Comparing Polyurethane and Acellular Dermal Matrix Implant Cover in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Short-term Complications.
Jorge M Correia-Pinto, Filipa Poleri, José P Barbosa, Rui Casimiro, Marta S Azevedo, Carolina Andresen, Gustavo Coelho, Cristina S Cunha, Horácio Costa
Author Information
Jorge M Correia-Pinto: Serviço de Cirurgia Plástica Reconstrutiva, Craniomaxilofacial e Mão, Unidade de Microcirurgia, Centro Hospitalar Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
Filipa Poleri: Serviço de Cirurgia Plástica Reconstrutiva, Craniomaxilofacial e Mão, Unidade de Microcirurgia, Centro Hospitalar Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
José P Barbosa: Departamento de Medicina da Comunidade, Informação e Decisão em Saúde (MEDCIDS), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Rui Casimiro: Serviço de Cirurgia Plástica Reconstrutiva, Craniomaxilofacial e Mão, Unidade de Microcirurgia, Centro Hospitalar Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
Marta S Azevedo: Serviço de Cirurgia Plástica Reconstrutiva, Craniomaxilofacial e Mão, Unidade de Microcirurgia, Centro Hospitalar Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
Carolina Andresen: Serviço de Cirurgia Plástica, Hospital da Prelada, Porto, Portugal.
Gustavo Coelho: Serviço de Cirurgia Plástica, Hospital da Prelada, Porto, Portugal.
Cristina S Cunha: Serviço de Cirurgia Plástica, Hospital da Prelada, Porto, Portugal.
Horácio Costa: Serviço de Cirurgia Plástica, Hospital da Prelada, Porto, Portugal.
Implant covering with an interface material is the standard in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently used, but it is expensive and associated with complications. Alternatively, we have been using integrated devices consisting of a silicone implant coated with polyurethane (PU) foam. We aimed to compare both techniques in terms of acute complications. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction from June 2018 to January 2022. Two cohorts were defined based on the interface material used: ADM versus PU. Total drainage volume, time to drain removal, and acute complications (hematoma, seroma, infection, and explantation) were analyzed. Results: Forty-four breast reconstructions were performed in 35 patients (10 bilateral); implants were covered with ADM in 23 cases and with PU foam in 21. Median total drainage volume (500 versus 515 cc for ADM and PU, respectively) and time to drain removal (9 versus 8 days) were not affected by the interface material used, but seromas and infections occurred exclusively in the ADM cohort (seromas in four of 23 of cases, = 0.109; infections in three of 23 cases, = 0.234). Overall complications occurred more often in cases reconstructed with ADM, but the difference was nonsignificant ( = 0.245). Conclusions: The use of interface materials is generally considered a prerequisite for state-of-the-art prepectoral breast reconstruction for a variety of reasons, including the prevention of capsular contracture. In this study, PU coating tended to be associated with fewer short-term complications than ADM, including seroma and infection.
