A Cohort Analysis of Early Outcomes After AlloDerm, FlexHD, and SurgiMend Use in Two-Stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

Abstract

Abstract Background Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently utilized in prepectoral breast reconstruction, but few studies have examined the role of ADM type in complication risk. Objectives This study was performed to determine the impact of ADM type on early complication rates in 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction. Methods We performed a cohort examination of all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction with ADM support at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2018 to 2021. ADM types utilized included AlloDerm (LifeCell Corporation, Branchburg, NJ), FlexHD (MTF Biologics, Edison, NJ), and SurgiMend (Integra LifeSciences Corporation, Princeton, NJ). Complication rates based on the number of tissue expanders (TEs) were determined for each ADM type. Performance of multivariate logistic regression determined the impact of ADM type on complication risk after accounting for confounders. Results Overall, 726 patients (1054 TEs: 194 AlloDerm, 93 FlexHD, 767 SurgiMend) were included. The 3 cohorts differed in terms of mastectomy type (nipple-sparing: 23.5% of AlloDerm, 33.3% of FlexHD, 19.1% of SurgiMend, P = .038); ADM perforation (perforated: 94.8% of AlloDerm, 98.2% of FlexHD, 100% of SurgiMend, P < .001); and ADM size (AlloDerm: 153.2 cm2 [37.6], SurgiMend: 198.7 cm2 [10.4], FlexHD: 223.7 cm2 [37.9], P < .001). On univariate examination, no differences existed between ADM types for seroma, infection, exposure, malposition, or TE loss. Additionally, after adjustment for confounders with multivariate regression, no ADM type had higher odds of TE loss. Conclusions In this large cohort of prepectoral reconstruction patients, ADM type did not significantly affect the risk of complications. Additional prospective studies are warranted to better evaluate ADM choice for prepectoral breast reconstruction. Level of Evidence: 4