Comparison of irradiated and non-irradiated acellular dermal matrices in breast reconstruction under radiotherapy

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Background Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have become an essential material for implant-based breast reconstruction. No previous studies have evaluated the effects of sterility of ADM under conditions of radiation. This study compared sterile (irradiated) and aseptic (non-irradiated) ADMs to determine which would better endure radiotherapy.

Methods Eighteen male Balb/C mice were assigned to the control group with no irradiation (group 1) or one of two other groups with a radiation intensity of 10 Gy (group 2) or 20 Gy (group 3). Both sterile and aseptic ADMs were inserted into the back of each mouse. The residual volume of the ADM (measured using three-dimensional photography), cell incorporation, α-smooth muscle actin expression, and connective tissue growth factor expression were evaluated. The thickness and CD3 expression of the skin were measured 4 and 8 weeks after radiation.

Results In groups 2 and 3, irradiated ADMs had a significantly larger residual volume than the non-irradiated ADMs after 8 weeks (P<0.05). No significant differences were found in cell incorporation and the amount of fibrosis between irradiated and non-irradiated ADMs. The skin was significantly thicker in the non-irradiated ADMs than in the irradiated ADMs in group 3 (P<0.05). CD3 staining showed significantly fewer inflammatory cells in the skin of irradiated ADMs than in non-irradiated ADMs in all three groups after 4 and 8 weeks (P<0.05).

Conclusions Under radiation exposure, irradiated ADMs were more durable, with less volume decrease and less deposition of collagen fibers and inflammatory reactions in the skin than in non-irradiated ADMs.

Publication History

Received: 23 July 2020

Accepted: 03 November 2020

Article published online:
20 March 2022

© 2021. 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 Israeli R. Complications of acellular dermal matrices in breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130(5 Suppl 2): 159S-172S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Weichman KE, Wilson SC, Saadeh PB. et al. Sterile “ready-to-use” AlloDerm decreases postoperative infectious complications in patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 725-36
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 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
• 4 Israeli R, Feingold RS. Acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction in the setting of radiotherapy. Aesthet Surg J 2011; 31(7 Suppl): 51S-64S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Kim JY, Davila AA, Persing S. et al. A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 28-41
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 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: 1606-14
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Lyons DA, Mendenhall SD, Neumeister MW. et al. Aseptic versus sterile acellular dermal matrices in breast reconstruction: an updated review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 4: e823
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Klein GM, Nasser AE, Phillips BT. et al. Is sterile better than aseptic? Comparing the microbiology of acellular dermal matrices. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 4: e761
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Yuen JC, Yue CJ, Erickson SW. et al. Comparison between freeze-dried and ready-to-use AlloDerm in alloplastic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2014; 2: e119
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Kronowitz SJ. Current status of implant-based breast reconstruction in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130: 513e-523e
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Phillips BT, Bishawi M, Dagum AB. et al. A systematic review of infection rates and associated antibiotic duration in acellular dermal matrix breast reconstruction. Eplasty 2014; 14: e42
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 JoAnna Nguyen T, Carey JN, Wong AK. Use of human acellular dermal matrix in implant- based breast reconstruction: evaluating the evidence. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64: 1553-61
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Basu CB, Leong M, Hicks MJ. Acellular cadaveric dermis decreases the inflammatory response in capsule formation in reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126: 1842-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Kim IK, Park SO, Chang H. et al. Inhibition mechanism of acellular dermal matrix on capsule formation in expander-implant breast reconstruction after postmastectomy radiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25: 2279-87
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 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: 825-31
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Hoppe IC, Yueh JH, Wei CH. et al. Complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction utilizing acellular dermal matrix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eplasty 2011; 11: e40
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Vu MM, Kim JY. Current opinions on indications and algorithms for acellular dermal matrix use in primary prosthetic breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2015; 4: 195-203
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Winocour S, Martinez-Jorge J, Habermann E. et al. Early surgical site infection following tissue expander breast reconstruction with or without acellular dermal matrix: national benchmarking using National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Arch Plast Surg 2015; 42: 194-200
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Buseman J, Wong L, Kemper P. et al. Comparison of sterile versus nonsterile acellular dermal matrices for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 70: 497-9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Klein GM, Singh G, Marquez J. et al. Acellular dermal matrix sterility: does it affect microbial and clinical outcomes following implantation?. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7: e2355
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 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
• 22 Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Koch RM. et al. An 8-year experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm). Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 514-24
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Moyer HR, Pinell-White X, Losken A. The effect of radiation on acellular dermal matrix and capsule formation in breast reconstruction: clinical outcomes and histologic analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133: 214-21
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Clemens MW, Kronowitz SJ. Acellular dermal matrix in irradiated tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction: evidence-based review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 5 Suppl 2 27S-34S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar