Comparison of two cadaveric acellular dermal matrices for immediate breast reconstruction: A prospective randomized trial

Katharine M. Hinchcliff, Hakan Orbay, Brittany K. Busse, Heath Charvet, Mankushpreet Kaur, David E Sahar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

AlloDerm RTU® and AlloMaxTM are two acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) used in implant-based breast reconstruction. In this study, we examined whether different processing methods for the ADMs lead to a disparity in histologic, clinical, and financial outcomes after breast reconstruction. Thirty patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction were randomized into AlloMax or AlloDerm arms (n = 15, each). ADM was placed at the time of immediate reconstruction. Patients were evaluated for complications on postoperative days 7, 14, and 30. During implant exchange, ADM biopsies were taken and compared histologically for vascular and cellular infiltration. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the BRECON-31 questionnaire 1 year after implant exchange. A cost analysis was performed comparing the two ADMs. Patient demographics and complication rates were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). Histologically, vessel density and fibroblast/inflammatory cell infiltrate were greater on the dermal side than on the implant side (p < 0.01) in both ADMs, suggesting greater vascular and cellular in-growth from the dermal side. Vessel density in the middle portion of the Allomax biopsies was significantly higher than the same site in the Alloderm biopsies (p < 0.05). The extent of fibroblast/inflammatory cell infiltration was similar in both arms (p > 0.05). The BRECON-31 satisfaction questionnaire yielded similar responses across all metrics between the two study arms. The negotiated price was slightly different when comparing the two ADMs, with no significant difference in ADM reimbursement. In this study, AlloDerm RTU and AlloMax were successfully used for implant-based breast reconstruction with comparable outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)568-576
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
Volume70
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2017

Fingerprint

Acellular Dermis
Mammaplasty
Patient Satisfaction
Blood Vessels
Fibroblasts
Demography
Biopsy
Costs and Cost Analysis
Skin

Keywords

  • Acellular dermal matrix
  • Alloderm
  • Allomax
  • Breast reconstruction
  • Outcomes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Comparison of two cadaveric acellular dermal matrices for immediate breast reconstruction : A prospective randomized trial. / Hinchcliff, Katharine M.; Orbay, Hakan; Busse, Brittany K.; Charvet, Heath; Kaur, Mankushpreet; Sahar, David E.

In: Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Vol. 70, No. 5, 01.05.2017, p. 568-576.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hinchcliff, Katharine M. ; Orbay, Hakan ; Busse, Brittany K. ; Charvet, Heath ; Kaur, Mankushpreet ; Sahar, David E. / Comparison of two cadaveric acellular dermal matrices for immediate breast reconstruction : A prospective randomized trial. In: Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery. 2017 ; Vol. 70, No. 5. pp. 568-576.
@article{47806e44de6548f7b4713d418586147a,
title = "Comparison of two cadaveric acellular dermal matrices for immediate breast reconstruction: A prospective randomized trial",
abstract = "AlloDerm RTU{\circledR} and AlloMaxTM are two acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) used in implant-based breast reconstruction. In this study, we examined whether different processing methods for the ADMs lead to a disparity in histologic, clinical, and financial outcomes after breast reconstruction. Thirty patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction were randomized into AlloMax or AlloDerm arms (n = 15, each). ADM was placed at the time of immediate reconstruction. Patients were evaluated for complications on postoperative days 7, 14, and 30. During implant exchange, ADM biopsies were taken and compared histologically for vascular and cellular infiltration. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the BRECON-31 questionnaire 1 year after implant exchange. A cost analysis was performed comparing the two ADMs. Patient demographics and complication rates were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). Histologically, vessel density and fibroblast/inflammatory cell infiltrate were greater on the dermal side than on the implant side (p < 0.01) in both ADMs, suggesting greater vascular and cellular in-growth from the dermal side. Vessel density in the middle portion of the Allomax biopsies was significantly higher than the same site in the Alloderm biopsies (p < 0.05). The extent of fibroblast/inflammatory cell infiltration was similar in both arms (p > 0.05). The BRECON-31 satisfaction questionnaire yielded similar responses across all metrics between the two study arms. The negotiated price was slightly different when comparing the two ADMs, with no significant difference in ADM reimbursement. In this study, AlloDerm RTU and AlloMax were successfully used for implant-based breast reconstruction with comparable outcomes.",
keywords = "Acellular dermal matrix, Alloderm, Allomax, Breast reconstruction, Outcomes",
author = "Hinchcliff, {Katharine M.} and Hakan Orbay and Busse, {Brittany K.} and Heath Charvet and Mankushpreet Kaur and Sahar, {David E}",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.bjps.2017.02.024",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "70",
pages = "568--576",
journal = "Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery",
issn = "1748-6815",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of two cadaveric acellular dermal matrices for immediate breast reconstruction

T2 - A prospective randomized trial

AU - Hinchcliff, Katharine M.

AU - Orbay, Hakan

AU - Busse, Brittany K.

AU - Charvet, Heath

AU - Kaur, Mankushpreet

AU - Sahar, David E

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - AlloDerm RTU® and AlloMaxTM are two acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) used in implant-based breast reconstruction. In this study, we examined whether different processing methods for the ADMs lead to a disparity in histologic, clinical, and financial outcomes after breast reconstruction. Thirty patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction were randomized into AlloMax or AlloDerm arms (n = 15, each). ADM was placed at the time of immediate reconstruction. Patients were evaluated for complications on postoperative days 7, 14, and 30. During implant exchange, ADM biopsies were taken and compared histologically for vascular and cellular infiltration. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the BRECON-31 questionnaire 1 year after implant exchange. A cost analysis was performed comparing the two ADMs. Patient demographics and complication rates were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). Histologically, vessel density and fibroblast/inflammatory cell infiltrate were greater on the dermal side than on the implant side (p < 0.01) in both ADMs, suggesting greater vascular and cellular in-growth from the dermal side. Vessel density in the middle portion of the Allomax biopsies was significantly higher than the same site in the Alloderm biopsies (p < 0.05). The extent of fibroblast/inflammatory cell infiltration was similar in both arms (p > 0.05). The BRECON-31 satisfaction questionnaire yielded similar responses across all metrics between the two study arms. The negotiated price was slightly different when comparing the two ADMs, with no significant difference in ADM reimbursement. In this study, AlloDerm RTU and AlloMax were successfully used for implant-based breast reconstruction with comparable outcomes.

AB - AlloDerm RTU® and AlloMaxTM are two acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) used in implant-based breast reconstruction. In this study, we examined whether different processing methods for the ADMs lead to a disparity in histologic, clinical, and financial outcomes after breast reconstruction. Thirty patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction were randomized into AlloMax or AlloDerm arms (n = 15, each). ADM was placed at the time of immediate reconstruction. Patients were evaluated for complications on postoperative days 7, 14, and 30. During implant exchange, ADM biopsies were taken and compared histologically for vascular and cellular infiltration. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the BRECON-31 questionnaire 1 year after implant exchange. A cost analysis was performed comparing the two ADMs. Patient demographics and complication rates were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). Histologically, vessel density and fibroblast/inflammatory cell infiltrate were greater on the dermal side than on the implant side (p < 0.01) in both ADMs, suggesting greater vascular and cellular in-growth from the dermal side. Vessel density in the middle portion of the Allomax biopsies was significantly higher than the same site in the Alloderm biopsies (p < 0.05). The extent of fibroblast/inflammatory cell infiltration was similar in both arms (p > 0.05). The BRECON-31 satisfaction questionnaire yielded similar responses across all metrics between the two study arms. The negotiated price was slightly different when comparing the two ADMs, with no significant difference in ADM reimbursement. In this study, AlloDerm RTU and AlloMax were successfully used for implant-based breast reconstruction with comparable outcomes.

KW - Acellular dermal matrix

KW - Alloderm

KW - Allomax

KW - Breast reconstruction

KW - Outcomes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015760861&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85015760861&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.bjps.2017.02.024

DO - 10.1016/j.bjps.2017.02.024

M3 - Article

C2 - 28341592

AN - SCOPUS:85015760861

VL - 70

SP - 568

EP - 576

JO - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery

JF - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery

SN - 1748-6815

IS - 5

ER -