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

Comparing Cortiva Silhouette to AlloDerm for Use in Prepectoral Two-stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

Background

The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction has become increasingly routine during the past 20 years. ADMs improve soft-tissue support, facilitate greater tissue expander (TE) fill volumes, and reduce rates of capsular contracture. As the ADM market continues to grow, outcomes studies are necessary to assess the risks and benefits of each product. In this study, we compare the performance of Cortiva Silhouette, the thinnest ADM widely available, to AlloDerm, commonly considered the industry standard.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of 178 consecutive two-stage prosthetic breast reconstructions performed by the senior author. In every case, either Cortiva or AlloDerm was used to provide soft-tissue support during TE placement. Subjects were divided into Cortiva and AlloDerm cohorts and compared across patient characteristics and reconstructive outcomes variables.

Results

During the study period, AlloDerm was used in 116 reconstructions; Cortiva was used in 62. After propensity score matching (62 AlloDerm, 62 Cortiva), Cortiva was associated with greater intraoperative and final TE fill volumes, as well as larger silicone implants. Cortiva was also associated with fewer complications overall, and fewer instances of mastectomy skin necrosis, delayed wound healing, and seroma.

Conclusions

Cortiva Silhouette is noninferior to AlloDerm in terms of safety and providing soft-tissue support in prepectoral two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. In this study, Cortiva supported greater TE fill volumes and larger silicone implants relative to AlloDerm and was associated with fewer complications.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

For preference sensitive treatments, such as breast reconstructions, there are barriers to conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary aims of this systematic review were to investigate what type of research questions are explored by RCTs in breast reconstruction, where have they been performed and where have they been published, and to thematise the research questions and thus create an overview of the state of the research field.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials investigating any aspect of breast reconstructions were included. The PubMed database was searched with a pre-defined search string. Inclusion and data abstraction was performed in a pre-defined standardised fashion. For the purpose of this study, we defined key issues as comparison of categories of breast reconstruction and comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, when the thematisation was done.

RESULTS

A total of 419 abstracts were retrieved from the search. Of the 419, 310 were excluded as they were not RCTs concerning some aspect of breast reconstruction, which left us with 110 abstracts to be included in the study. The research questions of the included studies could more or less be divided into seven different themes inclusive of 2 key issues: Other issues - comparison of different categories of breast reconstruction, comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, surgical details within a category of breast reconstruction, surgical details valid for several categories of breast reconstruction, donor site management, anaesthetics, and non-surgical details. Only five studies compared key issues, and they all illustrate the challenges with RCTs in breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 110 publications based on RCTs in breast reconstruction have been published. Seven themes of research questions could be identified. Only five studies have explored the key issues. Better scientific evidence is needed for the key issues in breast reconstruction, for example by implementing a new study design in the field.

Do Corporate Payments Influence Research Related to the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Surgery?

BACKGROUND

No study has assessed the impact of financial conflicts of interests (COIs) on the reporting of breast reconstruction outcomes with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in peer-reviewed publications. The authors hypothesized that there is (1) an association between financial COIs and likelihood of studies reporting benefits in using ADM, and (2) inconsistent reporting of financial COIs.

METHODS

The PubMed database was used to identify articles that reported on the use of ADM in breast surgery in four leading plastic surgery journals from January of 2014 to December of 2019. Financial COIs for authors were determined using the open payments database.

RESULTS

Fifty-five articles were included. Twenty-four articles (43.6%) supported use of ADM, 12 (21.8%) did not promote ADM use, and 19 (34.5%) were neutral. Fifty-one studies (92.7%) had either a first or senior author with a COI, and authors with a COI more commonly reported positive outcomes ( P = 0.02). Studies with positive outcomes featured first authors who received significantly larger financial payments ($95,955 versus $15,642; P = 0.029) compared with studies with negative or neutral outcomes. Receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated that studies with first authors receiving over $376.28 were more likely to report positive results. Eight senior authors and three first authors received greater than $500 from ADM producers yet did not report any financial disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial COI is associated with higher likelihood of studies reporting benefit of using ADM in breast surgery. There remains inconsistent reporting of COIs, and better oversight is needed to ensure unbiased publication on the use of ADM in breast surgery.

Comparison of the Characteristics of Three Acellular Dermal Matrices Subjected to Distinct Processing Methods Using Five Types of Histochemical Staining

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is treated using various devitalization and aseptic processing methods. The processing effects on ADM were evaluated by histochemical tests.

METHODS

From January 2014 to December 2016, 18 patients [average age, 43.0 (range, 30-54) years] who underwent breast reconstruction with an ADM and tissue expander were prospectively enrolled. During the permanent implant replacement, a biopsy of the ADM was performed. We used three different human-derived products, namely, Alloderm®, Allomend®, and Megaderm®. Hematoxylin and eosin, CD68, CD3, CD31, and smooth muscle actin were used to evaluate the collagen structure, inflammation, angiogenesis, and myofibroblast infiltration. Each ADM was semi-quantitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

Significant differences in collagen degradation, acute inflammation, and myofibroblast infiltration were observed among the ADMs. Collagen degeneration (p<0.001) and myofibroblast infiltration (smooth muscle actin-positive, p=0.018; CD31-negative, p=0.765) were the most severe in Megaderm®. Acute inflammation, represented by CD68, was most severe in Alloderm® (p=0.024). Both radiation and freeze-drying treatment physically damaged the collagen structure. Collagen degeneration was most severe in Megaderm®, followed by Allomend® and Alloderm®. Since Alloderm® is treated using chemicals, an assessment of the chemical irritation is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

The biopsy results were inconclusive. Therefore, to better interpret processing, more large-scale, serial, histochemical studies of each ADM are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors 38 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 39 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 40 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 41 Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

"Spin" in Plastic Surgery Randomized Controlled Trials with Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

"Spin" refers to a manipulation of language that implies benefit for an intervention when none may exist. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in other fields have been demonstrated to employ spin, which can mislead clinicians to use ineffective or unsafe interventions. This study's objective was to determine the strategies, severity, and extent of spin in plastic surgery RCTs with nonsignificant primary outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search of the top 15 plastic surgery journals using MEDLINE was performed (2000 through 2020). Parallel 1:1 RCTs with a clearly identified primary outcome showing statistically nonsignificant results ( P > 0.05) were included. Screening, data extraction, and spin analysis were performed by two independent reviewers. The spin analysis was then independently assessed in duplicate by two plastic surgery residents with graduate-level training in clinical epidemiology.

RESULTS

From 3497 studies identified, 92 RCTs were included in this study. Spin strategies were identified in 78 RCTs (85%), including 64 abstracts (70%) and 77 main texts (84%). Severity of spin was rated moderate or high in 43 abstract conclusions (47%) and 42 main text conclusions (46%). The most identified spin strategy in the abstract was claiming equivalence for statistically nonsignificant results (26%); in the main text, focusing on another objective (24%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that 85% of statistically nonsignificant RCTs in plastic surgery employ spin. Readers of plastic surgery research should be aware of strategies, whether intentional or unintentional, used to manipulate language in reports of statistically nonsignificant RCTs when applying research findings to clinical practice.

The BREASTrial Stage III: Acellular Dermal Matrix Breast Reconstruction Outcomes from 3 Months to 2 Years Postoperatively

BACKGROUND

The Breast Reconstruction Evaluation of Acellular Dermal Matrix as a Sling Trial (BREASTrial) is a blinded, randomized trial comparing the outcomes of tissue expander breast reconstruction using AlloDerm or DermaMatrix. In this final stage of the trial, outcomes 3 months to 2 years after definitive reconstruction are reported along with patient satisfaction data.

METHODS

A randomized trial was conducted to compare complication rates between groups of patients who underwent reconstruction with AlloDerm and DermaMatrix. Regression models were used to analyze the impact of matrix type, age, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and reconstructive type on complication rates. Premastectomy and postmastectomy questionnaires were used to assess patient satisfaction and were also analyzed using regression models.

RESULTS

Of the 128 patients (199 breasts) who were randomized in the trial, 108 patients (167 breasts) were available for analysis in stage III. There was no difference in the overall complication rates between the AlloDerm and DermaMatrix groups (6% versus 13.2%; P = 0.3) or the severity of those complications ( P = 0.7). Obesity was a positive predictor for complications, regardless of reconstruction group ( P = 0.02). Patient satisfaction was positive overall and did not grossly vary between AlloDerm and DermaMatrix groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from the BREASTrial conclude that AlloDerm and DermaMatrix exhibit similar histologic and clinical outcomes. Patient satisfaction is also similar between matrices. Obesity is a predictor of complications, and acellular dermal matrices should be used with caution in these patients. As the largest head-to-head trial comparing two acellular dermal matrices, the BREASTrial contributes to the fund of knowledge regarding acellular dermal matrix supplementation in breast reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Impact of Dermal Matrix Brand in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction is the most common procedure for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Acellular dermal matrix is used to provide additional coverage in subpectoral and prepectoral implant placement. In this study, the authors compared postoperative outcomes between AlloDerm (LifeCell, Branchburg, N.J.) and DermACELL (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Mich.), two acellular dermal matrix brands.

METHODS

A retrospective review of implant-based breast reconstruction from 2016 to 2020 was conducted. Patient demographics and comorbidities, implant size and location, acellular dermal matrix choice, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Primary outcomes assessed were seroma and infection compared between two acellular dermal matrix brands. Independent clinical parameters were assessed with multiple logistic regression models for the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Reconstruction was performed in 150 patients (241 breasts). Eighty-eight patients underwent expander placement with AlloDerm and 62 patients with DermACELL. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. There was a significantly higher incidence of seroma in the AlloDerm group in univariate (AlloDerm 21.7 percent versus DermACELL 8.2 percent, p < 0.005) and multivariate analyses ( p = 0.04; 95 percent CI, 1.02 to 6.07). Acellular dermal matrix use (regardless of type) was not associated with higher rates of infection ( p = 0.99), but body mass index was ( p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Both AlloDerm and DermACELL had similar infection rates regardless of contributing risk factors. AlloDerm was found to be a risk factor for seroma formation in the postoperative period. As such, it is important to be aware of this complication when performing implant-based reconstruction with this brand of acellular dermal matrix.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Acellular Dermal Matrix Favorably Modulates the Healing Response after Surgery

SUMMARY

When first described for breast reconstruction, the presence of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) was associated with increased seroma formation and infection. However, clinical safety data has gradually improved with surgeon experience to an acceptable outcomes profile of ADM-assisted reconstruction when compared to submuscular implant coverage. In fact, ADM use potentially decreases capsular contracture rates and facilitates expansion for staged pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. Due to new regulatory requirements, the collection of unbiased, well-powered pre-market approval data summarizing long-term clinical outcomes will be essential over the coming years to understand the clinical performance of ADM usage in breast reconstruction.Currently, we can highlight the physiologic benefits of ADM use in breast reconstruction by evaluating the components of surgical wound healing that are favorably augmented by the implanted collagen substrate. ADM takes advantage of the wound healing cascade to incorporate into the patient's tissues - a process that requires a coordinated inflammatory infiltrate and angiogenesis. The presence of ADM augments and modulates the wound healing process to its advantage by simultaneously increasing the invasion of appropriate cellular constituents to facilitate expeditious healing and accelerate angiogenesis. Herein, we summarize the wound healing literature to demonstrate the mechanisms ADM use to biointegrate and the literature in which cellular constituents and soluble growth factors are upregulated in the presence of ADM. Lastly, we use our experimental observations of ADM incorporation to corroborate the literature.

Clinical Outcomes of Acellular Dermal Matrix (SimpliDerm and AlloDerm Ready-to-Use) in Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Background

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for post-mastectomy reconstruction is considered by many surgeons to be an accepted component of surgical technique. Early clinical experience is described for SimpliDerm® - a novel human ADM (Aziyo Biologics, Silver Spring, USA), and AlloDerm® Ready-To-Use (RTU) - an established ADM (Allergan Medical, Irvine, USA).

Methods

Records were retrospectively reviewed from four sites between 2016 and 2021 of patients who underwent immediate, two-stage reconstruction with either SimpliDerm (n=38) or AlloDerm RTU (n=69) after mastectomy and were followed out to exchange to permanent implant(s), tissue expander(s) explant, or death.

Results

Immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expanders and ADM was performed on 107 patients (181 breasts). Overall mean patient age was 51.4 ± 12.4 years, and mean BMI was 28.0 ± 5.8 kg/m². Significantly more patients in the SimpliDerm group were of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (34.2% vs. 7.2%; P<.001). Reconstructions were predominantly prepectoral (82.3%). A total of 35 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 27 (25.2%) patients, with no difference in AE type, classification, or rates between ADM groups. No AEs were considered related to either ADM. The observed AE profiles and rates are similar to those published for other ADMs in immediate breast reconstruction.

Conclusions

There continues to be a need for additional clinically equivalent ADMs to provide physicians with more availability and options for their practice. This retrospective, multisite study describes comparable clinical outcomes with SimpliDerm and AlloDerm RTU through a median of 133.5 days (~four months) following immediate two-stage breast reconstruction.

Comparison of 30-day Clinical Outcomes with SimpliDerm and AlloDerm RTU in Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is widely used in breast reconstruction, and outcomes of these procedures may be improved through optimized product design. SimpliDerm is a new human ADM designed to closely preserve the architecture of native dermis, with the goal of improving surgical outcomes. This study reports the initial (30-day) clinical experience with SimpliDerm compared with AlloDerm Ready-To-Use (RTU) in ADM-assisted breast reconstruction.

Methods:

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of 59 consecutive patients who underwent immediate 2-stage reconstruction with SimpliDerm (n = 28) or AlloDerm RTU (n = 31) following mastectomy are reported.

Results:

Fifty-nine women (108 breasts) underwent posmastectomy breast reconstruction with SimpliDerm or AlloDerm RTU. Mean patient age was 51.1 years, and mean body mass index was 28.2 kg/m². Reconstructions were predominantly prepectoral (95.4%), used tissue expanders (100%), and followed a skin-sparing (64%) approach to mastectomy. Mean time to final drain removal did not differ between groups (17.0 days, SimpliDerm versus 17.7 days, AlloDerm RTU). Adverse events occurred in 13 (22%) patients; none considered serious—all were mild or moderate in intensity. Adverse event rates did not differ between groups. The observed adverse event profiles and rates are similar to those published for other ADMs in immediate breast reconstruction.

Conclusions:

There remains a clinical need for ADMs with more optimal characteristics. This case series describes comparable outcomes with SimpliDerm and AlloDerm RTU over 30 days after immediate 2-stage breast reconstruction.

Characterization of Inflammatory and Fibrotic Aspects of Tissue Remodeling of Acellular Dermal Matrix in a Nonhuman Primate Model

Human acellular dermal matrices (hADMs) are applied in various soft tissue reconstructive surgeries as scaffolds to support tissue remodeling and regeneration. To evaluate the clinical efficacy of hADM implants, it is integral that the hADM does not induce a host chronic inflammatory response leading to fibrotic encapsulation of the implant. In this study, we characterized the inflammatory and fibrosis-related tissue remodeling response of 2 commercial hADM products (SimpliDerm and AlloDerm RTU) in a nonhuman primate model using histology and gene expression profiling.

METHODS

Eighteen African green monkeys with abdominal wall defects were applied to evaluate the performance of SimpliDerm and AlloDerm RTU implants (N = 3) at 2, 4, and 12-weeks post-implantation. Using histology and gene expression profiling, tissue responses such as implant integration, degradation, cell infiltration, immune response, neovascularization, and pro-fibrotic responses over time were evaluated.

RESULTS

SimpliDerm showed a lower initial inflammatory response and slower implant degradation rate than AlloDerm RTU evidenced by histomorphological analysis. These factors led to a more anti-inflammatory and pro-remodeling microenvironment within SimpliDerm, demonstrated by lower TNFα levels and lower expression levels of pro-fibrotic markers, and promoted tissue repair and regeneration by 3-months post-implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, histology and gene expression profiling analyses shown in this study demonstrated an effective model for analyzing hADM performance in terms of host inflammatory and fibrotic response. Further studies are warranted to fully evaluate the utility of this novel hADM in the clinical setting and verify the prognosis of our pre-clinical analysis model.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Alloderm-RTU with DermACELL in Immediate Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Background: The effectiveness of different acellular dermal matrices (ADM) used for implant-based reconstruction immediately following mastectomy is an important clinical question. A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed to evaluate the superiority of DermACELL over Alloderm-RTU in reducing drain duration. Methods: Patients undergoing mastectomy with subpectoral immediate and permanent implant-based breast reconstruction were randomized to Alloderm-RTU or DermACELL. The primary outcome was seroma formation, measured by the duration of postoperative drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: post drain removal seroma aspiration, infection, redbreast syndrome, wound dehiscence, loss of the implant, and unplanned return to the operating room. Results: 62 patients were randomized for 81 mastectomies (41 Alloderm-RTU, 40 DermACELL). Baseline characteristics were similar. There was no statistically significant difference in mean drain duration (p = 0.16), with a trend towards longer duration in the Alloderm-RTU group (1.6 days; 95%CI, 0.7 to 3.9). The overall rate of minor and major complications were statistically similar between the two groups; although patients with Alloderm-RTU had 3 times as many infections requiring antibiotics (7.9% vs. 2.5%) with a risk difference of 5.4 (95%CI −4.5 to 15.2), and twice as many unplanned returns to the operating room (15.8% vs. 7.5%) with a risk difference of 8.3 (95% CI −5.9 to 22.5) as DermACELL. Conclusion: This is the first prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the two most commonly used human-derived ADMs. There was no statistically significant difference in drain duration, minor, or major complications between DermACELL over Alloderm-RTU in immediate subpectoral permanent implant-based breast reconstruction post-mastectomy.

Submuscular and Pre-Pectoral ADM Assisted Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Literature Review

Background and objectives: Breast cancer treatment has deeply changed in the last fifty years. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) were introduced for breast reconstruction, with encouraging results, but with conflicting reports too. The present paper aims to summarize the current data on breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the literature regarding the use of ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction. Results: The main techniques were analyzed and described. Conclusions: Several authors have recently reported positive results. Nevertheless, an increased complications' rate has been reported by other authors. Higher cost compared to not-ADM-assisted breast reconstruction is another concern.

Surgical Outcomes in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has reemerged as a popular option for prosthetic-based breast reconstruction. Recent published literature highlights good outcomes; however, techniques are evolving and options exist for different technologies. The aim of this study is to evaluate short-term complication rates of prepectoral reconstructions using Cortiva acellular dermal matrix.

Methods:

A multicenter retrospective study was conducted of all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate direct-to-implant or 2-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with Cortiva (RTI Surgical, Alachua, Fla.) between January 2016 and September 2018. The incidence of surgical complications was determined and studied against patient demographics and procedural details.

Results:

One-hundred eighteen patients met the inclusion criteria for a total of 183 individual breasts reconstructed with prepectoral implant. Average length of follow-up was 9.26 months (range, 1.0 month to 2.5 years). Thirty-two breasts (17.49%) experienced 1 or more complications. Prepectoral reconstruction was successful 89.07% of the time. Infection was the most common cause of both reoperation and implant failure, with 7.65% of all breasts requiring washout and 5.46% failing prosthetic reconstruction secondary to infection.

Conclusions:

Surgical outcomes for prepectoral breast reconstruction using 2-stage and direct-to-implant are similar and comparable to the literature for dual-plane reconstruction, with infection being the main cause of failure.

A retrospective review of breast reconstruction outcomes comparing AlloDerm and DermaCELL

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has become an accepted and advantageous adjunct to alloplastic breast reconstruction. The increase in demand has led to an upsurge of dermal-based products, both human and animal derived. There are few direct ADM comparative studies, but it is unclear whether there are any differences in complication rates. Our primary objective was to determine whether there is a difference in outcomes between AlloDerm and DermACELL in immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction.

A retrospective chart review of those who underwent immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction from January to December 2016 was performed. This encompassed 64 consecutive patients (95 breasts) with tissue expander or direct-to-implant reconstruction and either AlloDerm or DermACELL ADM. Demographics, particulars of the surgery, additional treatments and complications were all recorded. Differences in seroma, haematoma and infection rates, as well as more serious complications including implant replacement, capsular contracture and failure, were all reviewed.

The groups were comparable in terms of age, BMI and relevant comorbidities. Mastectomy weight and resulting implant volume were higher in the DermACELL group, with volume reaching statistical significance (p = 0.001). With an average follow-up of 18 months, there was no difference in capsular contraction or implant replacement. However, in those who developed capsular contracture in the DermACELL group, more breasts had no history of radiation, which was significant (p = 0.042). Overall, there were no significant differences in complication rates of seroma, haematoma, mastectomy flap necrosis and infection.

Cortiva Versus AlloDerm Ready-to-use in Prepectoral and Submuscular Breast Reconstruction: Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Study Design and Early Findings

Background:

Several acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) can be used to provide soft-tissue support for post- and prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstructions. Yet, several recent meta-analysis suggest that due to a lack of rigorous evaluation in the setting of head-to-head prospective randomized control trials, few reliable conclusions regarding performance outcomes can be drawn. We compare Cortiva 1 mm to AlloDerm RTU in the setting of submuscular reconstruction in one study, and prepectoral in the second. Moreover, we present the findings from the interim analysis in our submuscular study.

Methods:

Using a single-blinded prospective randomized control trial design, we compare outcomes in 180 patients undergoing submuscular breast reconstruction with 16 × 8 cm ADM support (either Cortiva 1 mm or AlloDerm RTU). A parallel study evaluates 16 × 20 cm sheets of these ADMs in 180 patients undergoing prepectoral reconstructions. Time to drain removal, complications, fill volumes, patient-reported outcomes, and narcotic consumption are prospectively evaluated.

Results:

Interim analysis of 59 breasts in the submuscular study arm (Cortiva n = 31; AlloDerm n = 28) revealed no statistically significant differences with respect to outcome. At the time of interim analysis, the AlloDerm RTU group contained a higher proportion of never-smokers (P = 0.009), while patients implanted with Cortiva 1 mm received a larger tissue expander (P = 0.02).

Conclusion:

We present a protocol for a robust randomized control trial to evaluate outcomes in both submuscular and prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction assisted by 2 distinct types of ADM. Our interim analysis reveals no evidence of inferiority of outcomes in a comparison of AlloDerm to Cortiva.

Breast reconstruction with Alloderm Ready to Use: A meta-analysis of nine observational cohorts

BACKGROUND

AlloDerm-RTU is a new member of human acellular dermal matrix (HADM) which was launched in 2012. The present meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether AlloDerm-RTU was superior compared with previous HADMs.

METHODS

All available databases were searched for retrospective or prospective studies regarding breast reconstruction with AlloDerm-RTU compared with other HADMs. The primary outcome was the incidence of complications among different HADMs.

RESULTS

Two prospective and seven retrospective studies with a total of 1406 patients were enrolled. There was no significant difference in any of the complications, including the incidence of hematoma (RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.19 to 3.19; P = 0.73), seroma (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.43 to 2.26; P = 0.97), cellulitis (RR 0.82, 95%CI 0.32 to 2.11; P = 0.68), necrosis (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.44 to 1.10; P = 0.12), infection (RR 0.68, 95%CI 0.37 to 1.25; P = 0.22), explantation (RR 0.61, 95%CI 0.35 to 1.06; P = 0.08), and total complications (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.55 to 1.52; P = 0.73). Subgroup analysis showed that AlloDerm-RTU demonstrated no superiority compared with FD AlloDerm, AlloMax, or DermACELL. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the outcomes were stabilized. No publication bias existed in the present meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Four HADM products, AlloDerm-RTU, FD AlloDerm, AlloMax, and DermACELL, showed similar risks of complications. However since most of the included studies had a low level of evidence, further random trials with large numbers of patients are needed.