A retrospective review of breast reconstruction outcomes comparing AlloDerm and DermaCELL

Abstract

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. Keywords: Acellular dermal matrix, ADM, Breast reconstruction, AlloDerm, DermACELL, Breast implants