Comparison of the Amount of Drainage in 3 Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study.
10.14730/aaps.2017.23.2.68
- Author:
June Kyu KIM
1
;
Yong Seong KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. kokoro72@naver.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Acellular dermis;
Mammoplasty;
Reconstructive surgical procedures;
Seroma
- MeSH:
Acellular Dermis*;
Allografts;
Body Mass Index;
Breast Implants;
Breast Neoplasms;
Breast*;
Comorbidity;
Diabetes Mellitus;
Drainage*;
Female;
Humans;
Hypertension;
Mammaplasty*;
Postoperative Complications;
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures;
Retrospective Studies*;
Seroma;
Smoke;
Smoking
- From:Archives of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
2017;23(2):68-72
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM)-assisted breast reconstruction has gained popularity because it has several advantages. Some studies have reported that the use of ADM was strongly associated with postoperative complications, especially seroma formation. We performed direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using 3 types of human allograft products (CGDerm®, AlloDerm®, and MegaDerm®). The purpose of this study was to obtain information useful for the selection of an ADM product by comparing the amount of collected serum and the maintenance period of the drain. METHODS: Seventy-three patients with breast cancer who underwent ADM-assisted implant breast reconstruction between March 2011 and January 2016 were included in this study. The patients were divided into 3 groups based on the type of ADM that was used. The demographic characteristics collected were: age, body mass index (BMI), breast reconstruction location, smoking history, axillary dissection, comorbidities (such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus [DM]), breast implant size, breast implant type, amount of ADM, the total amount of serum that was collected in the drain, and the maintenance period of the drain. RESULTS: We obtained significant results after adjusting for variables including age, BMI, DM, axillary dissection, ADM amount, and breast implant size. Compared to AlloDerm, MegaDerm showed a significantly smaller amount of total drained serum and a significantly shorter drain maintenance period. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MegaDerm led to smaller amounts of drained serum and a shorter drain maintenance period than when AlloDerm was used. In contrast, no significant differences were found between CGDerm and AlloDerm, or between CGDerm and MegaDerm.
