TIGR matrix for implant-based breast reconstruction - a long-term resorbable mesh

Comparative clinical outcomes of using three-dimensional and TIGR mesh in immediate breast reconstruction surgery for breast cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Breast reconstruction (BR) surgery is a widely utilized approach for women who have undergone mastectomy. Using synthetic mesh can offer advantages over other materials providing long-lasting support and natural-looking results. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of 3DMax™ mesh to TIGR mesh in BR surgery, providing clear information about the non-inferiority of 3DMax™ mesh to TIGR.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluates postoperative complications in breast cancer patients who underwent subcutaneous mastectomy with direct-to-implant immediate BR using silicone implants and either 3DMax™ mesh or TIGR® Matrix Surgical Mesh.

RESULTS

This study involved BR surgeries in 82 patients, including 57 surgeries in the 3D mesh group and 49 in the TIGR mesh group. The two groups had no significant differences regarding age, body mass index (BMI), cancer stage, or surgical complications. However, patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy had higher incidence rates of long-term complications than other patients. Patients with infection or partial necrosis had a heightened risk of implant loss.

CONCLUSION

The clinical results obtained in this study suggest that among synthetic meshes used in immediate BR, 3DMax™ is not inferior to TIGR Matrix Surgical Mesh regarding complications.

A Retrospective Study Assessing the Outcomes of Immediate Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant and Mesh-Based Breast Reconstruction

(1) Introduction: In response to patient concerns about breast cancer recurrence, increased use of breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing, and advancements in breast reconstruction techniques, mastectomy rates have been observed to rise over the last decade. The aim of the study is to compare the outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral implants and long-term, dual-stage resorbable mesh-based breast reconstructions in mutation carriers (prophylactic surgery) and breast cancer patients. (2) Patients and methods: This retrospective, two-center study included 170 consecutive patients after 232 procedures: Prepectoral surgery was performed in 156 cases and subpectoral was performed in 76. (3) Results: Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with more frequent minor late complications (p < 0.001), but not major ones (p = 0.101), while postoperative chemotherapy was related to more frequent serious (p = 0.005) postoperative complications. Postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of minor complications (31.03%) than no-radiotherapy (12.21%; p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression found complications to be significantly associated with an expander (OR = 4.43), skin-reducing mastectomy (OR = 9.97), therapeutic mastectomy vs. risk-reducing mastectomy (OR = 4.08), and postoperative chemotherapy (OR = 12.89). Patients in whom prepectoral surgeries were performed demonstrated significantly shorter median hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and lower minor complication rates (5.77% vs. 26.32% p < 0.001), but similar major late complication rates (p = 0.915). (4) Conclusions: Implant-based breast reconstruction with the use of long-term, dual-stage resorbable, synthetic mesh is a safe and effective method of breast restoration, associated with low morbidity and good cosmesis. Nevertheless, prospective, multicenter, and long-term outcome data studies are needed to further evaluate the benefits of such treatments.

First-year complications after immediate breast reconstruction with a biological and a synthetic mesh in the same patient: A randomized controlled study

Background

Even though meshes and matrices are widely used in breast reconstruction, there is little high‐quality scientific evidence for their risks and benefits. The aim of this study was to compare first‐year surgical complication rates in implant‐based immediate breast reconstruction with a biological mesh with that of a synthetic mesh, in the same patient.

Methods

This study is a clinical, randomized, prospective trial. Patients operated on with bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were randomized to biological mesh on one side and synthetic mesh on the other side.

Results

A total of 48 breasts were randomized. As the synthetically and the biologically reconstructed breasts that were compared belonged to the same woman, systemic factors were exactly the same in the two groups. The most common complication was seroma formation with a frequency of 38% in the biological group and 3.8% in the synthetical group (p = .011). A higher frequency of total implant loss could be seen in the biologic mesh group (8.5% vs. 2%), albeit not statistically significant (p = .083).

Conclusions

In the same patient, a synthetic mesh seems to yield a lower risk for serious complications, such as implant loss, than a biological mesh.