Systematic Review of the Impact of Acellular Dermal Matrix on Aesthetics and Patient Satisfaction in Tissue Expander-to-Implant Breast Reconstructions

Background: Acellular dermal matrix is used in most postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstructions in the United States. It is believed to be safe, despite a slightly increased complication rate. Although never established in a unifying study, the primary advantage of acellular dermal matrix is believed to be an enhanced aesthetic result, thus justifying the added expense. The purpose of this study was to assess the aesthetic benefits of acellular dermal matrix in expander-to-implant breast reconstruction. Methods: A systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology was performed including all original studies examining aesthetic outcomes of expander-to-implant breast reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix compared to muscular coverage. Direct-to-implant and prepectoral studies were excluded from the evaluation. The results were aggregated and reported as a summary. Results: Among 883 studies identified, 49 full-text articles were reviewed and nine articles ultimately met inclusion criteria. All nine studies were not randomized. Of these, three articles (1448 total patients) evaluated reconstruction aesthetic outcomes by patient satisfaction, whereas six articles evaluated the aesthetic outcomes by external observer (504 total patients). None of the articles evaluating patient satisfaction reported a difference between acellular dermal matrix and muscular reconstruction. Five of the six articles using objective outcomes demonstrated significant improvement in aesthetic outcome in the acellular dermal matrix group. Conclusions: Although little evidence exists evaluating the aesthetic benefits of acellular dermal matrix for expander-to-implant breast reconstruction, the data suggest that objective observers consider acellular dermal matrix–assisted expander-to-implant breast reconstructions aesthetically superior to reconstruction with only muscular coverage, but patients appear to be equally satisfied with both reconstructive options.