Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 8, 2025
Tissue Engineering of Tumor Stromal Microenvironment with Application to Cancer Cell Invasion
Published on: March 18, 2014
Acellular Dermal Matrix-Associated Complications in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter, Prospective,
Justin M Broyles1, Eric C Liao1, John Kim1
1From Brigham and Women's Hospital; Massachusetts General Hospital; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine; Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital Southlake; Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital Fort Worth; Baylor Scott & White All Saints Medical Center; NorthShore University Health System; New York University School of Medicine; and Louisiana State University Health Science Center-New Orleans.
Background:
Implant-based breast reconstruction accounts for the vast majority of breast reconstruction procedures and is commonly performed with human acellular dermal matrix. There is no consensus as to the optimal human acellular dermal matrix preparation, and high-quality evidence concerning comparative effectiveness is lacking. This study is the first prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial to compare human acellular dermal matrix-related complications of the two most commonly used human acellular dermal matrices in implant-based breast reconstruction. The authors hypothesize that there will be no difference in infection, seroma, and reconstructive failure between FlexHD Pliable and AlloDerm RTU.
Methods:
The authors conducted a Level 1 prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial to assess complications associated with the use of two human acellular dermal matrices in immediate postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction across seven clinical sites. Group A patients received FlexHD Pliable (113 patients with 187 breast reconstructions), and group B patients received AlloDerm RTU (117 patients with 197 breast reconstructions).
Results:
There was no significant difference with respect to patient demographics, indications, comorbidities, and reconstruction approach between groups. Mean follow-up time was 10.7 ± 3.2 months. There was no statistical difference in the overall matrix-related complications between groups A and B (4.3 percent versus 7.1 percent, p = 0.233). Obesity (OR, 1.14; 95 percent CI, 1.05 to 1.24; p = 0.001) and prepectoral placement of matrix (OR, 4.53; 95 percent CI, 1.82 to 11.3; p = 0.001) were independently associated with greater risks of overall matrix-related complications.
Conclusion:
This work supports the use of human acellular dermal matrices in implant-based breast reconstruction and demonstrates no significant difference in matrix-related complication rates between FlexHD Pliable and AlloDerm RTU.
Clinical Question/Level Of Evidence:
Therapeutic, I.
