Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

The Acellular Dermal Matrix Onlay Graft for Areolar Reconstruction

Rao, Samir S. MD*; Seaman, Bradley J. MD; Davison, Steven P. MD, FACS

doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318268a83d
Breast Surgery

Background Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has been well described for use in breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to describe a novel use for ADM in areolar reconstruction.

Methods A total of 19 patients and 24 nipple-areolar complexes of breast cancer or BRCA-positive patients status postmastectomy were treated. After nipple flap reconstruction was completed, the areolar complex was marked at 40–45 mm and de-epithelialized. ADM was reconstituted and cut to size. This was sewn into place as an areolar onlay graft using 5-0 chromic running sutures and a vaseline gauze bolster.

Results All 24 areola re-epithelialized in an average of 8.1 weeks. Graft take was 100% in 23 areolas, while 1 areola had only 75% graft take. Two patients underwent subsequent nipple projection procedures. Sixteen areolas were tattooed for color, with plans to tattoo the others. All patients had satisfactory transition from native skin to nipple-areolar complex. All surveyed patients stated they would undergo the procedure again. Average follow-up was 15.7 months.

Conclusion The ADM onlay graft for areolar reconstruction is a feasible addition to the plastic surgeon’s armamentarium. The primary benefits of this technique are grafting the donor bed of nipple reconstruction, avoidance of a skin graft donor site wound, and prevention of flattening of the breast dome, as seen with primary closure after nipple flap reconstruction. The cost of ADM must be taken into account ($31 per square centimeter), which could be offset by banking excess ADM at the time of breast reconstruction.

From the *Departments of Plastic Surgery, †Otolaryngology, and ‡DAVinci Plastic Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Received February 15, 2012, and accepted for publication, after revision, July 8, 2012.

Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: The illustration included as Figure 1 was provided by LifeCell Corporation.

The principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki were strictly observed in this case series study. A formal institutional review board process was not available.

Reprints: Samir S. Rao, MD, 1260 21st Street NW, Apt 311, Washington, DC 20036. E-mail:

© 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins