Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Usage of Mesh and Relevant Prognosis in Implant Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Meta-analysis

  • Original Articles
  • Breast Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Although mesh-based implant breast reconstruction surgery is emerging as the primary surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, mesh use remains controversial in implant breast reconstruction surgery, especially in terms of how to select the ideal mesh. Our aim is to elaborate relevant prognosis in the mesh-based implant breast reconstruction surgery.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane library searches. Extracted data included study type, basic characteristics, mesh information, complications, etc. We analyzed the included cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that reported mesh-related implant breast reconstruction complications and breast quality scale scores.

Results

A total of 32 studies including 7475 subjects were included. The results showed that the overall complication rate was 2.07 times higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (risk ratio [RR]: 2.07, 95% CI 1.14–3.78). The risk of seroma was 4.50 times higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (RR: 4.50, 95% CI 2.27–8.95). In terms of comparing breast quality scale scores, the mesh group had scores that were 1.49 (95% CI 0.19–2.78) higher than the non-mesh group for “physical well-being” and 2.05 (95% CI 0.08–4.02) higher for “sexual well-being.”

Conclusions

Our study found that the risk of total complications was higher with biological mesh than with synthetic mesh in implant breast reconstruction surgery. Based on short-term cost, healthcare burden, and healthcare benefits, synthetic meshes are superior to biological meshes.

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Breuing KH, Warren SM (2005) Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings. Ann Plast Surg 55(3):232–239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Koch RM, Chabner-Thompson E (2011) An 8-year experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm). Plast Reconstr Surg 127(2):514–524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Colwell AS, Damjanovic B, Zahedi B et al (2011) Retrospective review of 331 consecutive immediate single-stage implant reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix: indications, complications, trends, and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(6):1170–1178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Antony AK, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG et al (2010) Acellular human dermis implantation in 153 immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstructions: determining the incidence and significant predictors of complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 125(6):1606–1614

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Collis GN, TerKonda SP, Waldorf JC, Perdikis G (2012) Acellular dermal matrix slings in tissue expander breast reconstruction: are there substantial benefits? Ann Plast Surg 68(5):425–428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Venturi ML, Mesbahi AN, Boehmler JHt, Marrogi AJ (2013) Evaluating sterile human acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander-based breast reconstruction: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(1):9e–18e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vardanian AJ, Clayton JL, Roostaeian J et al (2011) Comparison of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(5):403e–410e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A et al (2012) A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 68(4):346–356

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Salzberg CA (2012) Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 39(2):119–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dieterich M, Paepke S, Zwiefel K et al (2013) Implant-based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP Bra): a multicenter study of 231 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(1):8e–19e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Loustau HD, Mayer HF, Sarrabayrouse M (2007) Immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction: the ensured subpectoral pocket (ESP). J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 60(11):1233–1238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dieterich M, Reimer T, Dieterich H, Stubert J, Gerber B (2012) A short-term follow-up of implant based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLoop(®) Bra). Eur J Surg Oncol 38(12):1225–1230

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Moyer HR, Pinell-White X, Losken A (2014) The effect of radiation on acellular dermal matrix and capsule formation in breast reconstruction: clinical outcomes and histologic analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 133(2):214–221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Moyer KE, Potochny JD (2012) Technique for seroma drainage in implant-based breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65(12):1614–1617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jansen LA, Macadam SA (2011) The use of alloderm in postmastectomy alloplastic breast reconstruction: part I A systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(6):2232–2244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Whisker L, Barber M, Egbeare D et al (2021) Biological and synthetic mesh assisted breast reconstruction procedures: joint guidelines from the association of breast surgery and the British association of plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgeons. Eur J Surg Oncol 47(11):2807–2813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bank J, Phillips NA, Park JE, Song DH (2013) Economic analysis and review of the literature on implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of the acellular dermal matrix. Aesthetic Plast Surg 37(6):1194–1201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sewart E, Turner NL, Conroy EJ et al (2021) Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh. BJS Open 5(1)

  21. Potter S, MacKenzie M, Blazeby JM (2018) Does the addition of mesh improve outcomes in implant based breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer? BMJ 362:k2607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T (2014) Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:135

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen G, Zhang Y, Xue J et al (2019) Surgical outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction using tiloop bra mesh combined with pectoralis major disconnection. Ann Plast Surg 83(4):396–400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Casella D, Bernini M, Bencini L et al (2014) TiLoop® bra mesh used for immediate breast reconstruction: comparison of retropectoral and subcutaneous implant placement in a prospective single-institution series. Eur J Plast Surg 37(11):599–604

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Negenborn VL, Smit JM, Dikmans REG et al (2019) Short-term cost-effectiveness of one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage expander-implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg 106(5):586–595

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hillberg NS, Ferdinandus PI, Dikmans REG et al (2018) Is single-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (SSBR) with an acellular matrix safe?: Strattice™ or Meso Biomatrix® in SSBR. Eur J Plast Surg 41(4):429–438

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Dieterich M, Angres J, Stachs A et al (2015) Patient-report satisfaction and health-related quality of life in TiLOOP® bra-assisted or implant-based breast reconstruction alone. Aesthetic Plast Surg 39(4):523–533

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilson RL, Kirwan CC, O’Donoghue JM et al (2022) BROWSE: a multicentre comparison of nine year outcomes in acellular dermal matrix based and complete submuscular implant-based immediate breast reconstruction-aesthetics, capsular contracture and patient reported outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol 48(1):73–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lohmander F, Lagergren J, Roy PG et al (2019) Implant based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: safety data from an open-label, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in the setting of breast cancer treatment. Ann Surg 269(5):836–841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hallberg H, Elander A, Kölby L, Hansson E (2019) A biological or a synthetic mesh in immediate breast reconstruction? A cohort-study of long-term health related quality of life (HrQoL). Eur J Surg Oncol 45(10):1812–1816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Levy AS, Bernstein JL, Xia JJ, Otterburn DM (2020) Poly-4-hydroxybutyric acid mesh compares favorably with acellular dermal matrix in tissue expander-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 85:S2-s7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Baldelli I, Cardoni G, Franchelli S et al (2016) Implant-based breast reconstruction using a polyester mesh (Surgimesh-PET): a retrospective single-center study. Plast Reconstr Surg 137(6):931e–939e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dikmans RE, Negenborn VL, Bouman MB et al (2017) Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction compared with immediate one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction augmented with an acellular dermal matrix: an open-label, phase 4, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 18(2):251–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ivey JS, Abdollahi H, Herrera FA, Chang EI (2019) Total muscle coverage versus alloderm human dermal matrix for implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(1):1–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Potter S, Conroy EJ, Cutress RI et al (2019) Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 20(2):254–266

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Yao X, Guo Y, Tu Y et al (2019) Simple prosthesis versus prosthesis plus titanium-coated polypropylene mesh for implant-based immediate breast reconstruction after total mastectomy for breast cancer. Gland Surg 8(6):773–783

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Gao P, Wang X, Bai P et al (2022) Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction with the use of biological and synthetic meshes in one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Breast Cancer 29(3):450–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sou WK, Perng CK, Ma H et al (2022) The effect of biological scaffold (Biodesign) in postmastectomy direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: a 5-year single-institution experience. Ann Plast Surg 88:S92–S98

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lanier ST, Wang ED, Chen JJ et al (2010) The effect of acellular dermal matrix use on complication rates in tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 64(5):674–678

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hansson E, Edvinsson AC, Elander A, Kölby L, Hallberg H (2021) First-year complications after immediate breast reconstruction with a biological and a synthetic mesh in the same patient: a randomized controlled study. J Surg Oncol 123(1):80–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu AS, Kao HK, Reish RG et al (2011) Postoperative complications in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(5):1755–1762

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Weichman KE, Wilson SC, Weinstein AL et al (2012) The use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 129(5):1049–1058

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. McCarthy CM, Lee CN, Halvorson EG et al (2012) The use of acellular dermal matrices in two-stage expander/implant reconstruction: a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(5 Suppl 2):57s–66s

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Scheflan M, Allweis TM, Ben Yehuda D, Maisel LA (2020) Meshed acellular dermal matrix in immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 8(11):e3265

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Negenborn VL, Young-Afat DA, Dikmans REG et al (2018) Quality of life and patient satisfaction after one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage breast reconstruction (BRIOS): primary outcome of a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 19(9):1205–1214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gao P, Wang Z, Kong X et al (2020) Comparisons of therapeutic and aesthetic effects of one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological matrix. Cancer Manag Res 12:13381–13392

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Ganz OM, Tobalem M, Perneger T et al (2015) Risks and benefits of using an absorbable mesh in one-stage immediate breast reconstruction: a comparative study. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(3):498e–507e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. József Z, Újhelyi M, Ping O et al (2020) Long-term dynamic changes in cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction after implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction and contralateral mastopexy with or without an ultrapro mesh sling used for the inner bra technique a retrospective correlational study. Cancers 13(1):73

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Schüler K, Paepke S, Kohlmann T et al (2021) Postoperative complications in breast reconstruction with porcine acellular dermis and polypropylene meshes in subpectoral implant placement. In Vivo 35(5):2739–2746

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Patzelt M, Zarubova L, Vecerova M et al (2022) Risk comparison using autologous dermal flap and absorbable breast mesh on patient undergoing subcutaneous mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 46(3):1145–1152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Parks JW, Hammond SE, Walsh WA et al (2012) Human acellular dermis versus no acellular dermis in tissue expansion breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(4):739–746

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mylvaganam S, Conroy E, Williamson PR et al (2017) Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire. Breast 35:182–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sorkin M, Qi J, Kim HM et al (2017) Acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander/implant breast reconstruction: a multicenter assessment of risks and benefits. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(6):1091–1100

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Lee KT, Mun GH (2016) Updated evidence of acellular dermal matrix use for implant-based breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 23(2):600–610

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (2021) Plastic surgery statistics report. Available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/

  56. Logan Ellis H, Asaolu O, Nebo V, Kasem A (2016) Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review. World J Surg Oncol 14:121

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Pérez-Köhler B, Bayon Y, Bellón JM (2016) Mesh infection and hernia repair: a review. Surg Infect 17(2):124–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sun WQ, Xu H, Sandor M, Lombardi J (2013) Process-induced extracellular matrix alterations affect the mechanisms of soft tissue repair and regeneration. J Tissue Eng 4:2041731413505305

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Quah GS, French JR, Cocco A et al (2019) Veritas in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction is associated with higher complications compared with TiLOOP. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 7(12):e2533

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. McCarthy CM, Mehrara BJ, Riedel E et al (2008) Predicting complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction: an outcomes analysis based on preoperative clinical risk. Plast Reconstr Surg 121(6):1886–1892

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Endress R, Choi MS, Lee GK (2012) Use of fetal bovine acellular dermal xenograft with tissue expansion for staged breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 68(4):338–341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all our colleagues working in the Department of Plastic Surgery of Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University and the Center for Medical Research, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China

Funding

There is no funding for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic Surgery of Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China

    Yang Hu, Wuliang Diao, Shiyi Wen, Julius K. S. K. Kpegah, Zhenyang Xiao, Jianda Zhou & Ping Li

  2. Center for Medical Research, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China

    Xuan Zhou

Authors
  1. Yang Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wuliang Diao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shiyi Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julius K. S. K. Kpegah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhenyang Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xuan Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jianda Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ping Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Research topic selection and design provided by PL and JZ. Data acquisition, analysis or interpretation provided by YH, WD, SW, ZX, ZX. Manuscript written by YH. ZX and JKSKK provided technical support.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jianda Zhou or Ping Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The ethical approval was not required.

Informed Consent

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, Y., Diao, W., Wen, S. et al. The Usage of Mesh and Relevant Prognosis in Implant Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Meta-analysis. Aesth Plast Surg (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-024-03879-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-024-03879-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation