Does the use of Acellular Dermal Matrices (ADM) in women undergoing pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction increase operative success versus non-use of ADM in the same setting? A systematic review.
Hannah I Cook, Sevasti P Glynou, Sara Sousi, David Zargaran, Stephen Hamilton, Afshin Mosahebi
Author Information
Hannah I Cook: Plastic Surgery Department, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
Sevasti P Glynou: Plastic Surgery Department, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK. sevasti.glynou23@imperial.ac.uk.
Sara Sousi: Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
David Zargaran: Plastic Surgery Department, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
Stephen Hamilton: Plastic Surgery Department, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
Afshin Mosahebi: Plastic Surgery Department, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in the UK. Reconstruction - of which implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most common - forms a core part of surgical management of breast cancer. More recently, pre-pectoral IBBR has become common as technology and operative techniques have evolved. Many surgeons use acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in reconstruction however there is little evidence in literature that this improves surgical outcomes. This review will assess available evidence for surgical outcomes for breast reconstructions using ADM versus non-use of ADM. METHODS: A database search was performed of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2012-2022). Studies were screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Risk of Bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale and ROBIS tools. Analysis and meta-analysis were performed. RESULTS: This review included 22 studies (3822 breast reconstructions). No significant difference between overall complications and failure rates between ADM and non-ADM use was demonstrated. Capsular contracture, wound dehiscence and implant rippling had significant differences however these results demonstrated high heterogeneity thus wider generalisation may be inaccurate. Patient quality of life scores were not recorded consistently or comparably between papers. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests a lack of significant differences in most complications between ADM use and non-use for pre-pectoral IBBR. If no increase in complications exists between groups, this has significant implications for surgical and legislative decision-making. There is, however, inadequate evidence available on the topic and further research is required.
