Vicryl mesh in expander/implant breast reconstruction: long-term follow-up in 38 patients

Long-Term Outcomes following Hybrid Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Hybrid breast reconstruction combines free tissue transfer with implant placement. Various mesh products have been successfully used to secure the implant position in these reconstructions. In this study, the authors investigate the impact of mesh type on long-term outcomes following hybrid breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients with at least 24 months of follow-up after immediate bilateral prepectoral hybrid breast reconstruction was performed. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate long-term outcomes and compare breasts reconstructed with polyglactin mesh versus acellular dermal matrix (ADM).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients (78 breasts) who underwent hybrid breast reconstruction with an average follow-up period of 50.4 months (range, 27 to 73 months) were included in the study. Postoperative complications included hematoma ( n = 2 [2.6%]), mastectomy skin necrosis ( n = 12 [15.4%]), and fat necrosis ( n = 6 [7.7%]). There were no instances of implant infection, implant exposure, or flap failure. Polyglactin mesh and ADM were used in 24 breasts and 54 breasts, respectively. Implant malposition and capsular contracture occurred more frequently in the polyglactin cohort leading to 10 (41.7%) instances of reoperation for implant replacement compared with only 1 (1.9%) in the ADM cohort ( P < 0.001). On multivariable regression analysis, polyglactin mesh was associated with a 36-fold greater probability of requiring implant replacement compared with ADM ( P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

ADM (versus polyglactin mesh) is associated with lower rates of capsular contracture and implant malposition in the context of hybrid breast reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

No difference in prevalence of postoperative iliopsoas tendinitis in patients undergoing arthroscopic hip surgery when using absorbable versus non-absorbable suture for capsular closure

PURPOSE

The volume of arthroscopic hip surgery has increased dramatically in recent years with iliopsoas tendinitis (IPT) being one of the most common complications of this procedure. The purpose of this study is to investigate the prevalence of post-operative IPT in patients who undergo arthroscopic hip surgery with capsular closure using absorbable versus non-absorbable suture.

METHODS

This is a single center, single surgeon, retrospective analysis performed between August 2007 and May 2023 comparing two cohorts who underwent hip arthroscopy. Patients were divided into those who underwent surgery with capsular closure using absorbable (Vicryl®, Johnson and Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ) suture and those who underwent capsular closure with non-absorbable suture (Suturetape, Arthrex, Naples FL). All patients who underwent primary or revision hip arthroscopy and were at least 2 months post-operation were initially included in the study.

RESULTS

Between August 2007 and May 2023 a total of 1513 hip arthroscopy surgeries were performed. Within this cohort, 1421 hips underwent hip arthroscopy with non-absorbable suture and 64 hips underwent surgery with absorbable suture. There was no significant difference between the proportion of IPT in the non-absorbable cohort (2.3%) versus the absorbable cohort (1.6%) (P = 0.669).

CONCLUSION

Capsular closure with Absorbable sutures was non-inferior to capsular closure with non-absorbable sutures with respect to the proportion of post-operative IPT following hip arthroscopy for FAI. Additionally, the proportion of post-operative IPT was found to be significantly higher in patients undergoing revision versus primary hip arthroscopy, regardless of capsular closure suture type.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Safety and aesthetic outcomes of SERASYNTHⓇ MESH BR for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: A retrospective single center analysis of 32 consecutive cases

Background

Bilateral mastectomy for both therapeutic and prophylactic reasons is becoming increasingly important. To achieve good results after mastectomy, synthetic meshes are often used as an alternative to acellular dermal matrices (ADMs). The aim of this study is to analyze the results of subcutaneous mastectomies and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using SERASYNTHⓇ MESH BR.

Methods

In this work, data from mastectomies (n = 32) in 22 patients without prior radiation after breast reconstruction with SERASYNTHⓇ MESH BR from a single center were retrospectively analyzed with 1 year follow-up. Complications were categorized as serious (need for revision surgery) and minor events. Statistical analysis was performed using the t-test in SPSS. Data were compared with the existing literature.

Results

Major complications occurred in 15.6% (n = 5). Two out of five revisions were due to hematoma. In three cases, a seroma followed by other complications (e.g., infections, necrosis) necessitated revision. Minor complications occurred in 12.5% of cases. Due to the safety aspect, implants were replaced in each revision. There was no significant difference in complication rates between prophylactic and therapeutic mastectomies (p = 0.3815, SE = 0.171). There was no statistically significant difference in esthetic outcomes (p = 0.3846).

Conclusion

The application of the absorbable polymer poly-p-dioxanone SERASYNTHⓇ MESH BR has complication rates comparable to those reported in the existing literature. Careful patient selection is paramount in order to limit the complication rate. SERASYNTHⓇ MESH BR can be considered a safe tool to achieve esthetic results in combination with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Do Corporate Payments Influence Research Related to the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Surgery?

BACKGROUND

No study has assessed the impact of financial conflicts of interests (COIs) on the reporting of breast reconstruction outcomes with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in peer-reviewed publications. The authors hypothesized that there is (1) an association between financial COIs and likelihood of studies reporting benefits in using ADM, and (2) inconsistent reporting of financial COIs.

METHODS

The PubMed database was used to identify articles that reported on the use of ADM in breast surgery in four leading plastic surgery journals from January of 2014 to December of 2019. Financial COIs for authors were determined using the open payments database.

RESULTS

Fifty-five articles were included. Twenty-four articles (43.6%) supported use of ADM, 12 (21.8%) did not promote ADM use, and 19 (34.5%) were neutral. Fifty-one studies (92.7%) had either a first or senior author with a COI, and authors with a COI more commonly reported positive outcomes ( P = 0.02). Studies with positive outcomes featured first authors who received significantly larger financial payments ($95,955 versus $15,642; P = 0.029) compared with studies with negative or neutral outcomes. Receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated that studies with first authors receiving over $376.28 were more likely to report positive results. Eight senior authors and three first authors received greater than $500 from ADM producers yet did not report any financial disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial COI is associated with higher likelihood of studies reporting benefit of using ADM in breast surgery. There remains inconsistent reporting of COIs, and better oversight is needed to ensure unbiased publication on the use of ADM in breast surgery.

Rise of Acellular Dermal Matrix: Cost Consciousness, Industry Payment, and Publication Productivity

BACKGROUND

Despite high cost and lack of FDA approval for breast surgery, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has become commonplace in reconstructive surgery and has been the focus of more than 500 plastic surgery publications since its wide adoption. We hypothesized that ADM-related academic output would correlate with public interest and industry funding.

STUDY DESIGN

All PubMed-indexed studies focusing on ADM in 11 plastic surgery journals were included (n = 535). Data on industry funding to the 17 most productive authors were extracted from the Open Payments Database. Google Trends in "breast surgery cost" and related terms were queried. Relationships among publication quantity, author industry funding, and public interest were analyzed by Pearson's correlation and linear regression.

RESULTS

The most published authors produced 8 qualifying publications on average (range 5 to 17), with 80% focused on breast surgery. These individuals grossed a total of $19 million industry dollars overall with $17 million (89%) in nonconsulting compensation from ADM-producing companies (NC-ADM). Individual total compensation and NC-ADM compensation, by quartile, were $194,000/$320,000/$1.25 million and $17,000/$210,000/$1.1 million, respectively. These variables showed strong correlation with individual publication rate with a linear regression coefficient of $110K in NC-ADM per publication (p < 0.01). Authors disclosed funding in a mean ± SD of 65 ± 26% of their work with strong correlation between disclosure and NC-ADM (p < 0.01). Google "breast surgery cost" search volume has grown rapidly in significant correlation with ADM publications (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates significant correlation between ADM-related publication, industry funding, funding disclosure, and public interest. Education in the potential for such relationships and the importance of objectivity in plastic surgery warrants discussion.

Single Stitch Vicryl Mesh Wrap for Prepectoral Implant Breast Reconstruction

Acellular dermal matrices are commonly used in prepectoral breast reconstruction for implant coverage and support, but they are associated with significant costs. The authors describe a technique for prepectoral breast reconstruction in which the implant is completely wrapped in a knitted Vicryl mesh and then positioned on the chest, without the need for any tacking sutures. A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive prepectoral breast reconstructions, using this technique at a single institution. A separate cohort undergoing prepectoral reconstruction with a conventional acellular dermal matrix technique was also reviewed for comparison. Patient demographics, oncologic and reconstruction characteristics, outcomes, complications, and materials cost were analyzed. Twelve patients (23 breasts) underwent prepectoral reconstruction with Vicryl mesh, and 34 patients (55 breasts) underwent prepectoral reconstruction with acellular dermal matrices. Overall complication rates in the Vicryl group were low (two infections, one case of skin necrosis, one hematoma) and did not differ statistically from the acellular dermal matrix group. Operative time per breast was nearly twice as fast (35.7 versus 68.0 min, P < 0.01). Calculated materials cost savings was $8273 per breast. Prepectoral breast reconstruction with Vicryl mesh only is a safe technique that is much faster and significantly cheaper compared with conventional reconstructive techniques utilizing acellular dermal matrices.

Comparing the Outcomes and Complication Rates of Biologic vs Synthetic Meshes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluates all published studies comparing biologic and synthetic meshes in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), to determine which category of mesh produces the most favorable outcomes.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women globally. Implant-based breast reconstruction is currently the most popular method of postmastectomy reconstruction, and recently, the use of surgical mesh in IBBR has become commonplace. Although there is a long-standing belief among surgeons that biologic mesh is superior to synthetic mesh in terms of surgical complications and patient outcomes, few studies exist to support this claim.

METHODS

A systematic search of the EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases was performed in January 2022. Primary literature studies comparing biologic and synthetic meshes within the same experimental framework were included. Study quality and bias were assessed using the validated Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria.

RESULTS

After duplicate removal, 109 publications were reviewed, with 12 meeting the predetermined inclusion criteria. Outcomes included common surgical complications, histological analysis, interactions with oncologic therapies, quality of life measures, and esthetic outcomes. Across all 12 studies, synthetic meshes were rated as at least equivalent to biologic meshes for every reported outcome. On average, the studies in this review tended to have moderate Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scores.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review offers the first comprehensive evaluation of all publications comparing biologic and synthetic meshes in IBBR. The consistent finding that synthetic meshes are at least equivalent to biologic meshes across a range of clinical outcomes offers a compelling argument in favor of prioritizing the use of synthetic meshes in IBBR.

Modern Approaches to Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

The modern approach to implant-based breast reconstruction encompasses an evolution in surgical techniques, patient selection, implant technology, and use of support materials. Successful outcomes are defined by teamwork throughout the ablative and reconstructive processes as well as appropriate and evidence-based utilization of modern material technologies. Patient education, focus on patient-reported outcomes, and informed and shared decision-making are the key to all steps of these procedures.

Evaluation of Xenograft Efficacy in Immediate Prosthesis-based Breast Reconstruction

The advent of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has revolutionized prosthesis-based breast reconstruction. However, paucity of human cadaveric tissue has resulted in limitation of supply and increased associated costs, prompting concerted effort to identify xenograft alternatives. Although studies have examined the safety of Artia, a porcine-derived ADM, few have evaluated its clinical efficacy as soft tissue reinforcement. This study uniquely evaluates the clinical efficacy of Artia in implant-based breast reconstruction.

[The Value of Synthetic and Biologic Meshes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction]

Implant based breast reconstruction (IBBR) keeps evolving and has been influenced heavily by the use of synthetic and biologic meshes in the last years. In both, subpectoral as well as prepectoral approaches the use of synthetic and biologic meshes has made it possible to place implants precisely according to the breast's footprint and strengthen soft-tissue coverage, particularly in the lower pole of the breast with lower complication rates and better cosmesis. Various mesh options that differ in material, processing, size and cost are currently in clinical use. This review aims to define the role of biologic and synthetic meshes in IBBR regarding the advantages and disadvantages of their use.

Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy, from the Subpectoral to the Prepectoral Approach: An Evidence-Based Change of Mind?

Over the last years, prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has undergone a renaissance due to several technical advancements regarding mastectomy techniques and surgical approaches for the placement and soft tissue coverage of silicone implants. Initially abandoned due to the high incidence of complications, such as capsular contraction, implant extrusion, and poor aesthetic outcome, the effective prevention of these types of complications led to the prepectoral technique coming back in style for the ease of implant placement and the conservation of the pectoralis muscle function. Additional advantages such as a decrease of postoperative pain, animation deformity, and operative time contribute to the steady gain in popularity. This review aims to summarize the factors influencing the trend towards prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction and to discuss the challenges and prospects related to this operative approach.

Polydioxanone Internal Support Matrix: A Rationale for Prophylactic Internal Bra Support in Breast Augmentation

Background

Textured breast implants have been used in aesthetic breast surgery to decrease the rates of implant malposition. A recent analysis of a large-volume single-surgeon experience found statistically similar rates of malposition in smooth vs micro-textured breast implants.

Objectives

Prophylactic use of a polydioxanone (PDO) internal support matrix in breast augmentation was hypothesized to prevent scar malposition and increase pocket control.

Methods

In total, 200 patients received silicone gel primary augmentations performed by a single surgeon from January 2018 to December 2020; 84 patients received smooth implants alone; 49 patients received micro-textured implants; and 67 patients received smooth implants plus PDO internal support matrix. All surgeries were performed in the dual plane using an inframammary incision. Implant-related complications and scar malposition were recorded and compared.

Results

No significant difference in implant-related complication rates was found between shell types (3.57% for smooth devices alone and 2.04% for textured devices [P = 0.62; 95% CI −0.06 to 0.01]). There were zero complications in the smooth plus mesh study arm. A comparison of scar malposition rates between the smooth alone and textured groups revealed no significant difference (15.4% for smooth devices and 8.16% for textured devices [P = 0.23; 95% CI −0.12 to 0.01]). The smooth implant group with the prophylactic placement of PDO mesh had the lowest scar malposition rate of 4.48%, a significant difference compared with the smooth devices alone (P = 0.03; 95% CI −0.21 to −0.01).

Conclusions

Micro-textured devices show a trend toward decreased scar malposition, although not significant. Prophylactic use of PDO internal support matrix in silicone gel breast augmentation is safe and has the lowest incidence of scar malposition.

Level of Evidence: 3

Early Clinical Outcomes of Polydioxanone Mesh for Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction

Many biologic matrices and synthetic meshes are available as adjuncts for prosthetic and autologous breast reconstructions to help control implant position and to reinforce abdominal flap donor sites. Absorbable synthetic meshes may have advantages over biologic matrices and permanent meshes, such as lower cost and better long-term biocompatibility. We present a prospective case series of patients undergoing two-stage, prepectoral breast reconstruction with polydioxanone (PDO) mesh.

Splitting the Difference: Using Synthetic and Biologic Mesh to Decrease Cost in Prepectoral Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction

SUMMARY

Prepectoral breast reconstruction has minimized morbidity and dynamic deformities associated with submuscular implant-based breast reconstruction. However, reliance on implant coverage with acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant reconstruction remains limited by high material costs. The authors describe a technique in which anterior implant coverage in prepectoral reconstruction is split into acellular dermal matrix inferolaterally and synthetic, absorbable mesh superiorly. Use of acellular dermal matrix inferiorly provides coverage and reinforces the inframammary fold, whereas the absorbable mesh is trimmed and sutured to the acellular dermal matrix at the appropriate tension to support the implant and relieve pressure on mastectomy flaps. A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive prepectoral one-stage breast reconstructions using this technique at a single institution. Patient demographics, mastectomy and reconstruction characteristics, reconstructive outcomes, and cost of support materials were queried and analyzed. Eleven patients (21 breasts) underwent prepectoral immediate implant reconstruction with Vicryl and acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage. Average mastectomy weight was 775.8 g. Smooth, round cohesive implants were used in all cases and average implant size was 514.5 ml. Overall complication rates were low and included one minor infection (4.8 percent) and one case of minor mastectomy flap and partial nipple necrosis each (4.8 percent). Calculated cost savings of Vicryl and acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage was up to $3415 in unilateral and $6830 in bilateral cases. Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix inferiorly and Vicryl mesh superiorly is a safe technique that decreases material costs associated with support materials and allows the surgeon to precisely control the implant pocket and position.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Histological evaluation of capsules formed by texturized silicone implants with and without polyester mesh coverage (Parietex®). A study on female rats

Purpose

To evaluate capsules formed by microtextured silicone implants with and without Parietex® mesh coverage histologically.

Methods

Sixty Wistar rats were divided in two groups (meshed and unmeshed). Each group was, then, divided into two subgroups for evaluation at 30 and 90 days. Capsules were analyzed based on hematoxylin and eosin (HE) and picrosirius staining.

Results

The number of fibroblasts, neutrophils and macrophages was similar among all subgroups. There was a higher lymphocyte reaction in the 30-day meshed group (p = 0.003). Giant cell reaction, granulation tissue and neoangiogenesis were similar among the subgroups. Synovial metaplasia was milder at 90-day in the unmeshed (p = 0.002) and meshed group (p < 0.001). Capsular thickness was significantly greater in the meshed samples (30-day p < 0.001 and 90-day p < 0.001). There was a similar amount of collagen types I and III in both groups.

Conclusions

The mesh-covered implants produced capsules similar to the microtextured ones when analyzing inflammatory variables. Synovial metaplasia was milder at 90 than at 30 days, and the capsular thickness was significantly greater in the meshed group. A similar amount of collagen types I and III was observed. Due to these characteristics, the mesh coverage did not seem to significantly affect the local inflammatory activity.

The Use of Absorbable Mesh in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A 7-Year Review

Breast reconstruction is most frequently performed using implants or expanders. Adjunctive materials such as acellular dermal matrix and synthetic meshes are used to support the implant or expander. A paucity of large studies exist on the use of synthetic mesh for breast reconstruction.

Evidence for the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are tissue grafts that have been specially processed to remove all cellular components. These machined biological scaffolds have become popular in a variety of surgical settings due to their rapid incorporation into living tissue. As ADMs are highly malleable and cause minimal inflammation, they have come to serve as a useful tool in implant-based breast reconstruction procedures. The major benefits of using an ADM in this setting include superior initial breast contouring, decreased risk of capsular contracture after implant insertion, and consistent sustained positioning of the reconstructed breast. Despite these advantages, these tissue grafts are foreign to the host, and postoperative complications following ADM insertion, including infection and seroma, have been well documented. When considering using ADMs in this setting, it is important to first consider patient-specific factors that could preclude their use, such as low body mass index, small breasts, or a history of radiation exposure to the breast tissue. ADM grafts are also expensive, which may present another barrier to their use. Review of the literature ultimately suggests a continued role for ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction, and continued research in this field is warranted.

Strategies and considerations in selecting between subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction

Implant-based breast reconstruction has evolved through advances in mastectomy and reconstruction techniques to offer excellent outcomes with both prepectoral and subpectoral implant placement. Proper patient selection and surgical technique are key for optimizing outcomes and minimizing complications regardless of implant location. Therefore, familiarity with the benefits and limitations of each technique is vital. Several patient characteristics, such as history of significant comorbidities, radiation or active smoking, portend higher risk of complications with prepectoral reconstruction, in which case subpectoral implant placement may be a safer option. Oncologic consideration such as location and size of tumors also play an important role in determining the appropriate technique. The most critical factor in the success of prepectoral reconstruction is the quality of mastectomy flaps. Thorough intraoperative evaluation of mastectomy flap perfusion and viability will determine whether immediate prepectoral reconstruction is possible or other alternatives such as subpectoral or delayed prepectoral techniques should be considered. Discussing these factors with patients preemptively as well as developing a coordinated plan with the patient and oncologic surgeon will maximize success in both subpectoral and prepectoral implant-based reconstruction.

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

The use of biological and synthetic meshes to aid implant coverage in implant-based breast reconstruction is well established. This technique allows single stage implant-based reconstruction compared to the traditional technique which required tissue expansion before permanent implant placement and therefore involved two operations for the patient. They can further be used for pre-pectoral implant reconstructions in a similar direct-to-implant strategy. This retrospective observational study by Pompei et al has evaluated the use of TIGR Matrix, a long-term resorbable mesh, in 49 patients with 60 operated breasts for both reconstructive and aesthetic cases. They have reported their operative method and followed up their cases for a mean of 12 months. They have reported a cumulative mesh complication rate of 5.4% and one implant was explanted due to infection. They identified a significant correlation between obesity and mesh-related complications. This study is significant as there remains little data regarding the long term outcomes of resorbable synthetic mesh for breast reconstruction. Their reported complication rates are consistent with those in other studies for synthetic meshes. As synthetic meshes can be significantly cheaper than their biological counterparts, this work could promote more widespread use.

Innovative Surgical Approach Using a Mesh Sling for the Aging Neck

BACKGROUND

Rejuvenation of the neck is essential to achieve a young facade. Different approaches for aging neck rejuvenation have been developed throughout the years. Most of them focus on specific elements that contribute to the aging neck. The main drawbacks of these techniques are recurrence of the platysma bands, malposition, deformations, salivary problems, and defatting. These disadvantages and limitations have led the author to create a novel surgical approach to improve the aging neck that would be suitable for most patients. Instead of dealing with each of the elements of the aging neck, the author's approach involves use of a sling to elevate all the descending elements as a whole to create a natural and longstanding result.

METHODS

Since March of 2014, 10 patients have been operated on for neck lifting with this new approach. Four different types of material have been used: absorbable synthetic braided (Vicryl) in five patients, semiabsorbable synthetic braided and monofilament (Vypro) in one patient, absorbable synthetic matrix (TIGR) in three patients, and biological mesh-allograft material (AlloDerm) in one patient. Follow-up visits were made after 10 days, 3 months, 6 months, and annually.

RESULTS

In all cases, the operations were uneventful. There were no major complications. Minor complication occurred in one patient with the Vypro mesh. The mesh caused stiffness and was replaced. Final aesthetic results were satisfactory in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Current approaches for improvement of the aging neck do not fit all aging neck cases and are suitable for only a specific dominant element. The aging neck tends to reappear faster than expected because of recurrence or dominance of another element. The author's novel approach is more predictable and is suitable for most cases regardless of the dominant part causing the aging. More experience and longer follow-up are needed to choose the most appropriate material for the mesh.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Soft Tissue Adjuncts in Revisionary Aesthetic Breast Surgery

Reconstructive breast surgery is challenging and continually evolving. In the past decade, numerous soft tissue adjuncts, such as acellular dermal matrices (ADMs), have revolutionized breast reconstruction serving as a tool to improve results and minimize the need for revision. The use of ADMs has been widely discussed in primary and secondary breast reconstruction after mastectomy. They have been shown to be an effective and safe option to correct complications; however, there is a relative paucity of literature on their use in revisional surgery after aesthetic breast procedures. The authors queried PubMed for existing literature regarding the use of ADMs in secondary breast surgery. Five case series from an initial search of 278 articles met the inclusion criteria. An overall infection rate of 2% and a complication rate of implant malposition was 0.8% with the use of ADMs. Although the literature is sparse regarding their use in this setting, early reports indicate that they are both safe and efficacious with a reasonable rate of complications.

[Research progress of non-biological meshes for breast reconstruction]

Objective

To review the application progress of non-biological meshes for breast reconstruction (BR).

Methods

The related home and abroad researches in BR were reviewed and summarized.

Results

Non-biological meshes can be divided into degradable and nondegradable. The former has many types, whether its degradation rate can match with the grow rate of repair tissue will significantly affect the wound healing and tissue intergradation. TiLOOP, on behalf of the latter, has a good postoperative performance due to its nano TiO ₂ layer, lightness and flexibility. Non-biological meshes have been gradually used to cover and fix implant in BR. Compared with biological meshes, non-biological meshes are cheaper and have a more positive postoperative performance generally, but definite comparison can't be concluded due to the limited data.

Conclusion

As non-biological meshes are applied to BR preliminarily, their effectiveness are still needed to be observed further.

Subcutaneous Implant-based Breast Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix/Mesh: A Systematic Review

Background:

The availability of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and synthetic mesh products has prompted plastic surgeons to revisit subcutaneous implant-based breast reconstruction. The literature is limited, however, with regards to evidence on patient selection, techniques, and outcomes.

Methods:

A systematic review of the Medline and Cochrane databases was performed for original studies reporting breast reconstruction with ADM or mesh, and subcutaneous implant placement. Studies were analyzed for level of evidence, inclusion/exclusion criteria for subcutaneous reconstruction, reconstruction characteristics, and outcomes.

Results:

Six studies (186 reconstructions) were identified for review. The majority of studies (66.7%) were level IV evidence case series. Eighty percent of studies had contraindications for subcutaneous reconstruction, most commonly preoperative radiation, high body mass index, and active smoking. Forty percent of studies commenting on patient selection assessed mastectomy flap perfusion for subcutaneous reconstruction. Forty-five percent of reconstructions were direct-to-implant, 33.3% 2-stage, and 21.5% single-stage adjustable implant, with ADM utilized in 60.2% of reconstructions versus mesh. Pooled complication rates included: major infection 1.2%, seroma 2.9%, hematoma 2.3%, full nipple-areola complex necrosis 1.1%, partial nipple-areola complex necrosis 4.5%, major flap necrosis 1.8%, wound healing complication 2.3%, explantation 4.1%, and grade III/IV capsular contracture 1.2%.

Conclusions:

Pooled short-term complication rates in subcutaneous alloplastic breast reconstruction with ADM or mesh are low in preliminary studies with selective patient populations, though techniques and outcomes are variable across studies. Larger comparative studies and better-defined selection criteria and outcomes reporting are needed to develop appropriate indications for performing subcutaneous implant-based reconstruction.

Alloplastic adjuncts in breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing role of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and synthetic meshes in both single- and two-stage implant/expander breast reconstruction. Numerous alloplastic adjuncts exist, and these vary in material type, processing, storage, surgical preparation, level of sterility, available sizes and cost. However, there is little published data on most, posing a significant challenge to the reconstructive surgeon trying to compare and select the most suitable product. The aims of this systematic review were to identify, summarize and evaluate the outcomes of studies describing the use of alloplastic adjuncts for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. The secondary aims were to determine their cost-effectiveness and analyze outcomes in patients who also underwent radiotherapy.

METHODS

Using the PRSIMA 2009 statement, a systematic review was conducted to find articles reporting on the outcomes on the use of alloplastic adjuncts in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Multiple databases were searched independently by three authors (Cabalag MS, Miller GS and Chae MP), including: Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to present), Embase (1980 to 2015), PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Current published literature on available alloplastic adjuncts are predominantly centered on ADMs, both allogeneic and xenogeneic, with few outcome studies available for synthetic meshes. Outcomes on the 89 articles, which met the inclusion criteria, were summarized and analyzed. The reported outcomes on alloplastic adjunct-assisted breast reconstruction were varied, with most data available on the use of ADMs, particularly AlloDerm(®) (LifeCell, Branchburg, New Jersey, USA). The use of ADMs in single-stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction resulted in lower complication rates (infection, seroma, implant loss and late revision), and was more cost effective when compared to non-ADM, two-stage reconstruction. The majority of studies demonstrated inferior outcomes in ADM assisted, two-stage expander-to-implant reconstruction compared to non-ADM use. Multiple studies suggest that the use of ADMs results in a reduction of capsular contracture rates. Additionally, the reported beneficial effects of ADM use in irradiated tissue were varied.

CONCLUSIONS

ADM assisted two-stage breast reconstruction was associated with inferior outcomes when compared to non-ADM use. However, alloplastic adjuncts may have a role in single stage, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Published evidence comparing the long-term outcomes between the different types of adjuncts is lacking, and further level one studies are required to identify the ideal product.

Implant-based breast reconstruction with meshes and matrices: biological vs synthetic

This article presents an overview of the different acellular dermal matrices and synthetic meshes used in modern-day primary and secondary implant-based breast reconstruction. Case examples are given, along with a description of the senior author's pioneering direct-to-implant reconstruction.