Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Early and Long-Term Complications and Outcomes of Total Coverage Acellular Dermal Matrix and Implants Vs Polyurethane-Coated Implants Without Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix

Abstract Background Immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction has emerged as a prominent alternative to subpectoral techniques, offering favorable outcomes in selected patients. Among available options, implant coverage with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and the use of polyurethane (PU)-coated implants without ADM represent 2 widely adopted strategies. Objectives The aim of the authors this study is to examine the comparative efficacy and complication profiles of implant coverage with ADM and the use of PU-coated implants without ADM. Methods This retrospective cohort study included 97 patients (135 breasts) undergoing immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing, skin-sparing, or skin-reducing mastectomy between April 2015 and October 2019. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: those receiving ADM-covered textured implants and those receiving PU-coated implants. Outcomes assessed included early (<4 weeks), mid-term (>4 weeks), and long-term (≥1 year) complications, as well as aesthetic results evaluated through blinded assessment using a standardized Likert scale. Results PU-coated implants were associated with significantly lower rates of early postoperative seroma (2.9% vs 33.8%, P < .001) and infection (1.4% vs 6.2%). At 5 years, the incidence of severe capsular contracture (Baker Grade 3-4) was markedly higher in the ADM group (47.7% vs 24.3%, P < .001), particularly in patients who had not received postmastectomy radiotherapy. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of rippling or step-off deformities. Aesthetic outcomes were superior in the PU group, with significantly better breast symmetry and global aesthetic evaluation (P = .021). Conclusions PU-coated implants offer a safer and more effective approach in immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction, with reduced complication rates and improved aesthetic outcomes compared with ADM-covered implants. Patient-specific anatomical and oncologic factors should guide implant selection to optimize surgical outcomes. Level of Evidence: 4 (Therapeutic)