Evaluation of Acellular Dermal Graft in Sheet (AlloDerm) and Injectable (Micronized AlloDerm) Forms for Soft Tissue Augmentation

Abstract

To evaluate the histological and clinical properties of (1) subdermally implanted acellular dermal graft (AlloDerm) sheets vs intradermal bovine collagen and (2) subdermally or intradermally injected micronized AlloDerm vs type I bovine collagen crosslinked with glutaraldehyde (Zyplast).Patients: Twenty-five adult patients testing nonallergic to bovine collagen. Methods:(1) Stacked disks of AlloDerm were implanted subdermally behind one ear, and bovine collagen was injected intradermally behind the other. The soft tissue augmentation caused by the implants was measured by digital photography at 1, 4, and 12 weeks, and biopsy specimens of each implant type were examined at 3 months after implantation. (2) Micronized AlloDerm was injected intradermally and subdermally in 2 different locations behind one ear, and bovine collagen was injected in the same manner behind the other. The soft tissue augmentation caused by the implants was measured by digital photography at the time of implantation and at 1 and 4 weeks after implantation. All implants were examined 1 month after implantation.Results: All patients tolerated both implants well. (1) AlloDerm implants retained a higher percentage of the original implant volume than Zyplast at 1 and 3 months after implantation. Histologically, AlloDerm implants were extensively invaded by host fibroblasts without any foreign body reaction. (2) Intradermally injected micronized AlloDerm implants retained a higher percentage of the original implant volume at 1 month after implantation than intradermal Zyplast. Histologically, micronized AlloDerm implants were extensively invaded by host fibroblasts without any foreign body reaction. No significant differences were noted between subdermally injected micronized AlloDerm and Zyplast. Conclusions:The macroscopic and microscopic behavior of subdermally implanted AlloDerm sheets and subdermally and intradermally injected micronized Allo-Derm was compared with intradermally injected Zyplast. AlloDerm sheet volume persisted to a significantly (PϽ.001) greater degree than bovine collagen during the first 3 months after placement. Clinically, intradermally injected micronized AlloDerm volume persisted to a significantly (P=.01, .04, and .01, respectively) greater degree than intradermal Zyplast or subdermal micronized AlloDerm or Zyplast. Histologically, micronized Allo-Derm and AlloDerm are well tolerated at 1 and 3 months, respectively. Host tissue incorporation with fibroblast ingrowth and collagen deposition is seen in both materials. AlloDerm and micronized AlloDerm hold promise for use in facial soft tissue augmentation.

Biosynthetic cellulose induces the formation of a neoduramater following pre-natal correction of meningomyelocele in fetal sheep

“…On the contrary, HADM was costly, had to be acquired at a specific size, and required a saline warm bath for 30 minutes before use. Similar findings have been reported both in animals as humans 17,18,21 . For example, HADM used for abdominal wall reconstruction in a rabbit model, showed the expected interaction with the host tissue as illustrated by revascularization and skin ingrowth on the material 21 .…”

“…It is preserved by freeze-drying, needing special storage and lower temperatures for transportation. The manufacturing process is complex and costly 17,18 . The BC film is produced by Acinetobacter bacteria fermentation using specific technique developed in Brazil, approved by the FDA (USA) in 1995.…”

Rhinoplasty and the Nasal SMAS Augmentation Graft

“…Derived from cadav- eric human skin, acellular dermis is rigorously processed to remove viral and bacterial contaminants. 9 Moreover, because acellular dermis is a cell-free matrix composed largely of type IV collagen, no immune response is elicited after implantation. 10 Consequently, acellular dermis provides a sheet of inert collagen that can be used to camouflage minor contour imperfections arising from either skeletal or soft tissue imperfections.…”

What We Have Learned About Soft-Tissue Augmentation Over the Past 10 Years

“…However, no histologic samples were examined, nor were any electromyographic studies performed to support this postulate. Conversely, prior histologic evaluation by our group of micronized ADG 4 showed rapid fibroblastic and capillary invasion into micronized particles similar to that seen in sheet ADG. 5 Moreover, sheet ADG volume was seen to stabilize after resorption seen in the first 6 months.…”