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

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.

Reviewing Outcomes and Complications with the Use of Mesh in Breast Reduction Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Reduction mammoplasty is a common reconstructive and esthetic procedure with variable long-term outcomes regarding breast shape, projection, and nipple-areolar complex. One common complaint is recurrent breast ptosis, which may be mitigated by sufficient support of the inferior pole. This review will look at the effects of mesh in mitigating postoperative ptosis following reduction mammoplasty.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was performed using the PubMed database. Manuscripts that provided data with respect to the effects of mesh on cosmetic outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, complications, and surveillance were utilized.

RESULTS

Six studies with a total of 634 patients were included in this review. There is limited evidence to support a cosmetic benefit with the use of mesh in reduction mammoplasty patients. While subjective satisfaction was demonstrated in one paper, few others had objective measurements of the impact of mesh. Complications included infection, skin necrosis, and loss of nipple sensation. Mammography was found to not be affected by mesh placement.

DISCUSSION

The use of mesh during reduction mammoplasty is a relatively modern innovation that does not appear to have a significantly different risk profile than that of traditional reduction procedures. There is limited cosmetic value based on currently available data. More objective future analysis is necessary in order to justify the use of mesh in reduction mammoplasty for its claimed cosmetic benefits.

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 Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Outcomes after tissue expander exchange to implant in two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix: A retrospective cohort study

As prepectoral implant placement becomes widely adopted, recent studies investigating the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) during tissue expander placement have demonstrated no major benefit with regard to postoperative outcomes. We sought to evaluate second-stage outcomes 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant with and without ADM. Consecutive patients who underwent prepectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction with and without ADM were identified. Patients were followed up for 1 year after tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest including implant rippling, capsular contracture, implant explantation, additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported outcomes were collected and compared. Sixty-eight breasts in the ADM cohort and sixty-one breasts in the no ADM cohort underwent tissue expander exchange to implant. Second-stage outcomes of interest were similar between the ADM and no ADM cohorts with no statistically significant differences identified regarding incidences of implant rippling (24.6% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.08), capsular contracture (4.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 1.00), and explantation (6.6% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.67) between the two cohorts. BREAST-Q scores were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of physical wellbeing and satisfaction in terms of implant rippling, as can be seen, which improved in the no ADM cohort (p = 0.04). Our study reports no major benefit for the inclusion of ADM with respect to implant rippling, capsular contracture, explantation, need for additional revision surgeries, and patient-reported satisfaction in prepectoral second-stage implant-based breast reconstruction.

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.

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.

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.

Direct to Implant Reconstruction

Implant-based breast reconstruction remains the most commonly performed type of restorative surgery after mastectomy for breast cancer. Placement of a tissue expander at the time of mastectomy allows gradual skin envelope expansion but requires additional surgery and time to completion of a patient's reconstruction. Direct-to-implant reconstruction provides a one-stage, final implant insertion, thereby bypassing the need for serial tissue expansion. With proper patient selection, successful preservation of the breast skin envelope, and accurate implant size and placement, direct-to-implant reconstruction has a very high rate of success and patient satisfaction.

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.

Ptosis and Bottoming out Following Mastopexy and Reduction Mammoplasty. Is Synthetic Mesh Internal Breast Support the Solution? A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Relying on soft tissues with low structural strength to provide long-term support of the breasts following aesthetic mammoplasty may be inadequate in many instances. To address the inherent weakness of tissues still present after surgery, use of synthetic non-autologous additional tissue reinforcement has been described. The current review is aimed at analyzing available evidence about safety and effectiveness of mesh support in various reduction mammoplasty, mastopexy, or augmentation-mastopexy.

METHODS

An advanced PubMed and Medline search was conducted to identify clinical studies about the use of synthetic mesh in aesthetic breast surgery. An additional search of breast symmetrization and synthetic mesh was also conducted. Ten studies were identified and judged to be relevant to this review.

RESULTS

Retrieved studies were relatively few, characterized by marked heterogeneity, lack of well-defined outcome end points, poor outcome measures, and inherent bias in outcome documentation providing low level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Despite reported relative safety and some promising results, available data indicate that meshes do not effectively prevent recurrent ptosis and bottoming out; they may not be superior to described techniques with superior pedicle and hammocks or "balcony" flaps. Well-conducted studies are yet to be conducted comparing internal bra technique to procedures with innovative autologous tissue support.

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 Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

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.