Difference in the outcomes of anterior tenting and wrapping techniques for acellular dermal matrix coverage in prepectoral breast reconstruction

• Published in: Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery reconstructive & aesthetic surgery, 2023-10, Vol.85, p.266-275
• Main Authors: Sohn, Sung-Min, Lee, Hyung-Chul, Park, Seung-Ha, Yoon, Eul-Sik
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acellular dermal matrix; Anterior tenting technique; Capsular contracture; Prepectoral breast reconstruction; Seroma; Wrapping technique
• ISSN: 1748-6815; 1878-0539
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.070

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) play an essential role in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions; however, the most appropriate method for ADMs is unknown. We conducted a retrospective analysis of our institutional database. Patients who underwent mastectomy and prepectoral breast reconstruction using tissue expanders or breast implants covered with ADMs between March 2018 and June 2021 were included. Patient characteristics, postoperative complications, and long-term outcomes were investigated. In total, 112 patients (126 breasts) were included. The anterior tenting and wrapping techniques were used in the reconstruction of 32 (25.3%) and 94 (74.7%) breasts, respectively. Using propensity score matching, nine breasts were selected for each technique within the direct-to-implant reconstruction group, while 16 breasts were selected for each technique within the 2-stage reconstruction group. The choice of technique (anterior vs. wrapping) in implementing ADM did not generate any significant differences in postoperative complications, including seroma formation and capsular contracture, for the direct-to-implant and 2-stage reconstruction groups. Regarding the direct-to-implant reconstruction group, the average postoperative drain volume was less in the anterior tenting group than that in the wrapping group (anterior tenting vs. wrapping; 495.09 ± 156.118 mL vs. 673.43 ± 307.954 mL, p = 0.006), but the difference was insignificant after propensity score matching. We report our experience with covering prosthetic devices with ADMs during postmastectomy breast reconstruction. No differences in the postoperative drain volume or postoperative outcomes were found between the study groups. Future studies are needed to determine the method that provides the most satisfactory results.