Abstract
One-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction is increasingly popular with the use of prepectoral reconstruction leading to increased demand for structural scaffolds. It is vital to determine if differences in safety profiles exist among scaffolds. We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients in our breast cancer center undergoing DTI reconstruction. Outcomes relating to postoperative infections, wound complications, and implant related complications were extracted. Outcomes were grouped into major, minor, and long-term complications. Univariate and multivariate analysis determined outcome differences and accounted for confounding variables. Two hundred forty-two patients (404 breasts) underwent DTI reconstruction. One hundred ninety-two breasts were reconstructed with FlexHD Pliable Preformed (PP; MTF Biologics, Edison, NJ), 122 with AlloDerm Ready To Use (RTU; Allergan Aesthetics, Irvine, CA), 22 with DermACELL (LifeNet Health, Virginia Beach, VA), 21 with Galaflex (Galatea Surgical, Lexington, MA), 22 with Meso BioMatrix (MTF Biologics), and 25 with autologous dermal flaps alone. Univariate analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences among scaffolds in the incidence of cellulitis treated with oral antibiotics, capsular contracture, explantation for capsular contracture, seroma requiring operative drainage, minor complications, and long-term complications. On multivariate regression, FlexHD PP had reduced rates of capsular contracture, explantation for capsular contracture, minor complications, and long-term complications compared to AlloDerm RTU. Reconstruction with Galaflex had increased rates of capsular contracture when compared to FlexHD PP. Certain structural scaffolds have differing safety profiles that should be considered when selecting, which product to use in DTI reconstruction.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call