title: 440 Consecutive immediate, implant-based, single-surgeon breast reconstructions in 281 patients: a comparison of early outcomes and costs between SurgiMend fetal bovine and AlloDerm human cadaveric acellular dermal matrices.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  A 2010 nationwide survey of plastic and reconstructive surgeons indicated that approximately 83 percent performed predominantly implant-based breast reconstruction, with acellular dermal matrix used by approximately half of those practitioners. Although the medical literature documents well over 2000 cases of breast reconstruction with matrices, relatively few cases using other than human cadaveric acellular dermal matrices have been reported. The author compared complications and costs using SurgiMend fetal bovine and AlloDerm human cadaveric acellular dermal matrices.
  
  
  METHODS
  A retrospective review of a single surgeon's 5-year experience was performed for consecutive, nonrandomized immediate breast reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix from 2005 to 2010.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Two hundred eighty-one patients had 440 implant-based reconstructions using SurgiMend [222 patients (79.0 percent)] or AlloDerm [59 patients (21.0 percent)]. No significant differences in complication rates were observed between SurgiMend and AlloDerm for hematoma, infection, major skin necrosis, or breast implant removal. Seroma was the most prevalent complication; the seroma rate for AlloDerm (15.7 percent) was significantly greater than that for SurgiMend (8.3 percent). Using recent product costs for equivalently sized AlloDerm and SurgiMend units, the cost of SurgiMend was $1024 less per breast than AlloDerm.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  SurgiMend fetal bovine and AlloDerm human cadaveric acellular dermal matrices demonstrate similar rates of major early complications in breast reconstruction in this study. This similarity in complication rates between SurgiMend and AlloDerm and the cost savings seen with the use of SurgiMend are factors for the surgeon to consider in choosing a matrix for breast reconstruction.
  
  
  METHODS
  : Therapeutic, III.
authors: Cincinnati, Ohio From the Christ Hospital.
authors: Jennifer L
authors: JL
authors: Butterfield
mesh_terms: D062088:Acellular Dermis; D000328:Adult; D000818:Animals; D018427:Breast Implants / Q000191:economics; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000191:economics / Q000601:surgery*; D002102:Cadaver; D002417:Cattle; D003094:Collagen / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D005260:Female; D017721:Hospital Costs / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D016462:Mammaplasty / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000191:economics / Q000517:prevention & control; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D015625:Tissue Expansion Devices / Q000191:economics; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: C440568:Alloderm; D003094:Collagen
references: Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, Menon NG. Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32:418–425
references: Breuing KH, Warren SM. Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;55:232–239
references: Salzberg CA. Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann Plast Surg. 2006;57:1–5
references: Colwell AS, Damjanovic B, Zahedi B, Medford-Davis L, Hertl C, Austen WG Jr. Retrospective review of 331 consecutive immediate single-stage implant reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix: Indications, complications, trends, and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:1170–1178
references: Fosnot J, Kovach SJ III, Serletti JM. Acellular dermal matrix: General principles for the plastic surgeon. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31(Suppl):5S–12S
references: Cornwell KG, Landsman A, James KS. Extracellular matrix biomaterials for soft tissue repair. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2009;26:507–523
references: Antony AK, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, et al. Acellular human dermis implantation in 153 immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstructions: Determining the incidence and significant predictors of complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1606–1614
references: Bindingnavele V, Gaon M, Ota KS, Kulber DA, Lee DJ. Use of acellular cadaveric dermis and tissue expansion in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60:1214–1218
references: Breuing KH, Colwell AS. Inferolateral AlloDerm hammock for implant coverage in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59:250–255
references: Chun YS, Verma K, Rosen H, et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:429–436
references: Gamboa-Bobadilla GM. Implant breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;56:22–25
references: Lanier ST, Wang ED, Chen JJ, et al. The effect of acellular dermal matrix use on complication rates in tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64:674–678
references: Liu AS, Kao HK, Reish RG, Hergrueter CA, May JW Jr, Guo L. Postoperative complications in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1755–1762
references: Margulies AG, Hochberg J, Kepple J, Henry-Tillman RS, Westbrook K, Klimberg VS. Total skin-sparing mastectomy without preservation of the nipple-areola complex. Am J Surg. 2005;190:907–912
references: Namnoum JD. Expander/implant reconstruction with AlloDerm: Recent experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:387–394
references: Nguyen MD, Chen C, Colakoğlu S, Morris DJ, Tobias AM, Lee BT. Infectious complications leading to explantation in implant-based breast reconstruction with AlloDerm. Eplasty. 2010;10:e48
references: Preminger BA, McCarthy CM, Hu QY, Mehrara BJ, Disa JJ. The influence of AlloDerm on expander dynamics and complications in the setting of immediate tissue expander/implant reconstruction: A matched-cohort study. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;60:510–513
references: Rawlani V, Buck DW II, Johnson SA, Heyer KS, Kim JY. Tissue expander breast reconstruction using prehydrated human acellular dermis. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66:593–597
references: Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Koch RM, Chabner-Thompson E. An 8-year experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm). Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:514–524
references: Sbitany H, Sandeen SN, Amalfi AN, Davenport MS, Langstein HN. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction versus complete submuscular coverage: A head-to-head comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1735–1740
references: Scuderi N, Alfano C, Campus GV, et al. Multicenter study on breast reconstruction outcome using Becker implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011;35:66–72
references: Topol BM, Dalton EF, Ponn T, Campbell CJ. Immediate single-stage breast reconstruction using implants and human acellular dermal tissue matrix with adjustment of the lower pole of the breast to reduce unwanted lift. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;61:494–499
references: Zienowicz RJ, Karacaoglu E. Implant-based breast reconstruction with allograft. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:373–381
references: Vardanian AJ, Clayton JL, Roostaeian J, et al. Comparison of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:403e–410e
references: Hanna KR, DeGeorge BR Jr, Mericli AF, Lin KY, Drake DB. Comparison study of two types of expander-based breast reconstruction: Acellular dermal matrix-assisted versus total submuscular placement. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:10–15
references: Collis GN, TerKonda SP, Waldorf JC, Perdikis G. Acellular dermal matrix slings in tissue expander breast reconstruction: Are there substantial benefits?. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:425–428
references: Cassileth L, Kohanzadeh S, Amersi F. One-stage immediate breast reconstruction with implants: A new option for immediate reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69:134–138
references: Kim JY, Davila AA, Persing S, et al. A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:28–41
references: Hoppe IC, Yueh JH, Wei CH, Ahuja NK, Patel PP, Datiashvili RO. Complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction utilizing acellular dermal matrix: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eplasty. 2011;11:e40
references: Newman MI, Swartz KA, Samson MC, Mahoney CB, Diab K. The true incidence of near-term postoperative complications in prosthetic breast reconstruction utilizing human acellular dermal matrices: A meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011;35:100–106
references: Sbitany H, Serletti JM. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: A systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:1162–1169
references: Israeli R, Feingold RS. Acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction in the setting of radiotherapy. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31(Suppl):51S–64S
references: Sbitany H, Langstein HN. Acellular dermal matrix in primary breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31(Suppl):30S–37S
references: Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, Hwang BH, Chan LS, Wong AK. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:346–356
references: Himsl I, Drinovac V, Lenhard M, Stöckl D, Weissenbacher T, Dian D. The use of porcine acellular dermal matrix in silicone implant-based breast reconstruction. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:187–192
references: Endress R, Choi MS, Lee GK. Use of fetal bovine acellular dermal xenograft with tissue expansion for staged breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:338–341
references: Deeken CR, Eliason BJ, Pichert MD, Grant SA, Frisella MM, Matthews BD. Differentiation of biologic scaffold materials through physicomechanical, thermal, and enzymatic degradation techniques. Ann Surg. 2012;255:595–604
references: Macadam SA, Lennox PA. Acellular dermal matrices: Use in reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery. Can J Plast Surg. 2012;20:75–89
references: Cheng A, Saint-Cyr M. Comparison of different ADM materials in breast surgery. Clin Plast Surg. 2012;39:167–175
references: Glasberg SB, Light D. AlloDerm and Strattice in breast reconstruction: A comparison and techniques for optimizing outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:1223–1233
references: Gurunluoglu R, Gurunluoglu A, Williams SA, Tebockhorst S. Current trends in breast reconstruction: Survey of American Society of Plastic Surgeons 2010. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:103–110
references: Rezak KM, Gillette K, Samson MC, Newman MI. Attitudes toward biological mesh in breast reconstruction: A regional survey of plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:92e–93e
references: Nahabedian MY. AlloDerm performance in the setting of prosthetic breast surgery, infection, and irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1743–1753
references: Weichman KE, Wilson SC, Weinstein AL, et al. The use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:1049–1058
references: Sullivan SR, Fletcher DR, Isom CD, Isik FF. True incidence of all complications following immediate and delayed breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:19–28
references: Francis SH, Ruberg RL, Stevenson KB, et al. Independent risk factors for infection in tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1790–1796
references: Delgado JF, García-Guilarte RF, Palazuelo MR, Mendez JI, Pérez CC. Immediate breast reconstruction with direct, anatomic, gel-cohesive, extra-projection prosthesis: 400 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1599–1605
references: Radovanovic Z, Radovanovic D, Golubovic A, Ivkovic-Kapicl T, Bokorov B, Mandic A. Early complications after nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with silicone prosthesis: Results of 214 procedures. Scand J Surg. 2010;99:115–118
references: Potter S, Brigic A, Whiting PF, et al. Reporting clinical outcomes of breast reconstruction: A systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:31–46