Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2019; 46(01): 34-38
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2018.00304
Original Article

Does acellular dermal matrix expand in response to tissue expander inflation?

Chae Eun Yang 
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Kwang Hyun Park 
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Dong Won Lee 
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Dae Hyun Lew 
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Seung Yong Song 
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
› Author AffiliationsThe authors thank Mr. Dong-Su Jang, Research Assistant, Department of Anatomy, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, for help with the figures.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Background Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have recently become widely used in breast reconstruction, but the correlation between the final expander volume and the surface area of the ADM is not well understood. In this study, the expansion of the surface area of ADM and the expander volume was studied retrospectively in cases of acellular dermis–assisted tissue expander breast reconstruction.

Methods Twenty cases of immediate breast reconstruction using an ADM–assisted tissue expander from January 2015 to December 2015 were evaluated. In all 20 cases, CGCryoDerm was used as the matrix, with a thickness of 1–3 mm. No slit incisions were made. Finally, the proportional increase in the area of the fully expanded ADM was compared to that of the tissue expander volume.

Results The proportional increase in the ADM surface area was calculated to be from 1.1 to 2.46, with a mean value of 1.7. Additionally, under the assumption that the expander had a spherical shape, the increase in its radius (the cube root of its volume) was assessed. The range of the proportional increase in the expander radius was 1.1 to 2.24, with a mean value of 1.66. The proportional increase in the radius of the expanded ADM surface area ranged from 1.04 to 1.34, with a mean ratio of 1.28.

Conclusions The results of this study confirmed that the ADM expanded when the tissue expander was inflated. However, the ADM expanded to a lesser extent than the tissue expander, indicating that the muscle and other tissues expanded more than the ADM when the tissue expander was inflated.

Keywords

Acellular dermis - Mammaplasty - Tissue expansion


Publication History

Received: 12 April 2018

Accepted: 13 August 2018

Article published online:
28 March 2022

© 2019. 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

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 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: 429-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Warren AG, Morris DJ, Houlihan MJ. et al. Breast reconstruction in a changing breast cancer treatment paradigm. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121: 1116-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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: 1049-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Zienowicz RJ, Karacaoglu E. Implant-based breast reconstruction with allograft. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120: 373-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hanna KR, DeGeorge Jr BR, Mericli AF. et al. Comparison study oftwo types of expander-based breast reconstruction: acellular dermal matrix-assisted versus total submuscular placement. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 70: 10-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Breuing KH, Warren SM. Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings. Ann Plast Surg 2005; 55: 232-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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: 1735-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gamboa-Bobadilla GM. Implant breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 56: 22-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Davila AA, Seth AK, Wang E. et al. Human acellular dermis versus submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction: a multivariate analysis of short-term complications. Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40: 19-27
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140: 432-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Spear SL, Albino FP, Al-Attar A. Repairing the high-riding nipple with reciprocal transposition flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: 687-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar