Limits...
A Head-to-head Comparison between SurgiMend and Epiflex in 127 Breast Reconstructions.

Eichler C, Vogt N, Brunnert K, Sauerwald A, Puppe J, Warm M - Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2015)

Bottom Line: Severe complications requiring revision surgery were significantly increased in patients treated with Epiflex (12.5%) compared with SurgiMend (4.8%).This retrospective analysis favors the use of SurgiMend over Epiflex because of significantly lower gross complication rates.Although results promote the use of SurgiMend, the single surgeon retrospective nature of this work limits its clinical impact.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Breast Center, Municipal Hospital Holweide, Cologne, Germany; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Municipal Hospital Holweide, Cologne, Germany; Department of Senology, Clinic for Senology, Osnabrueck, Germany; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Düren GmbH, Düren, Germany; and Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

ABSTRACT

Background: The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) has become a widely used option in breast reconstruction. A great deal of literature is available, totaling over 2400 ADM reconstructions. Nonetheless, head-to-head comparisons between SurgiMend and Epiflex are not yet reported. In fact, this is the first clinical data report on the use of Epiflex. This work will, therefore, compare postoperative complication rates and costs for these ADMs.

Methods: This analysis is a retrospective review of a single surgeon's 6-year experience with both SurgiMend-an acellular bovine dermal collagen matrix for soft-tissue reconstruction and Epiflex-a decellularized human skin tissue from 2008 to 2013.

Results: One hundred patients had a total of 127 implant-based reconstructions using SurgiMend (64 cases; 50.4%) or Epiflex (63 cases; 49.6%). Gross complication rates were 11.1% for SurgiMend and 40.6% for Epiflex including hematoma, postoperative skin irritation, infection, necrosis, and revision surgery. The most common complication was postoperative red breast syndrome. Severe complications requiring revision surgery were significantly increased in patients treated with Epiflex (12.5%) compared with SurgiMend (4.8%).

Conclusions: This retrospective analysis favors the use of SurgiMend over Epiflex because of significantly lower gross complication rates. Severe complication rates are comparable with those reported in literature for both products. Although results promote the use of SurgiMend, the single surgeon retrospective nature of this work limits its clinical impact.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Epiflex—decellularized human skin tissue.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494509&req=5

Figure 4: Epiflex—decellularized human skin tissue.

Mentions: Epiflex (Deutsches Institut für Zell- und Gewebeersatz gGmbH, Berlin, Germany)18 is derived from human skin and undergoes a complex decellularization process, leaving behind a collagen matrix with low residual levels of genomic material insufficient to provoke an immune reaction2 (Fig. 4). A PubMed search shows 5 publications, none of which report clinical data. This work will be the first to report clinical data on the Epiflex system.


A Head-to-head Comparison between SurgiMend and Epiflex in 127 Breast Reconstructions.

Eichler C, Vogt N, Brunnert K, Sauerwald A, Puppe J, Warm M - Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2015)

Epiflex—decellularized human skin tissue.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494509&req=5

Figure 4: Epiflex—decellularized human skin tissue.
Mentions: Epiflex (Deutsches Institut für Zell- und Gewebeersatz gGmbH, Berlin, Germany)18 is derived from human skin and undergoes a complex decellularization process, leaving behind a collagen matrix with low residual levels of genomic material insufficient to provoke an immune reaction2 (Fig. 4). A PubMed search shows 5 publications, none of which report clinical data. This work will be the first to report clinical data on the Epiflex system.

Bottom Line: Severe complications requiring revision surgery were significantly increased in patients treated with Epiflex (12.5%) compared with SurgiMend (4.8%).This retrospective analysis favors the use of SurgiMend over Epiflex because of significantly lower gross complication rates.Although results promote the use of SurgiMend, the single surgeon retrospective nature of this work limits its clinical impact.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Breast Center, Municipal Hospital Holweide, Cologne, Germany; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Municipal Hospital Holweide, Cologne, Germany; Department of Senology, Clinic for Senology, Osnabrueck, Germany; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Düren GmbH, Düren, Germany; and Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

ABSTRACT

Background: The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) has become a widely used option in breast reconstruction. A great deal of literature is available, totaling over 2400 ADM reconstructions. Nonetheless, head-to-head comparisons between SurgiMend and Epiflex are not yet reported. In fact, this is the first clinical data report on the use of Epiflex. This work will, therefore, compare postoperative complication rates and costs for these ADMs.

Methods: This analysis is a retrospective review of a single surgeon's 6-year experience with both SurgiMend-an acellular bovine dermal collagen matrix for soft-tissue reconstruction and Epiflex-a decellularized human skin tissue from 2008 to 2013.

Results: One hundred patients had a total of 127 implant-based reconstructions using SurgiMend (64 cases; 50.4%) or Epiflex (63 cases; 49.6%). Gross complication rates were 11.1% for SurgiMend and 40.6% for Epiflex including hematoma, postoperative skin irritation, infection, necrosis, and revision surgery. The most common complication was postoperative red breast syndrome. Severe complications requiring revision surgery were significantly increased in patients treated with Epiflex (12.5%) compared with SurgiMend (4.8%).

Conclusions: This retrospective analysis favors the use of SurgiMend over Epiflex because of significantly lower gross complication rates. Severe complication rates are comparable with those reported in literature for both products. Although results promote the use of SurgiMend, the single surgeon retrospective nature of this work limits its clinical impact.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus