PURPOSE

Allogenic acellular dermal matrix can be used in single-stage, expander-based immediate and delayed breast reconstructions to provide inferolateral prosthesis coverage and reconstruction of the inframammary fold. Two allogenic dermal matrix products currently available, AlloDerm and DermaMatrix, differ in method of storage, cost, and intra-operative preparation. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there are any significant differences in the rates of post-operative complications, material compliance, or capsule characteristics. Secondly, if differences are present, if they had any impact on final outcome.

METHOD

After IRB approval, a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 30 patients (50 breasts) who underwent immediate expander-based breast reconstructions using either AlloDerm (n=25) or DermaMatrix (n=25) dermal substitutes. Primary endpoints were (1) incidence of seroma (2) wound infection (3) wound breakdown (4) rate of tissue expansion (5) final expanded volume (6) final implant volume (7) degree of lowerpole expansion (8) degree of neovascularization

RESULTS     Mean follow-up was 6.7 months. During this time we found no significant differences in the complication profile between the two groups. Both dermal substitutes were found to be well incorporated, expandable with evidence of neovascularization, on histological examination.

CONCLUSION This study has demonstrated no significant difference in the rate of complications, nor material compliance. The total complication rate was 4%, with seroma and wound infection being the most common complications. Our preliminary findings indicate no significant difference between implant/expander-based reconstructions using AlloDerm compared with DermaMatrix.