Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cryopreserved Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Study.
10.5999/aps.2015.42.3.316
- Author:
So Young KIM
1
;
So Young LIM
;
Goo Hyun MUN
;
Sa Ik BANG
;
Kap Sung OH
;
Jai Kyong PYON
Author Information
1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. psbboy@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Acelluar dermis;
Tissue expander devices;
Seroma
- MeSH:
Acellular Dermis*;
Drainage;
Female;
Freezing;
Hematoma;
Humans;
Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins;
Mammaplasty*;
Mastectomy;
Necrosis;
Retrospective Studies;
Seroma;
Skin;
Tissue Expansion Devices
- From:Archives of Plastic Surgery
2015;42(3):316-320
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: CGCryoDerm was first introduced in 2010 and offers a different matrix preservation processes for freezing without drying preparation. From a theoretical perspective, CGCryoDerm has a more preserved dermal structure and more abundant growth factors for angiogenesis and recellularization. In the current study, the authors performed a retrospective study to evaluate freezing- and freeze-drying-processed acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to determine whether any differences were present in an early complication profile. METHODS: Patients who underwent ADM-assisted tissue expander placement for two stage breast reconstruction between January of 2013 and March of 2014 were retrospectively reviewed and divided into two groups based on the types of ADM-assisted expander reconstruction (CGDerm vs. CGCryoDerm). Complications were divided into four main categories and recorded as follows: seroma, hematoma, infection, and mastectomy skin flap necrosis. RESULTS: In a total of 82 consecutive patients, the CGCryoDerm group had lower rates of seroma when compared to the CGDerm group without statistical significance (3.0% vs. 10.2%, P=0.221), respectively. Other complications were similar in both groups. Reconstructions with CGCryoDerm were found to have a significantly longer period of drainage when compared to reconstructions with CGDerm (11.91 days vs. 10.41 days, P=0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings indicate no significant differences in early complications between implant/expander-based reconstructions using CGCryoderm and those using CGDerm.
