mastectomy weight were lower in SRM patients who were reconstructed with ADM (ADM, 28.1 vs no ADM, 30.8; P = 0.01; ADM, 746.1 g vs no ADM, 1006.3 g; P < 0.001). Minor complications were more prevalent in the SRM group (SRM, 22.8% vs SSM, 4.5%; P < 0.001). Mastectomy skin flap necrosis (MSFN) was more common in the SRM group (SRM, 22.8% vs SSM, 7.7%; P < 0.001), but MSFN necessitating operative debridement was similarly low in both groups (SRM: 1.9% vs SSM: 4.5%). Major complication rates (SRM 11.0% vs SSM 10.9%) and reconstructive failure rates (SRM 5.9% vs SSM 5.1%) were similar between groups. Mastectomy weight 800 g or higher and BMI of 30 or higher were found to be risk factors for complications on analysis of the SRM cohort (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Mastectomy weight and BMI were positive predictors of complications after immediate TE reconstruction. Mastectomy skin flap necrosis is more common after SRM than SSM. The use of SRM with a dermal flap has a similar major complication rate as SSM despite its use in obese, large-breasted women. The dermal flap provides soft tissue coverage, which prevents implant exposure and seroma. The use of ADM does not adversely affect the complication rate of SRM.

A case of disintegrated Strattice™ 4 years after immediate breast reconstruction.

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are used frequently in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). In general, the porcine-derived ADM Strattice™ has been reported with good outcomes and low complication rates. Nonetheless, we report here a case of a 42-year-old, otherwise healthy woman with a history of uncomplicated bilateral prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomies and subpectoral IBRs performed using Strattice™ and Mentor® CPG™, who was referred to the Department of Plastic Surgery 4 years after this surgery due to changed appearance of her breast implants. Both CPG implants were found intact and there were no signs of infection but, surprisingly, the Strattice™ had completely disintegrated on both sides. Examinations did not show any malignancies, and at 1-year clinical follow-up, the patient had no signs of relapse. Thus, we suggest that the Strattice™ had disintegrated as a late aseptic foreign body reaction and emphasise the importance of surgeons being aware of this late and rare complication.

From Salvage to Prevention: A Single-Surgeon Experience with Acellular Dermal Matrix and Infection in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Increasing amounts of acellular dermal matrix are being used with the adoption of prepectoral breast reconstruction. Postoperative infection remains a challenge in breast reconstruction, and the contribution of acellular dermal matrix type, processing, and sterility assurance level to risk of complications in prepectoral reconstruction is not well studied. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction from February of 2017 to July of 2020. Because of an increase in the rate of infection, the drain protocol was changed and acellular dermal matrix type was switched from AlloDerm (sterility assurance level, 10-3) to DermACELL (sterility assurance level, 10-6) in January of 2019. Demographic and surgical variables were collected, in addition to details regarding development and management of infection. RESULTS: Despite higher rates of direct-to-implant reconstruction and bilateral procedures and increased implant volumes, the rate of infection was significantly lower in patients who received DermACELL instead of AlloDerm [two of 38 (5.3 percent) versus 11 of 41 (26.8 percent); p = 0.014]. Drain duration was slightly longer in the DermACELL group, consistent with the change in drain protocol. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics remained similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: With increased reliance on large amounts of acellular dermal matrix for prepectoral breast reconstruction, it directly follows that the properties of acellular dermal matrix with respect to incorporation, sterility, and implant support are that much more important to consider. There have been few studies comparing different types of acellular dermal matrix in prepectoral breast reconstruction, and further research is required to determine the contribution of acellular dermal matrix type and processing techniques to development of postoperative infection. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Acellular Dermal Matrix-Associated Contracture: A Clinical and Histologic Analysis of Patients Undergoing Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Capsular contracture is a well-recognized complication following prosthetic breast reconstruction. It has been the authors' observation that some patients undergoing breast reconstruction experience contracture specifically of the acellular dermal matrix placed at the time of their tissue expander insertion. The goal of the authors' study was to identify clinical and histologic findings associated with the development of acellular dermal matrix-associated contracture. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing bilateral implant-based breast reconstruction performed by the senior author (M.S.A.). Patients were excluded if they had radiation therapy to the breast. Patients with suspected acellular dermal matrix-associated contracture were identified by clinical photographs and review of operative notes. Histologic analysis was performed on specimens taken from two patients with acellular dermal matrix contracture. RESULTS: The authors included a total of 46 patients (92 breasts), of which 19 breasts had suspected acellular dermal matrix-associated contracture. Acellular dermal matrix contracture was less common in direct-to-implant reconstruction (4.2 percent versus 26.5 percent; p = 0.020) and more common in breasts that had seromas (0 percent versus 15.8 percent; p = 0.001) or complications requiring early expander replacement. Contracted acellular dermal matrix had less vascularity and a lower collagen I-to-collagen III ratio, and was twice as thick as noncontracted acellular dermal matrix. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have described a distinct phenomenon of acellular dermal matrix-associated contracture that occurs in a small subset of breasts where acellular dermal matrix is used. This merits further investigation. Future work will be required to better characterize the clinical factors that make acellular dermal matrix-associated contracture more likely to occur. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Comparing Outcomes of Wise-Pattern, Two-Stage Breast Reduction-Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix.

BACKGROUND: Aesthetic results in breast reconstruction for ptotic/obese breasts may be improved when using Wise-pattern closures compared with nipple-sparing mastectomies. In two-stage reconstruction, acellular dermal matrix is commonly used to support the prosthesis. This study tests the efficacy of an alternate technique that uses deepithelialized excess breast skin in lieu of acellular dermal matrix. To better understand whether acellular dermal matrix is necessary, the authors compared postoperative outcomes from reduction-reconstructions that used matrix to those that did not. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of patients who underwent staged breast reconstruction following Wise-pattern closures between September of 2016 and October of 2019. Two cohorts were created based on whether acellular dermal matrix was used. Charts were reviewed for incidence of postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 164 breasts were reconstructed in 85 female patients. The acellular dermal matrix cohort consisted of 68 breasts, whereas the non-acellular dermal matrix cohort included 96 breasts. After the first stage, the incidence of one or more complications was similar between cohorts (acellular dermal matrix, 32.4 percent; nonmatrix, 35.4 percent; p = 0.684). Minor infection rates were significantly higher in reconstructions using acellular dermal matrix (16.2 percent versus 6.3 percent; p = 0.040). After the second stage, the complication incidence was also similar between cohorts (acellular dermal matrix, 16.2 percent; nonmatrix, 13.5 percent; p = 0.638). Final follow-up time was 445.2 days. CONCLUSIONS: Overall complication rates following both stages of reconstruction were similar with and without acellular dermal matrix. When acellular dermal matrix was used, minor infection rates were higher following expander placement. In patients desiring a reduction-reconstruction, the authors find the deepithelialized dermal flap provides ample prosthesis support, without the need for acellular dermal matrix. . CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Understanding the Evidence and Improving Outcomes with Implant-Based Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the risks, benefits, and safety profile of prepectoral breast reconstruction. 2. Have knowledge of primary immediate and delayed prepectoral breast reconstruction techniques and secondary procedures required. 3. Describe data on outcomes of prepectoral breast reconstruction. SUMMARY: Once considered to have an unacceptable complication profile, prepectoral breast reconstruction is increasing in popularity because of decreased surgical invasiveness and postoperative pain and the absence of animation deformity. Short-term outcomes studies comparing prepectoral breast reconstruction to partially submuscular techniques demonstrate similarly acceptable rates of postoperative complications. Aesthetic outcomes demonstrate similar rates of capsular contracture but increased rippling and implant palpability of the upper pole. Postoperative functional data are limited but overall show decreased pain and more rapid return of function but equivalent satisfaction on the BREAST-Q. Long-term aesthetic data and rates of revision are lacking.

Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Historically Controlled, Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The rising popularity of prepectoral tissue expander placement with acellular dermal matrices in immediate breast reconstruction has prompted many studies on the safety of this technique. However, a comprehensive propensity-matched, historically controlled trial comparing perioperative outcomes following prepectoral versus partial subpectoral (dual-plane) placement of tissue expanders is lacking. METHODS: Retrospective propensity-matched cohort analysis was performed on all patients of two senior reconstructive surgeons who underwent bilateral tissue expander placement following a mastectomy with one of three breast surgeons at a single academic institution from 2012 onward (n = 260). Two matched groups (prepectoral and partial subpectoral) each consisted of 102 patients. Univariate and multivariable analyses were also performed to contextualize the risks associated with prepectoral reconstruction relative to demographic characteristics and other clinical factors. RESULTS: Compared to dual-plane subpectoral placement, prepectoral placement resulted in similar rates of overall perioperative complications (32 percent versus 31 percent; p = 1.00) and perioperative complications that required operative treatment (21 percent versus 21 percent; p = 1.00). There were no significant differences between the groups in complication rates for hematomas, seromas, impaired wound healing, and infection. Although prepectoral placement was associated with prolonged time to drain removal, those patients completed the expansion process twice as fast, were expanded further in the operating room, and were more than twice as likely to forgo clinic-based expansion. Prepectoral reconstruction was not associated with increased risk for any complications in univariate or multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral tissue expander placement permitted greater intraoperative filling of expanders and a reduced likelihood of clinic-based expansion, with no increase in adverse outcomes compared to partial subpectoral placement. Adoption of this technique may reduce unnecessary clinic visits; shorten the delay before adjuvant therapy; and minimize patient apprehension, pain, and discomfort related to clinic-based expansion. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Acellular Dermal Matrix-Associated Complications in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Two Human Tissues.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction accounts for the vast majority of breast reconstruction procedures and is commonly performed with human acellular dermal matrix. There is no consensus as to the optimal human acellular dermal matrix preparation, and high-quality evidence concerning comparative effectiveness is lacking. This study is the first prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial to compare human acellular dermal matrix-related complications of the two most commonly used human acellular dermal matrices in implant-based breast reconstruction. The authors hypothesize that there will be no difference in infection, seroma, and reconstructive failure between FlexHD Pliable and AlloDerm RTU. METHODS: The authors conducted a Level 1 prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial to assess complications associated with the use of two human acellular dermal matrices in immediate postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction across seven clinical sites. Group A patients received FlexHD Pliable (113 patients with 187 breast reconstructions), and group B patients received AlloDerm RTU (117 patients with 197 breast reconstructions). RESULTS: There was no significant difference with respect to patient demographics, indications, comorbidities, and reconstruction approach between groups. Mean follow-up time was 10.7 ± 3.2 months. There was no statistical difference in the overall matrix-related complications between groups A and B (4.3 percent versus 7.1 percent, p = 0.233). Obesity (OR, 1.14; 95 percent CI, 1.05 to 1.24; p = 0.001) and prepectoral placement of matrix (OR, 4.53; 95 percent CI, 1.82 to 11.3; p = 0.001) were independently associated with greater risks of overall matrix-related complications. CONCLUSION: This work supports the use of human acellular dermal matrices in implant-based breast reconstruction and demonstrates no significant difference in matrix-related complication rates between FlexHD Pliable and AlloDerm RTU. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.

MRI Study of Jellyfish Collagen, Hyaluronic Acid, and Cadaveric Dermis for Injection Laryngoplasty.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Test a new jellyfish collagen biomaterial aimed to increase duration of injection medialization laryngoplasty (IL) against two products in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Animal model. METHODS: Left recurrent laryngeal nerve sectioning and IL were performed in New Zealand White rabbits (N = 6/group). Group 1 received micronized cross-linked jellyfish collagen (MX-JC) and adipose derived stem cells (ADSCs), Group 2, MX-JC alone, Group 3, cross-linked hyaluronic acid (X-HA), and Group 4, micronized acellular dermis (MACD). Animals were sacrificed at 4 and 12 weeks. Major outcomes were MRI tissue volumes and histopathology. RESULTS: After 100 µL IL MRI volumes (means ± STD) at 4 and 12 weeks were: Group 1: 27.2 ± 15.6 and 13.1 ± 5.2 µL, Group 2: 60.8 ± 18 and 27.8 ± 2.47 µL, Group 3: 27.4 ± 12 and 10.6 ± 8 µL, and Group 4: 37.5 ± 11 and 9.85 ± 1 µL. Group 2 volumes were largest and Group 3 were smallest in all comparisons (P < .05). Histologically, low grade inflammatory responses were observed in Group 1, mild histiocytic infiltration in Group 2, widespread muscle fiber loss in Group 3, and plasmocytic infiltration in Group 4. CONCLUSIONS: MX-JC showed the least resorption at 4 and 12 weeks among all groups. T cell inflammatory responses were observed with MX-JC but were reduced by 12 weeks while B cell immune responses, indicative of antibody priming, were predominantly noted with MACD. MX-JC + ADSC showed low grade immunity while the XHA showed greater myocyte loss compared to the other groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 131:E2452-E2460, 2021.

Development of an evidence-based approach to the use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander-implant-based breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Although acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is widely used in expander-implant-based breast reconstructions, previous analyses have been unable to demonstrate improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with this approach over non-ADM procedures. This study aims to develop a more selective, evidence-based approach to the use of ADM in expander-implant-based breast reconstruction by identifying patient subgroups in which ADM improved clinical outcomes and PROs. STUDY DESIGN: The Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study prospectively evaluated immediate expander-implant reconstructions at 11 centers from 2012 to 2015. Complications (any/overall and major), and PROs (satisfaction, physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being) were assessed two years postoperatively using medical records and the BREAST-Q, respectively. Using mixed-models accounting for centers and with interaction terms, we analyzed for differential ADM effects across various clinical subgroups, including age, body mass index, radiation timing, and chemotherapy. RESULTS: Expander-implant-based breast reconstruction was performed in 1451 patients, 738 with and 713 without ADM. Major complication risk was higher in ADM users vs. nonusers (22.9% vs. 16.4% and p = 0.04). Major complication risk with ADM increased with higher BMI (BMI=30, OR=1.70; BMI=35, OR=2.29, interaction p = 0.02). No significant ADM effects were observed for breast satisfaction, psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being within any subgroups. CONCLUSION: In immediate expander-implant-based breast reconstruction, ADM was associated with a greater risk of major complications, particularly in high-BMI patients. We were unable to identify patient subgroups where ADM was associated with significant improvements in PROs. Given these findings and the financial costs of ADM, a more critical approach to the use of ADM in expander-implant reconstruction may be warranted.

The Use of Absorbable Mesh in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A 7-Year Review.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is most frequently performed using implants or expanders. Adjunctive materials such as acellular dermal matrix and synthetic meshes are used to support the implant or expander. A paucity of large studies exist on the use of synthetic mesh for breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients over the past 7 years who had implant reconstruction with synthetic absorbable mesh at the Massachusetts General Hospital was performed. Data were collected on demographic and surgical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients (376 mastectomies) were treated with direct-to-implant subpectoral reconstruction with absorbable mesh from 2011 to 2017. The infection rate was 2.1 percent. The rate of capsular contracture was 4.8 percent. Patients who had radiation therapy either preoperatively or postoperatively had a higher rate of complications, including capsular contracture. Cost savings for using mesh instead of acellular dermal matrix surpassed $1.2 million. CONCLUSION: Synthetic absorbable mesh is a safe alternative to acellular dermal matrix in prosthetic breast reconstruction and provides stable results along with significant cost savings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Porcine Transgenic, Acellular Material as an Alternative for Human Skin.

Although new therapeutic approaches for burn treatment have made progress, there is still need for efficient coverage of donor fields. Promising dressing for skin graft donor site should be biocompatible, attach easily to the wound bed, remain in place until donor site has renewed, and decrease morbidity at the site. Porcine skin may be applied as a dressing for severe burns. Therefore pig skin xenografts can be used also as donor field coverage. In the Burn Treatment Centre, we used gauze soaked in Vaseline to secure donor fields. The aim of the study was to check if transgenic porcine skin is better than standard in donor site coverage used in our center. We showed that dressing reduces pain experienced by patients. The dressing leads to a reduction of hospitalization time by an average of 8 days. The dressing is as safe as the gold standard. Securing the donor field reduces the risk of colonization of the wound in the second smear after application by 60%. The disadvantage of the dressing is the inability to absorb blood; the use of hemostatic ointments in combination with the skin of transgenic pigs should be considered in the future.

Alloderm and Cortiva Have Similar Perioperative Wound Complications in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Although controversial, the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) for abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) is increasing. There are now many different ADMs available, but there is a lack of studies directly comparing ADMs in terms of outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to compare perioperative wound complications (up to 120 d postoperatively) between patients who underwent AWR with the human noncrosslinked ADMs Alloderm or Cortiva from January 2012 to March 2020. Surgical technique uniformly consisted of open component separation, onlay implantation of ADM, and progressive tension suture fixation of ADM. RESULTS: After exclusions, 53 patients were in the Alloderm group, and 29 patients were in the Cortiva group. The overall perioperative wound complication rate between Alloderm (51.92%) and Cortiva (72.41%) was not significantly different (P = 0.09921). The average follow-up for Alloderm was 76.69 ± 29.52 d and for Cortiva was 66.93 ± 35.16 d (P = 0.2088). There were no cases that required explantation of ADM. CONCLUSIONS: Given the similar perioperative wound complication profiles, the more cost-effective ADM may be a consideration for use in AWR. The fact that there were zero instances of ADM explantation also supports the use of ADM in these high-risk cases.

Amniotic Suspension Allograft and Fetal Bovine Acellular Dermal Matrix to Treat Complex, Acute, Full-thickness Wounds: A Retrospective Analysis of Safety and Treatment Efficacy.

INTRODUCTION: Comorbidities; inadequate vascularity; exposure of bones, tendons, or other avascular structures; and loss or removal of significant tissue volume all complicate the clinical treatment of patients with large, acute wounds. A number of amniotic tissue products are currently available for wound healing and other applications; one of these is a human amniotic suspension allograft (ASA) consisting of particulated human amniotic membrane and cells from the amniotic fluid from the same human donor. OBJECTIVE: In this study, the use of ASA with a fetal-derived bovine acellular dermal matrix to promote the healing of large, acute, full-thickness wounds is evaluated. The authors herein hypothesize treatment with ASA may allow for the healing of these wounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study consisted of a chart review of 33 patients, with an average age of 42.2 years, and large acute wounds that were treated with a fetal-derived bovine acellular dermal matrix adsorbed with ASA. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to date to investigate the usefulness of ASA in wound healing for large, complex, acute wounds. RESULTS: In this study, 30 of 33 patients were confirmed as fully healed, and 3 patients were lost to follow-up. The average wound size was 537.4 cm2, and the average time to split-thickness skin grafting (STSG) was 30.5 days, with an average time of 6.8 days until at least 95% graft take was achieved. Of the patient population studied, 45.5% had 1 or more significant comorbidities, 30.3% had wounds larger than 500 cm2, and 39.4% had exposed bone or tendon. CONCLUSIONS: In a small but challenging population including a high number of patients with comorbidities and exposed bone or tendon, it was found that ASA delivery, along with a dermal matrix, was successful in treating large, complex, acute wounds.

Volume replacement with diced acellular dermal matrix in oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: a prospective single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported the use of acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction. However, the primary role of acellular dermal matrix in these studies was to support the implant; there are no reports on the use of acellular dermal matrix exclusively as volume replacement. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of filling of the defect with acellular dermal matrix in oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 120 adult breast cancer patients who were scheduled to undergo oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery with acellular dermal matrix filling from 2017 to 2018. Intraoperatively, diced human acellular dermal matrix measuring 3-5 mm was used on each side to fill in the excisional defect immediately. After 6 months, satisfaction of the patients and surgeons with overall and cosmetic outcomes was evaluated with a survey using a 10-point scale. Postoperative complications were assessed at 2 weeks and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Of the 117 patients who were evaluated for their satisfaction, 94.0% were strongly satisfied with the cosmetic outcomes and 90.4% were strongly satisfied overall. Patient overall satisfaction scores were higher than surgeon satisfaction scores (p < 0.001). Of the 117 patients who underwent evaluation of complications 6 months postoperatively, six (5.1%) had hematoma and seven (6.0%) had seroma. The overall reoperation rate due to complications was 8.5%. Only two patients needed acellular dermal matrix removal due to hematoma and inflammation. CONCLUSION: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery with acellular dermal matrix filling of defects can be performed safely with high cosmetic satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ICTRP, KCT0003886; retrospectively registered May 3, 2019, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=KCT0003886.

Direct-to-Implant, Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Single-Surgeon Experience with 201 Consecutive Patients.

BACKGROUND: The resurgence of prepectoral breast reconstruction has brought strict patient inclusion and exclusion criteria by numerous authors. This article provides an overview of a single surgeon's experience with 201 patients, 313 breasts using immediate, direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction. The article compares surgical outcomes of different patient cohorts to elucidate risk factors that may predispose patients toward developing complications. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed, identifying all patients who underwent prepectoral, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction from June of 2016 to June of 2018. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients representing 313 breasts were included. A midlateral incision was used in 157 breasts (50.2 percent), followed by a skin-reducing, Wise-pattern in 90 breasts (28.8 percent). Acellular dermal matrix was used in 243 breasts (77.6 percent), free nipple grafts were used in 39 breasts (12.5 percent), and postmastectomy radiation therapy was used in 58 breasts (18.5 percent). Complications requiring operative intervention occurred in 24 breasts (7.7 percent), and minor complications occurred in 23 breasts (7.3 percent). There were no significant differences in complication rates for (1) acellular dermal matrix use versus non-acellular dermal matrix use, (2) Wise-pattern versus other incision, or (3) postmastectomy radiotherapy (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This represents the largest single-surgeon, direct-to-implant prepectoral cohort in the literature. Surgical complications did not differ with acellular dermal matrix use, incision selection, and the use of postmastectomy radiation therapy. There may be an association between acellular dermal matrix use and major complications and radiotherapy with minor complications. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.