Outcomes in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Utilizing Biosynthetic Mesh: A Meta-analysis

被引:0
|
作者
Arnautovic, Alisa [1 ]
Williams, Sonya [2 ]
Ash, Makenna [2 ]
Menon, Ambika [3 ]
Shauly, Orr [3 ]
Losken, Albert [3 ]
机构
[1] Emory Univ, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Atlanta, GA USA
[2] Emory Univ, Sch Med, Atlanta, GA USA
[3] Emory Univ, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Div Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Atlanta, GA USA
关键词
ABSORBABLE MESH; SYNTHETIC MESH; FOLLOW-UP; ADM; PLACEMENT; SURGERY; MATRIX; COST;
D O I
10.1093/asj/sjaf002
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Biosynthetic mesh has become increasingly popular for immediate breast cancer implant-based reconstruction as an alternative to acellular dermal matrix for soft tissue support.Objectives The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the various biosynthetic mesh options available as well as complications and outcomes.Methods PubMed (US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD), MEDLINE (US National Library of Medicine), and Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) were systematically reviewed for studies investigating TIGR (Novus Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden), Vicryl (Ethicon, Inc., Raritan, NJ), PDO (Poly-Med, Anderson, SC), TiLOOP (PFM Medical, Cologne, Germany), Durasorb (Integra LifeSciences, Princeton, NJ), and Galaflex (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ) meshes, and their associated outcomes. The meta-analysis was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and was performed to determine overall complication rates in patients who underwent breast reconstruction in which a mesh was used. Data were combined by a pooling of proportional outcomes as is inherent to meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of included studies was assessed in terms of Q and I2 statistics.Results A total of 24 studies investigating 6 different types of mesh in 2167 individual breasts undergoing implant reconstruction were included. Summary effect sizes were calculated for the complications. The pooled rate of seroma formation was 5.26% (Q = 23.81%, I2 = 37.01%) reported in 13 studies, hematoma formation was 2.5% (Q = 0.25%, I2 = 58.27%) reported in 9 studies, skin necrosis was 5.5% (Q = 2.86%, I2 = 423.78%) reported in 10 studies, infection rate was 4.8% (Q = 6.02%, I2 = 149.34%) in 21 studies, and implant loss was 3.85% (Q = 6.55%, I2 = 129.07%) reported in 10 studies.Conclusions Overall, although differences in mesh characteristics exist, the reported rate of complications is low. Biosynthetic mesh options should be taken into consideration in breast reconstruction given their demonstrated safety, significant cost advantage, and potential decrease in short-term complications in comparison to acellular dermal matrix.
引用
收藏
页码:365 / 372
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Indications and Controversies for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Utilizing Biological Meshes
    Zenn, Michael R.
    CLINICS IN PLASTIC SURGERY, 2018, 45 (01) : 55 - +
  • [32] The Impact of Complication Timing on the Outcomes of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction
    Alnaseri, Tahera
    Prabhu, Shamit
    Anderson, Lexy
    Kwan, Lorna
    Demirjian, Maral
    Kwok, Alvin
    Reid, Christopher
    Hollenbeck, Scott
    Delong, Michael R.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN, 2024, 12 (11)
  • [33] How to optimize aesthetic outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction
    Nava, Maurizio Bruno
    Catanuto, Giuseppe
    Rocco, Nicola
    ARCHIVES OF PLASTIC SURGERY-APS, 2018, 45 (01): : 4 - 13
  • [34] The Impact of Radiotherapy on Patient-reported Outcomes of Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction With and Without Mesh
    Sewart, Emma
    Turner, Nicholas L.
    Conroy, Elizabeth J.
    Cutress, Ramsey I.
    Skillman, Joanna
    Whisker, Lisa
    Thrush, Steven
    Barnes, Nicola
    Holcombe, Chris
    Potter, Shelley
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2022, 275 (05) : 992 - 1001
  • [35] The Usage of Mesh and Relevant Prognosis in Implant Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Meta-analysis
    Hu, Yang
    Diao, Wuliang
    Wen, Shiyi
    Kpegah, Julius K. S. K.
    Xiao, Zhenyang
    Zhou, Xuan
    Zhou, Jianda
    Li, Ping
    AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2024, 48 (17) : 3386 - 3399
  • [36] Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh
    Sewart, E.
    Turner, N. L.
    Conroy, E. J.
    Cutress, R., I
    Skillman, J.
    Whisker, L.
    Thrush, S.
    Barnes, N.
    Holcombe, C.
    Potter, S.
    BJS OPEN, 2021, 5 (01):
  • [37] Implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: failure rate when radiating the tissue expander or the permanent implant-a meta-analysis
    Fuertes, Victor
    Frances, Monica
    Casarrubios, Jose M.
    Fernandez-Palacios, Javier
    Maria Gonzalez, Jesus
    Francisco Loro-Ferrer, Juan
    GLAND SURGERY, 2020, 9 (02) : 209 - 218
  • [38] Implant-based breast reconstruction with allograft
    Zienowicz, Richard J.
    Karacaoglu, Ercan
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2007, 120 (02) : 373 - 381
  • [39] Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction using the TIGR (R) Matrix mesh
    Schrenk, Peter
    BREAST CANCER MANAGEMENT, 2016, 5 (02) : 53 - 59
  • [40] Is there an ideal timing for autologous fat grafting in implant-based breast reconstruction? Commentary on a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Maheta, Bhagvat
    Yesantharao, Pooja S.
    Thawanyarat, Kometh
    Akhter, Maheen F.
    Rowley, Mallory
    Nazerali, Rahim S.
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2024, 90 : 171 - 172