Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gilbert AI, Felton LL (1993) Infection in inguinal hernia repair considering biomaterials and antibiotics. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 177(2):126–130

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was used for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Sonya Williams & Ambika Menon

  2. Emory Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 3200 Downwood Circle Northwest, Atlanta, GA, 30327, USA

    Orr Shauly & Albert Losken

  3. Indie Plastic Surgery, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Bruce Van Natta

  4. Gould Plastic Surgery, Beverly Hills, CA, USA

    Daniel Gould

Authors
  1. Sonya Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ambika Menon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Orr Shauly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bruce Van Natta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Gould
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Albert Losken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Orr Shauly.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-024-03896-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation