Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026
ADM-Assisted Breast Reconstruction vs Micro-Polyurethane Foam-Covered Implants in the Prepectoral Space: A Monocentric Study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Miranda Sergio, Mazzocconi Luca, Tarantino Giulio, Frassoni Samuele, Bagnardi Vincenzo, Ghiringhelli Gaia, Caldarella Pietro, De Lorenzi Francesca
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) or micro-polyurethane foam-covered breast implants have emerged as commonly used surgical techniques. Although the use of both ADMs and micro-polyurethane foam-covered implants in prepectoral breast reconstruction are widely described in literature, comparative data remains limited.
OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to compare the short-term and medium-term clinical outcomes as well as the patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing direct-to-implant (DTI) prepectoral breast reconstruction using ADM versus micro-polyurethane foam-covered implants.
METHODS: A retrospective matched cohort study was conducted on 64 patients (32 ADM-wrapped and 32 micro-polyurethane foam-covered breast implants). Patients were matched based on prior surgery, adjuvant radiotherapy, and implant volume. Demographic and oncological characteristics, surgical variables, short- and medium-term outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The micro-polyurethane group had significantly older patients (median age 53 vs. 47 years; p = 0.036). Periprosthetic fluid collection (31% vs. 3%; p = 0.006) and need for percutaneous fluid aspiration (38% vs. 9%; p = 0.016) occurred significantly more often in the ADM group. The indication for further surgery was also higher with ADM (47% vs. 19%; p = 0.031). Patient satisfaction showed a non-significant trend favoring micro-polyurethane implants in satisfaction with outcome domain (mean: 89 vs. 82; p = 0.060).
CONCLUSIONS: Both ADM-assisted reconstructions and micro-polyurethane implants demonstrated high performance in the short and medium term, and they were associated to high patient satisfaction with reconstruction. However, micro-polyurethane implants were associated with fewer periprosthetic fluid collections and a lower need for percutaneous fluid aspirations compared to the ADM group. These findings suggest a potential advantage in terms of reduced postoperative complications.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to compare the short-term and medium-term clinical outcomes as well as the patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing direct-to-implant (DTI) prepectoral breast reconstruction using ADM versus micro-polyurethane foam-covered implants.
METHODS: A retrospective matched cohort study was conducted on 64 patients (32 ADM-wrapped and 32 micro-polyurethane foam-covered breast implants). Patients were matched based on prior surgery, adjuvant radiotherapy, and implant volume. Demographic and oncological characteristics, surgical variables, short- and medium-term outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The micro-polyurethane group had significantly older patients (median age 53 vs. 47 years; p = 0.036). Periprosthetic fluid collection (31% vs. 3%; p = 0.006) and need for percutaneous fluid aspiration (38% vs. 9%; p = 0.016) occurred significantly more often in the ADM group. The indication for further surgery was also higher with ADM (47% vs. 19%; p = 0.031). Patient satisfaction showed a non-significant trend favoring micro-polyurethane implants in satisfaction with outcome domain (mean: 89 vs. 82; p = 0.060).
CONCLUSIONS: Both ADM-assisted reconstructions and micro-polyurethane implants demonstrated high performance in the short and medium term, and they were associated to high patient satisfaction with reconstruction. However, micro-polyurethane implants were associated with fewer periprosthetic fluid collections and a lower need for percutaneous fluid aspirations compared to the ADM group. These findings suggest a potential advantage in terms of reduced postoperative complications.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .