Reconstructive breast surgery with partially absorbable bi-component Seragyn® BR soft mesh: an outcome analysis

Immediate breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients with the use of Serasynth and SeragynBR synthetic meshes. Single-oncological center experience, analysis of complications

<br><b>Introduction:</b> The use of meshes in mastectomies with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) has become the gold standard.</br> <br><b>Aim:</b> The use of meshes in mastectomies with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) has become a gold standard. The purpose of the study was to analyze the complications and own experience with the use of Serasynth fully absorbable and SeragynBR partially absorbable synthetic meshes.</br> <br><b>Material and methods:</b> In the period from December 2017 to July 2020, 118 IBR were performed in the Author's Department with the use of SeragynBR and Serasynth meshes in 93 patients operated for breast cancer. 78 Serasynth meshes (Group 1) and 40 SeragynBR meshes (Group 2) were implanted.</br> <br><b>Results:</b> The most common complication was persistent seroma collection, which was reported in 17.9% of cases in Group 1 and 25% in Group 2. Skin inflammation was reported in 7.6% and 17.5%, while infections in 2.5% and 5% of the operated breasts in Group 1 and Group 2. Reoperation was required in 5.1% and 5% of the patients in Group 1 and Group 2. The percentage of complications was lower when Serasynth rather than Seragyn BR meshes were implanted. The frequent incidence of the seroma collection did not contribute in any significant way to serious complications such as removal of mesh/implant or infection. The complications, which developed following the implantation of both mesh types, were similar to those presented in other publications concerning mastectomy with IBR with the use of synthetic meshes. The percentage of implant losses/explanations in the discussed groups was lower than that reported in the literature.</br> <br><b>Conclusion:</b> Despite the complications, both types of meshes can be considered as safe additions to reconstructive breast surgeries.</br> <br><b>Level of Evidence:</b> Level III.</br>.

Use of Inguinal Hernia Mesh (DynaMesh-ENDOLAP) in Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

The rate of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy is increasing, and providing enough coverage for the implant is mandatory; however the choice of appropriate mesh for implant coverage is controversial. Considering the high cost and the limited availability of breast-dedicated meshes in our country, we conducted this study to investigate the consequences of using a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mesh designed for endoscopic and laparoscopic hernia repair (ENDOLAP) as a coverage for breast prostheses in breast reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed on data of patients who had underwent immediate implant-based breast reconstruction between 2012 and 2019. After skin sparing mastectomy and subpectoral implant insertion, the exposed lower and lateral parts were covered with the mesh.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine reconstructions were performed on 62 patients. The average follow-up was 31.9 months (ranges 6-102 months). Postoperative complications including small flap necrosis (3.8%), seroma (8.9%), infection (5.1%), hematoma (3.8%), malposition (1.3%), rippling (1.3%), grade two and three capsular contracture (2.5%), and chronic pain (1.3%) occurred in 19% of the operated breasts. The complication rate requiring intervention was 5.3%, and no implant loss was observed. None of the patients who received radiation developed complications.

CONCLUSION

ENDOLAP mesh is a cost-effective and safe option for implant coverage in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction, with an acceptable complication rate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Postoperative Complications in Breast Reconstruction With Porcine Acellular Dermis and Polypropylene Meshes in Subpectoral Implant Placement

AIM

This research compares postoperative complication rates with Strattice™, SERAGYN^® BR, and TiLOOP^® Bra interposition devices for subpectoral implant placement after skin or nipple sparing mastectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

188 breast reconstructions in 157 patients after primary (n=96), secondary (n=71), or prophylactic (n=21) surgery were analyzed regarding major and minor complications.

RESULTS

With acellular dermal matrix (ADM) Strattice™, 27.5% major and 27.5% minor complications occurred. Implant loss rates were 27.3% in primary and 30.8% in secondary reconstructions. With SERAGYN^® BR, 11.1% major and 13,0% minor complications occurred. Implant losses (6.1%) occurred exclusively in primary reconstructions. With TiLOOP^® Bra, 14.9% major and 9.6% minor complications occurred. Implant loss rates were 7.7% in primary and 7.1% in secondary reconstructions.

CONCLUSION

ADM was associated with high complication rates in primary and secondary reconstructions. Low complication rates were seen with mesh interposition devices in primary, secondary, and prophylactic reconstructions.

The relationship between post-surgery infection and breast cancer recurrence

Breast cancer is the second most prevalent form of cancer in women worldwide, with surgery remaining the standard treatment. The adverse impact of the surgery remains controversial. It has been suggested that systemic factors during the postoperative period may increase the risk of recurrence, specifically surgical site infection (SSI). The aim of this review was to critically appraise current published literature regarding the influence of SSIs, after primary breast cancer surgery, on breast cancer recurrence, and to delve into potential links between these. This systematic review adopted two approaches: to identify the incidence rates and risk factors related to SSI after primary breast cancer surgery; and, secondly, to examine breast cancer recurrence following SSI occurrence. Ninety-nine studies with 484,605 patients were eligible in the SSI-focused searches, and 53 studies with 17,569 patients for recurrence-focused. There was a 13.07% mean incidence of SSI. Six-hundred and thirty-eight Gram-positive and 442 Gram-negative isolates were identified, with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli most commonly identified. There were 2077 cases of recurrence (11.8%), with 563 cases of local recurrence, 1186 cases of distant and 25 cases which recurred both locally and distantly. Five studies investigated the association between SSI and breast cancer recurrence with three concluding that an association did exist. In conclusion, there is association between SSI and adverse cancer outcomes, but the cellular link between them remains elusive. Confounding factors of retrospective study design, surgery type and SSI definition make results challenging to compare and interpret. A standardized prospective study with appropriate statistical power is justified.