University of Kentucky, Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Lexington, KY, USA.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013 Nov;66(11):1534-42. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2013.07.002. Epub 2013 Jul 17.
The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in tissue expander breast reconstruction has several advantages but increased complications have been reported. Dermal autografts may offer a safer and more cost-effective alternative. The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the outcomes of tissue expander breast reconstruction using dermal autografts with ADM-assisted reconstruction. Patients undergoing tissue expander breast reconstruction with either ADM or dermal autografts were enrolled. Autografts were harvested from the lower abdomen. At each follow-up visit, patients were surveyed on a seven-point scale for scar and overall satisfaction. Biopsies taken at the time of device exchange were evaluated histologically with CD34 staining to assess tissue integration and vessel ingrowth. Expansion parameters, complications, procedural costs, and operative times were compared. Forty-eight patients were enrolled (76 breasts). Twenty-seven patients received ADM, and twenty-one patients received dermal autograft. Wound healing complications were significantly higher in the ADM group (14.8% versus 4.8%, p-value = 0.03), as were major complications (18.5% versus 0%, p-value < 0.01). Histologic vessel counts in the autograft group averaged 21 vessels/mm(2), compared to 7 vessels/mm(2) in the ADM group (p-value < 0.01). There was no difference between the two groups in scar satisfaction or overall satisfaction. Patients receiving dermal autograft had a lower incidence of major complications and delayed wound healing than patients who received ADM. Despite harvest time, the overall cost of the ADM-assisted expander placement was higher. Dermal autograft-assisted breast reconstruction offers many of the benefits of ADM, but with a lower cost and improved safety profile.
真皮基质(ADM)在组织扩张器乳房重建中的应用具有许多优点,但也有报道称其并发症增加。真皮移植物可能是一种更安全、更具成本效益的选择。本前瞻性研究的目的是比较使用真皮移植物和 ADM 辅助重建的组织扩张器乳房重建的结果。招募了接受 ADM 或真皮移植物进行组织扩张器乳房重建的患者。真皮移植物取自下腹部。在每次随访时,患者会根据七点量表对疤痕和整体满意度进行调查。在设备更换时采集的活检标本进行 CD34 染色的组织学评估,以评估组织整合和血管内生长。比较了扩张参数、并发症、程序成本和手术时间。共纳入 48 例患者(76 例乳房)。27 例患者接受 ADM,21 例患者接受真皮移植物。ADM 组的伤口愈合并发症明显更高(14.8%比 4.8%,p 值=0.03),主要并发症也更高(18.5%比 0%,p 值<0.01)。真皮移植物组的平均血管计数为 21 个/平方毫米,而 ADM 组为 7 个/平方毫米(p 值<0.01)。两组之间在疤痕满意度或总体满意度方面没有差异。接受真皮移植物的患者比接受 ADM 的患者发生主要并发症和延迟愈合的发生率更低。尽管有采集时间,ADM 辅助扩张器放置的总体成本更高。真皮移植物辅助乳房重建具有许多 ADM 的优点,但成本更低,安全性更高。
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013-7-17
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014-1-23
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013-6-13
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017-5
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013-6-20
Dermatol Reports. 2024-2-15
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024-9-6
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024-6-21
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017-12-27
Biomed Res Int. 2017-10-2
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2017-7-21
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017-6-28