Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cryopreserved Acellular Dermal Matrix in Immediate Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Study

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Background CGCryoDerm was first introduced in 2010 and offers a different matrix preservation processes for freezing without drying preparation. From a theoretical perspective, CGCryoDerm has a more preserved dermal structure and more abundant growth factors for angiogenesis and recellularization. In the current study, the authors performed a retrospective study to evaluate freezing- and freeze-drying-processed acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to determine whether any differences were present in an early complication profile.

Methods Patients who underwent ADM-assisted tissue expander placement for two stage breast reconstruction between January of 2013 and March of 2014 were retrospectively reviewed and divided into two groups based on the types of ADM-assisted expander reconstruction (CGDerm vs. CGCryoDerm). Complications were divided into four main categories and recorded as follows: seroma, hematoma, infection, and mastectomy skin flap necrosis.

Results In a total of 82 consecutive patients, the CGCryoDerm group had lower rates of seroma when compared to the CGDerm group without statistical significance (3.0% vs. 10.2%, P=0.221), respectively. Other complications were similar in both groups. Reconstructions with CGCryoDerm were found to have a significantly longer period of drainage when compared to reconstructions with CGDerm (11.91 days vs. 10.41 days, P=0.043).

Conclusions Preliminary findings indicate no significant differences in early complications between implant/expander-based reconstructions using CGCryoderm and those using CGDerm.

Publication History

Received: 08 October 2014

Accepted: 03 December 2014

Article published online:
05 May 2022

© 2015. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

• 1 Martin L, O'Donoghue JM, Horgan K. et al. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) assisted breast reconstruction procedures: joint guidelines from the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Eur J Surg Oncol 2013; 39: 425-429
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Spear SL, Majidian A. Immediate breast reconstruction in two stages using textured, integrated-valve tissue expanders and breast implants: a retrospective review of 171 consecutive breast reconstructions from 1989 to 1996. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 101: 53-63
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Cordeiro PG, McCarthy CM. A single surgeon's 12-year experience with tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: part I. A prospective analysis of early complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118: 825-831
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68: 346-356
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Lee JH, Park KR, Kim TG. et al. A comparative study of CG CryoDerm and AlloDerm in direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40: 374-379
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 CGBio. Dentistry: CGCryoDerm [Internet]. Sungnam: CGBio Co.. cited 2014 Dec 2 Available from:. https://cgbio.co.kr/sub2_4_2
  Google Scholar
• 7 Wong AK, Schonmeyr B, Singh P. et al. Histologic analysis of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in acellular human dermis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121: 1144-1152
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Nahabedian MY. Acellular dermal matrices in primary breast reconstruction: principles, concepts, and indications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130: 44S-53S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Antony AK, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG. et al. Acellular human dermis implantation in 153 immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstructions: determining the incidence and significant predictors of complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125: 1606-1614
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Weichman KE, Wilson SC, Weinstein AL. et al. The use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 1049-1058
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Venturi ML, Mesbahi AN, Boehmler 4th JH. et al. Evaluating sterile human acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander-based breast reconstruction: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: 9e-18e
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Vardanian AJ, Clayton JL, Roostaeian J. et al. Comparison of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128: 403e-410e
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Sbitany H, Sandeen SN, Amalfi AN. et al. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction versus complete submuscular coverage: a head-to-head comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: 1735-1740
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Michelotti BF, Brooke S, Mesa J. et al. Analysis of clinically significant seroma formation in breast reconstruction using acellular dermal grafts. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 71: 274-277
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Liu AS, Kao HK, Reish RG. et al. Postoperative complications in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 1755-1762
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Chun YS, Verma K, Rosen H. et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125: 429-436
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar