无细胞真皮基质和补片用于胸前和胸下一期直接植入体重建的术后并发症比较:一项回顾性队列研究。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Annals of Plastic Surgery Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1097/SAP.0000000000004233
Michael Diffley, Amy Tang, Kinan Sawar, Tala Al-Saghir, Madeleine R Gonte, Jamie Hall, Donna Tepper, Vigen Darian, Maristella Evangelista, Dunya Atisha
{"title":"无细胞真皮基质和补片用于胸前和胸下一期直接植入体重建的术后并发症比较:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Michael Diffley, Amy Tang, Kinan Sawar, Tala Al-Saghir, Madeleine R Gonte, Jamie Hall, Donna Tepper, Vigen Darian, Maristella Evangelista, Dunya Atisha","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Certain structural scaffolds have differing safety profiles that should be considered when selecting, which product to use in DTI reconstruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"521-527"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Postoperative Complications of Acellular Dermal Matrix and Mesh Use in Prepectoral and Subpectoral One-Stage Direct to Implant Reconstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Michael Diffley, Amy Tang, Kinan Sawar, Tala Al-Saghir, Madeleine R Gonte, Jamie Hall, Donna Tepper, Vigen Darian, Maristella Evangelista, Dunya Atisha\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004233\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Certain structural scaffolds have differing safety profiles that should be considered when selecting, which product to use in DTI reconstruction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"521-527\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004233\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004233","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:一期直接植入(direct-to-implant, DTI)乳房再造术越来越流行,胸前再造术的使用导致对结构支架的需求增加。确定不同支架的安全性是否存在差异是至关重要的。方法:我们对乳腺癌中心连续接受DTI重建的患者进行回顾性队列研究。提取与术后感染、伤口并发症和种植体相关并发症相关的结果。结果分为主要、轻微和长期并发症。单变量和多变量分析确定了结果差异并解释了混杂变量。结果:242例(404个乳房)行DTI重建。采用FlexHD flexible Preformed (PP;MTF Biologics, Edison, NJ), 122 with AlloDerm Ready To Use (RTU;Allergan Aesthetics, Irvine, CA), 22例使用DermACELL (LifeNet Health, Virginia Beach, VA), 21例使用Galaflex (Galatea Surgical, Lexington, MA), 22例使用Meso BioMatrix (MTF Biologics), 25例单独使用自体皮瓣。单因素分析显示,在口服抗生素治疗蜂窝织炎、包膜挛缩、包膜挛缩外植术、需要手术引流的血肿、轻微并发症和长期并发症的发生率方面,支架之间存在统计学差异。在多变量回归中,FlexHD PP与AlloDerm RTU相比,其包膜挛缩、包膜挛缩的外植、轻微并发症和长期并发症的发生率均有所降低。与FlexHD pp相比,使用Galaflex进行DTI重建的荚膜挛缩率增加。结论:在选择用于DTI重建的产品时,应考虑某些结构支架具有不同的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Postoperative Complications of Acellular Dermal Matrix and Mesh Use in Prepectoral and Subpectoral One-Stage Direct to Implant Reconstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: Certain structural scaffolds have differing safety profiles that should be considered when selecting, which product to use in DTI reconstruction.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信