Aim
Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have become popular in implant-based breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to compare three commonly used ADM products in vivo in an animal model. Materials and
Conclusion
SureDerm HD and DermACELL can be used as biological materials for breast reconstruction.
Methods
The nucleic acid content (residual double-stranded DNA) and the levels of the remaining growth factors after decellularization were measured for each ADM. Cytocompatibility with ADMs was documented using NIH 3T3 mouse fibroblast cells. In vivo, the implanted ADMs were histologically evaluated at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months (n=5) using male 8-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats.
Results
Fibroblasts grew in the SureDerm HD and DermACELL with no cytotoxicity. In a rat model, SureDerm HD and DermACELL incorporated more readily into the surrounding host tissue, as measured by rapid cell influx and collagen deposition, and showed more delayed tissue remodeling with decreased matrix metalloproteinases levels compared to AlloDerm.