Advertisement

Synthetic Meshes in Breast Reconstruction

  • Horacio F. MayerEmail author
  • Ignacio T. Piedra Buena
  • Silvina A. Martino
  • Hugo D. Loustau
Chapter
  • 60 Downloads

Abstract

Implant-based breast reconstruction accounts for more than 86% of breast reconstructions performed in the USA, with two-staged implant-based breast reconstruction and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction representing 86% and 14% of the total procedures, respectively.

Keywords

Postoperative pain Pectoralis major Anterior serratus muscles Retromuscular pocket pressure Impant breast reconstruction 

References

  1. 1.
    American Society of Plastic Surgeons 2018 Statistics Reports, available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-report-2018.pdf. Accessed: 19 Mar 2019.
  2. 2.
    Jeevan R, et al. Findings of a national comparative audit of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery in England. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67:1333–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mayer HF, de Belaustegui EA, Loustau HD. Current status and trends of breast reconstruction in Argentina. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:607–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pandit AS, Henry JA. Design of surgical meshes – an engineering perspective. Technol Health Care. 2004;12:51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breuing KH, Warren SM. Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;55:232–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bindingnavele V, Gaon M, Ota KS, Kulber DA, Lee DJ. Use of acellular cadaveric dermis and tissue expansion in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60:1214–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wong AK, et al. Histologic analysis of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in acellular human dermis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:1144–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Logan Ellis H, Asaolu O, Nebo V, Kasem A. Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14:121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haynes DF, Kreithen JC. Vicryl mesh in expander/implant breast reconstruction: long-term follow-up in 38 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:892–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lanier ST, et al. The effect of acellular dermal matrix use on complication rates in tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64:674–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parks JW, et al. Human acellular dermis versus no acellular dermis in tissue expansion breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:739–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loustau HD, Mayer HF, Sarrabayrouse M. Immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction: the ensured subpectoral pocket (ESP). J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60(11):1233–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dieterich M, et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP Bra): a multicenter study of 231 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:8e–19e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Becker H, Lind JG 2nd. The use of synthetic mesh in reconstructive, revision, and cosmetic breast surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2013;37:914–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Casella D, Bernini M, Bencini L, et al. 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. 2014;37:599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gschwantler-Kaulich D, et al. Mesh versus acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction – a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:665–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pompei S, Evangelidou D, Arelli F, Ferrante G. 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. 2018;45:65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baldelli I, et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using a polyester mesh (Surgimesh-PET): a retrospective single-center study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:931e–9e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sharma S, Van Barsel S, Barry M, et al. De novo experience of resorbable woven mesh in immediate breast reconstruction post-mastectomy. Eur J Plast Surg. 2017;40:17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nyame TT, Lemon KP, Kolter R, Liao EC. High-throughput assay for bacterial adhesion on acellular dermal matrices and synthetic surgical materials. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:1061–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frey JD, Salibian AA, Choi M, Karp NS. Mastectomy flap thickness and complications in nipple-sparing mastectomy: objective evaluation using magnetic resonance imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mirhaidari SJ, et al. A prospective study of immediate breast reconstruction with laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Avashia YJ, Mohan R, Berhane C, Oeltjen JC. Postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:453–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hallberg H, Lewin R, Søfteland MB, et al. Complications, long-term outcome and quality of life following Surgisis® and muscle-covered implants in immediate breast reconstruction: a case-control study with a 6-year follow-up. Eur J Plast Surg. 2019;42:33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rodriguez-Unda N, Leiva S, Cheng HT, Seal SM, Cooney CM, Rosson GD. Low incidence of complications using polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) mesh in breast reconstruction: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(11):1543–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Topol BM, Dalton EF, Ponn T, Campbell CJ. Immediate single-stage breast reconstruction using implants and human acellular dermal tissue matrix with adjustment of the lower pole of the breast to reduce unwanted lift. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;61:494–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weichman KE, et al. Sterile ‘ready-to-use’ AlloDerm decreases postoperative infectious complications in patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:725–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Darehzereshki A, et al. Biologic versus nonbiologic mesh in ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2014;38:40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meyer Ganz O, et al. Risks and benefits of using an absorbable mesh in one-stage immediate breast reconstruction: a comparative study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:498e–507e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Horacio F. Mayer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ignacio T. Piedra Buena
    • 1
  • Silvina A. Martino
    • 1
  • Hugo D. Loustau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plastic SurgeryHospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires School of MedicineBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations