Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of the Characteristics of Three Acellular Dermal Matrices Subjected to Distinct Processing Methods Using Five Types of Histochemical Staining
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of the Characteristics of Three Acellular Dermal Matrices Subjected to Distinct Processing Methods Using Five Types of Histochemical Staining
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of the Characteristics of Three Acellular Dermal Matrices Subjected to Distinct Processing Methods Using Five Types of Histochemical Staining
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of the Characteristics of Three Acellular Dermal Matrices Subjected to Distinct Processing Methods Using Five Types of Histochemical Staining
2023
Overview
Background
Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is treated using various devitalization and aseptic processing methods. The processing effects on ADM were evaluated by histochemical tests.
Methods
From January 2014 to December 2016, 18 patients [average age, 43.0 (range, 30–54) years] who underwent breast reconstruction with an ADM and tissue expander were prospectively enrolled. During the permanent implant replacement, a biopsy of the ADM was performed. We used three different human-derived products, namely, Alloderm®, Allomend®, and Megaderm®. Hematoxylin and eosin, CD68, CD3, CD31, and smooth muscle actin were used to evaluate the collagen structure, inflammation, angiogenesis, and myofibroblast infiltration. Each ADM was semi-quantitatively analyzed.
Results
Significant differences in collagen degradation, acute inflammation, and myofibroblast infiltration were observed among the ADMs. Collagen degeneration (
p
<0.001) and myofibroblast infiltration (smooth muscle actin-positive,
p
=0.018; CD31-negative,
p
=0.765) were the most severe in Megaderm®. Acute inflammation, represented by CD68, was most severe in Alloderm® (
p
=0.024). Both radiation and freeze-drying treatment physically damaged the collagen structure. Collagen degeneration was most severe in Megaderm®, followed by Allomend® and Alloderm®. Since Alloderm® is treated using chemicals, an assessment of the chemical irritation is warranted.
Conclusions
The biopsy results were inconclusive. Therefore, to better interpret processing, more large-scale, serial, histochemical studies of each ADM are needed.
Level of Evidence IV
This journal requires that authors 38 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 39 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 40 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 41 Instructions to Authors
www.springer.com/00266
.
