Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been commonly used in expander-based breast reconstruction to provide inferolateral prosthesis coverage. Although the clinical performance of these biologic scaffold materials varies depending on a number of factors, an in-depth systematic characterization of the host response is yet to be performed. The present study evaluates the biochemical composition and structure of two ADMs, AlloDerm® Regenerative Tissue Matrix and AlloMax™ Surgical Graft, and provides a comprehensive spatiotemporal characterization in a porcine model of tissue expander breast reconstruction.
Methods:
Each ADM was characterized with regard to thickness, permeability, donor nucleic acid content, (residual double-stranded DNA [dsDNA]), and growth factors (basic fibroblast growth factor [bFGF], vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], and transforming growth factor-beta 1 [TGF-β1]). Cytocompatibility was evaluated by in vitro cell culture on the ADMs. The host response was evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks at various locations within the ADMs using established metrics of the inflammatory and tissue remodeling response: cell infiltration, multinucleate giant cell formation, extent of ADM remodeling, and neovascularization.
Results:
AlloMax incorporated more readily with surrounding host tissue as measured by earlier and greater cell infiltration, fewer foreign body giant cells, and faster remodeling of ADM. These findings correlated with the in vitro composition and cytocompatibility analysis, which showed AlloMax to more readily support in vitro cell growth.
Conclusions:
AlloMax and AlloDerm demonstrated distinct remodeling characteristics in a porcine model of tissue expander breast reconstruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2012 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. 2012.
2.
SpearS.L., ParikhP.M., ReisinE., and MenonN.G.Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg, 32, 418, 2008.
3.
BreuingK.H., and ColwellA.S.Inferolateral AlloDerm hammock for implant coverage in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg, 59, 250, 2007.
BindingnaveleV., GaonM., OtaK.S., KulberD.A., and LeeD.J.Use of acellular cadaveric dermis and tissue expansion in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 60, 1214, 2007.
6.
BreuingK.H., and WarrenS.M.Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings. Ann Plast Surg, 55, 232, 2005.
7.
NahabedianM.Y.Acellular dermal matrices in primary breast reconstruction: principles, concepts, and indications. Plast Reconstr Surg, 130, 2012.
8.
VorotnikovaE., McIntoshD., DewildeA., ZhangJ., ReingJ.E., ZhangL., et al.Extracellular matrix-derived products modulate endothelial and progenitor cell migration and proliferation in vitro and stimulate regenerative healing in vivo. Matrix Biol, 29, 690, 2010.
9.
XuR., BoudreauA., and BissellM.J.Tissue architecture and function: dynamic reciprocity via extra- and intra-cellular matrices. Cancer Metastasis Rev, 28, 167, 2009.
10.
NelsonC.M., and BissellM.J.Of extracellular matrix, scaffolds, and signaling: tissue architecture regulates development, homeostasis, and cancer. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol, 22, 287, 2006.
11.
BeattieA.J., GilbertT.W., GuyotJ.P., YatesA.J., and BadylakS.F.Chemoattraction of progenitor cells by remodeling extracellular matrix scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A, 15, 1119, 2009.
12.
ReingJ.E., ZhangL., Myers-IrvinJ., CorderoK.E., FreytesD.O., Heber-KatzE., et al.Degradation products of extracellular matrix affect cell migration and proliferation. Tissue Eng Part A, 15, 605, 2009.
13.
BrownB.N., ValentinJ.E., Stewart-AkersA.M., McCabeG.P., and BadylakS.F.Macrophage phenotype and remodeling outcomes in response to biologic scaffolds with and without a cellular component. Biomaterials, 30, 1482, 2009.
14.
CrapoP.M., GilbertT.W., and BadylakS.F.An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes. Biomaterials, 32, 3233, 2011.
15.
TurnerN.J., YatesA.J.Jr., WeberD.J., QureshiI.R., StolzD.B., GilbertT.W., et al.Xenogeneic extracellular matrix as an inductive scaffold for regeneration of a functioning musculotendinous junction. Tissue Eng Part A, 16, 3309, 2010.
16.
GraussR.W., HazekampM.G., OppenhuizenF., van MunsterenC.J., Gittenberger-de GrootA.C., and DeRuiterM.C.Histological evaluation of decellularised porcine aortic valves: matrix changes due to different decellularisation methods. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 27, 566, 2005.
17.
DahlS.L., KohJ., PrabhakarV., and NiklasonL.E.Decellularized native and engineered arterial scaffolds for transplantation. Cell Transplant, 12, 659, 2003.
18.
ChenR.N., HoH.O., TsaiY.T., and SheuM.T.Process development of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for biomedical applications. Biomaterials, 25, 2679, 2004.
19.
CartmellJ.S., and DunnM.G.Effect of chemical treatments on tendon cellularity and mechanical properties. J Biomed Mater Res, 49, 134, 2000.
20.
KroppB.P., EppleyB.L., PrevelC.D., RippyM.K., HarruffR.C., BadylakS.F., et al.Experimental assessment of small intestinal submucosa as a bladder wall substitute. Urology, 46, 396, 1995.
21.
UygunB.E., Soto-GutierrezA., YagiH., IzamisM.L., GuzzardiM.A., ShulmanC., et al.Organ reengineering through development of a transplantable recellularized liver graft using decellularized liver matrix. Nat Med, 16, 814, 2010.
22.
PetersenT.H., CalleE.A., ZhaoL., LeeE.J., GuiL., RaredonM.B., et al.Tissue-engineered lungs for in vivo implantation. Science, 329, 538, 2010.
23.
OttH.C., ClippingerB., ConradC., SchuetzC., PomerantsevaI., IkonomouL., et al.Regeneration and orthotopic transplantation of a bioartificial lung. Nat Med, 16, 927, 2010.
24.
KarabekmezF.E., DuymazA., and MoranS.L.Early clinical outcomes with the use of decellularized nerve allograft for repair of sensory defects within the hand. Hand, 4, 245, 2009.
25.
FlynnL.E.The use of decellularized adipose tissue to provide an inductive microenvironment for the adipogenic differentiation of human adipose-derived stem cells. Biomaterials, 31, 4715, 2010.
26.
OttH.C., MatthiesenT.S., GohS.K., BlackL.D., KrenS.M., NetoffT.I., et al.Perfusion-decellularized matrix: using nature's platform to engineer a bioartificial heart. Nat Med, 14, 213, 2008.
27.
BadylakS.F.Xenogeneic extracellular matrix as a scaffold for tissue reconstruction. Transpl Immunol, 12, 367, 2004.
28.
ChenF., YooJ.J., and AtalaA.Acellular collagen matrix as a possible “off the shelf” biomaterial for urethral repair. Urology, 54, 407, 1999.
29.
DellgrenG., ErikssonM., BrodinL.A., and RadegranK.The extended Biocor stentless aortic bioprosthesis. Early clinical experience. Scand Cardiovasc J, 33, 259, 1999.
30.
HarperC.Permacol: clinical experience with a new biomaterial. Hosp Med, 62, 90, 2001.
31.
KolkerA.R., BrownD.J., RedstoneJ.S., ScarpinatoV.M., and WallackM.K.Multilayer reconstruction of abdominal wall defects with acellular dermal allograft (AlloDerm) and component separation. Ann Plast Surg, 55, 36, 2005.
MetcalfM.H., Savoie IiiF.H., and KellumB.Surgical technique for xenograft (SIS) augmentation of rotator-cuff repairs. Oper Techn Orthop, 12, 204, 2002.
34.
WainwrightD.J.Use of an acellular allograft dermal matrix (AlloDerm) in the management of full-thickness burns. Burns, 21, 243, 1995.
35.
BadylakS.F., FreytesD.O., and GilbertT.W.Extracellular matrix as a biological scaffold material: structure and function. Acta Biomater, 5, 1, 2009.
36.
SellaroT.L., RavindraA.K., StolzD.B., and BadylakS.F.Maintenance of hepatic sinusoidal endothelial cell phenotype in vitro using organ-specific extracellular matrix scaffolds. Tissue Eng, 13, 2301, 2007.
37.
LinP., ChanW.C., BadylakS.F., and BhatiaS.N.Assessing porcine liver-derived biomatrix for hepatic tissue engineering. Tissue Eng, 10, 1046, 2004.
38.
SellaroT.L., RanadeA., FaulkD.M., McCabeG.P., DorkoK., BadylakS.F., et al.Maintenance of human hepatocyte function in vitro by liver-derived extracellular matrix gels. Tissue Eng Part A, 16, 1075, 2010.
39.
WichaM.S., LowrieG., KohnE., BagavandossP., and MahnT.Extracellular matrix promotes mammary epithelial growth and differentiation in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 79, 3213, 1982.
40.
BadylakS.F., ValentinJ.E., RavindraA.K., McCabeG.P., and Stewart-AkersA.M.Macrophage phenotype as a determinant of biologic scaffold remodeling. Tissue Eng Part A, 14, 1835, 2008.
41.
KeaneT.J., LondonoR., TurnerN.J., and BadylakS.F.Consequences of ineffective decellularization of biologic scaffolds on the host response. Biomaterials, 33, 1771, 2012.
42.
ValentinJ.E., BadylakJ.S., McCabeG.P., and BadylakS.F.Extracellular matrix bioscaffolds for orthopaedic applications. A comparative histologic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 88, 2673, 2006.
43.
BrownB.N., LondonoR., TotteyS., ZhangL., KuklaK.A., WolfM.T., et al.Macrophage phenotype as a predictor of constructive remodeling following the implantation of biologically derived surgical mesh materials. Acta Biomater, 8, 978, 2012.
44.
FreytesD.O., TulliusR.S., and BadylakS.F.Effect of storage upon material properties of lyophilized porcine extracellular matrix derived from the urinary bladder. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 78, 327, 2006.
45.
ReingJ.E., BrownB.N., DalyK.A., FreundJ.M., GilbertT.W., HsiongS.X., et al.The effects of processing methods upon mechanical and biologic properties of porcine dermal extracellular matrix scaffolds. Biomaterials, 31, 8626, 2010.
46.
FaulkD.M., CarruthersC.A., WarnerH.J., KramerC.R., ReingJ.E., ZhangL., et al.The effect of detergents on the basement membrane complex of a biologic scaffold material. Acta Biomater, 10, 183, 2014.
47.
GarciaO.Jr., and ScottJ.R.Analysis of acellular dermal matrix integration and revascularization following tissue expander breast reconstruction in a clinically relevant large-animal model. Plast Reconstr Surg, 131, 2013.
48.
ValentinJ.E., TurnerN.J., GilbertT.W., and BadylakS.F.Functional skeletal muscle formation with a biologic scaffold. Biomaterials, 31, 7475, 2010.
49.
MaseV.J.Jr., HsuJ.R., WolfS.E., WenkeJ.C., BaerD.G., OwensJ., et al.Clinical application of an acellular biologic scaffold for surgical repair of a large, traumatic quadriceps femoris muscle defect. Orthopedics, 33, 511, 2010.
50.
BoruchA.V., NieponiceA., QureshiI.R., GilbertT.W., and BadylakS.F.Constructive remodeling of biologic scaffolds is dependent on early exposure to physiologic bladder filling in a canine partial cystectomy model. J Surg Res, 161, 217, 2010.
51.
MantovaniF., TrinchieriA., CastelnuovoC., RomanoA.L., and PisaniE.Reconstructive urethroplasty using porcine acellular matrix. Eur Urol, 44, 600, 2003.
52.
NieponiceA., McGrathK., QureshiI., BeckmanE.J., LuketichJ.D., GilbertT.W., et al.An extracellular matrix scaffold for esophageal stricture prevention after circumferential EMR. Gastrointest Endosc, 69, 289, 2009.
53.
BadylakS., MeurlingS., ChenM., SpievackA., and Simmons-ByrdA.Resorbable bioscaffold for esophageal repair in a dog model. J Pediatr Surg, 35, 1097, 2000.
54.
BadylakS.F., HoppoT., NieponiceA., GilbertT.W., DavisonJ.M., and JobeB.A.Esophageal preservation in five male patients after endoscopic inner-layer circumferential resection in the setting of superficial cancer: a regenerative medicine approach with a biologic scaffold. Tissue Eng Part A, 17, 1643, 2011.
55.
BadylakS.F., KochupuraP.V., CohenI.S., DoroninS.V., SaltmanA.E., GilbertT.W., et al.The use of extracellular matrix as an inductive scaffold for the partial replacement of functional myocardium. Cell Transplant, 15,Suppl 1, S29, 2006.
56.
AkhyariP., AubinH., GwanmesiaP., BarthM., HoffmannS., HuelsmannJ., et al.The quest for an optimized protocol for whole-heart decellularization: a comparison of three popular and a novel decellularization technique and their diverse effects on crucial extracellular matrix qualities. Tissue Eng Part C Methods, 17, 915, 2011.
57.
DuL., WuX., PangK., and YangY.Histological evaluation and biomechanical characterisation of an acellular porcine cornea scaffold. Br J Ophthalmol, 95, 410, 2011.
58.
BrownB.N., FreundJ.M., HanL., RubinJ.P., ReingJ.E., JeffriesE.M., et al.Comparison of three methods for the derivation of a biologic scaffold composed of adipose tissue extracellular matrix. Tissue Eng Part C Methods, 17, 411, 2011.
59.
AgrawalV., SiuB.F., ChaoH., HirschiK.K., RabornE., JohnsonS.A., et al.Partial characterization of the Sox2+ cell population in an adult murine model of digit amputation. Tissue Eng Part A, 18, 1454, 2012.
60.
WolfM.T., DalyK.A., ReingJ.E., and BadylakS.F.Biologic scaffold composed of skeletal muscle extracellular matrix. Biomaterials, 33, 2916, 2012.
61.
CrisanM., YapS., CasteillaL., ChenC.W., CorselliM., ParkT.S., et al.A perivascular origin for mesenchymal stem cells in multiple human organs. Cell Stem Cell, 3, 301, 2008.
62.
AgrawalV., JohnsonS.A., ReingJ., ZhangL., TotteyS., WangG., et al.Epimorphic regeneration approach to tissue replacement in adult mammals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 107, 3351, 2010.
63.
TotteyS., CorselliM., JeffriesE.M., LondonoR., PeaultB., and BadylakS.F.Extracellular matrix degradation products and low-oxygen conditions enhance the regenerative potential of perivascular stem cells. Tissue Eng Part A, 17, 37, 2011.
64.
TotteyS., JohnsonS.A., CrapoP.M., ReingJ.E., ZhangL., JiangH., et al.The effect of source animal age upon extracellular matrix scaffold properties. Biomaterials, 32, 128, 2011.
65.
TurnerN.J., JohnsonS.A., and BadylakS.F.A histomorphologic study of the normal healing response following digit amputation in C57bl/6 and MRL/MpJ mice. Arch Histol Cytol, 73, 103, 2010.
66.
ValentinJ.E., Stewart-AkersA.M., GilbertT.W., and BadylakS.F.Macrophage participation in the degradation and remodeling of extracellular matrix scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A, 15, 1687, 2009.
