Synthetic Meshes in Breast Reconstruction

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


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.


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


  1. 1.
    American Society of Plastic Surgeons 2018 Statistics Reports, available at: 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