Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atiyeh B, Ghieh F, Chahine F, Oneisi A (2022) Ptosis and bottoming out following mastopexy and reduction mammoplasty is synthetic mesh internal breast support the solution? a systematic review of the literature. Aesthet Plast Surg. 46(1):25–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02398-x
Atiye B, Chahine F (2018) Metrics of the aesthetically perfect breast. Aesthet Plast Surg 42(5):1187–1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1154-6
Johnson GW (1981) Central core reduction mammoplasties and marlex suspension of breast tissue. Aesthet Plast Surg 5(1):77–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01981686
van Deventer PV, Graewe FR, Würinger E (2012) Improving the longevity and results of mastopexy and breast reduction procedures: reconstructing an internal breast support system with biocompatible mesh to replace the supporting function of the ligamentous suspension. Aesthet Plast Surg 36(3):578–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9845-2
Qureshi AA, Myckatyn TM, Tenenbaum MM (2018) Mastopexy and mastopexy-augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 38(4):374–384. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx181
di Summa PG, Oranges CM, Watfa W et al (2019) Systematic review of outcomes and complications in nonimplant-based mastopexy surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 72(2):243–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.10.018
Colicchia GM, Di Pietro V, Cervelli V (2019) Mastoplasty after massive weight loss: redefinition and stabilization of the breast mound with submuscular autoprosthesis. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 12(3):164–173. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCAS.JCAS_48_18
Sampaio Góes JC (2003) Periareolar mastopexy: double skin technique with mesh support. Aesthet Surg J 23(2):129–135. https://doi.org/10.1067/maj.2003.18
Sampaio Góes JC (2002) Periareolar mammaplasty: double-skin technique with application of mesh support. Clin Plast Surg. 29(3):349–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0094-1298(02)00005-6
Brown RH, Izaddoost S, Bullocks JM (2010) Preventing the “bottoming out” and “star-gazing” phenomena in inferior pedicle breast reduction with an acellular dermal matrix internal brassiere. Aesthet Plast Surg 34(6):760–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-010-9538-2
Pompei S, Evangelidou D, Arelli F, Ferrante G (2018) The use of TIGR matrix in breast aesthetic and reconstructive surgery: is a resorbable synthetic mesh a viable alternative to acellular dermal matrices? Clin Plast Surg 45(1):65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2017.08.005
Góes JCS, Landecker A, Lyra EC, Henríquez LJ, Góes RS, Godoy PM (2004) The application of mesh support in periareolar breast surgery: clinical and mammographic evaluation. Aesthet Plast Surg 28(5):268–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-004-3099-1
Baylón K, Rodríguez-Camarillo P, Elías-Zúñiga A, Díaz-Elizondo JA, Gilkerson R, Lozano K (2017) Past, present and future of surgical meshes: a review. Membranes 7(3):47. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes7030047
Faulkner HR, Shikowitz-Behr L, McLeod M, Wright E, Hulsen J, Austen WG (2020) The use of absorbable mesh in implant-based breast reconstruction: a 7-year review. Plast Reconstr Surg 146(6):731–736. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000007384
Manahan MA, Buretta KJ, Chang D, Mithani SK, Mallalieu J, Shermak MA (2015) An outcomes analysis of 2142 breast reduction procedures. Ann Plast Surg 74(3):289–292. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31829d2261
Morrison KA, Vernon R, Choi M, Karp NS (2023) Quantifying surgical complications for reduction mammaplasty in adolescents. Plast Reconstr Surg 151(3):376e–383e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009905
Daar DA, Bekisz JM, Chiodo MV, DeMitchell-Rodriguez EM, Saadeh PB (2021) Hematoma after non-oncologic breast procedures: a comprehensive review of the evidence. Aesthet Plast Surg 45(6):2602–2617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02276-6
Cruz NI, Korchin L (2007) Lactational performance after breast reduction with different pedicles. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(1):35–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000263371.37596.49
Gilbert AI, Felton LL (1993) Infection in inguinal hernia repair considering biomaterials and antibiotics. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 177(2):126–130
Kao AM, Arnold MR, Augenstein VA, Heniford BT (2018) Prevention and treatment strategies for mesh infection in abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 142(3 Suppl):149S-155S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004871
Kuo YC, Mondschein JI, Soulen MC et al (2010) Drainage of collections associated with hernia mesh: is it worthwhile? J Vasc Interv Radiol JVIR. 21(3):362–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2009.11.009
Hallberg H, Rafnsdottir S, Selvaggi G et al (2018) Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 52(3):130–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656X.2017.1419141
Kim JYS, Davila AA, Persing S et al (2012) A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 129(1):28–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182361fd6
Patel AA, Kayaleh H, Sala LA, Peterson DJ, Upadhyaya PK (2021) Comparing outcomes of wise-pattern, two-stage breast reduction-reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 148(3):511–521. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008298
Swanson E (2022) Does acellular dermal matrix really reduce the risk of recurrent ptosis after mastopexy? Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 10(8):e4491. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000004491
Krishnan NM, Chatterjee A, Van Vliet MM, Powell SG, Rosen JM, Nigriny JF (2013) A comparison of acellular dermal matrix to autologous dermal flaps in single-stage, implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(5):953. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182865a24
Tessler O, Reish RG, Maman DY, Smith BL, Austen WG (2014) Beyond biologics: absorbable mesh as a low-cost, low-complication sling for implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 133(2):90e–99e. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000437253.55457.63
FitzGerald JF, Kumar AS (2014) Biologic versus synthetic mesh reinforcement: what are the pros and cons? Clin Colon Rectal Surg 27(4):140–148. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1394155
Funding
No funding was used for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interests
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Ethical Approval
Not required.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Williams, S., Menon, A., Shauly, O. et al. Reviewing Outcomes and Complications with the Use of Mesh in Breast Reduction Surgery. Aesth Plast Surg (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-024-03896-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-024-03896-4