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
  • [41] Comparing Patient Satisfaction after Implant-Based vs Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis Using the BREAST-Q
    Basta, Marten N.
    Jehle, Charles C.
    Avanessian, Bella
    Breuing, Karl H.
    Liu, Paul Y.
    Kwan, Daniel
    Sullivan, Rachel
    Zienowicz, Richard J.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2016, 223 (04) : S94 - S94
  • [42] Impact of Dermal Matrix Brand in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Outcomes
    Johnson, Ariel C.
    Colakoglu, Salih
    Siddikoglu, Duygu
    Li, Angel
    Kaoutzanis, Christodoulos
    Cohen, Justin B.
    Chong, Tae W.
    Mathes, David W.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2022, 150 (01) : 17 - 25
  • [43] Surgical Outcomes of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Using TiLoop Bra Mesh Combined With Pectoralis Major Disconnection
    Chen, Guanglei
    Zhang, Yixiao
    Xue, Jinqi
    Zhu, Xudong
    Liu, Chao
    Sun, Lisha
    Gu, Xi
    Zhang, Hao
    Liu, Caigang
    ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2019, 83 (04) : 396 - 400
  • [44] Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Using Oxychlorosene for Pocket Irrigation
    Dawson, Steven E.
    Bamba, Ravinder
    Tran, Phu C.
    Mailey, Brian
    Lin, Jenny
    Lester, Mary
    Sinha, Mithun
    Hassanein, Aladdin H.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2021, 148 (03) : 518E - 520E
  • [45] Understanding the Evidence and Improving Outcomes with Implant-Based Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction
    Campbell, Chris A.
    Losken, Albert
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2021, 148 (03) : 437E - 450E
  • [46] Post-mastectomy adjuvant radiotherapy for direct-to-implant and two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: A meta-analysis
    Du, Fengzhou
    Liu, Runzhu
    Zhang, Hailin
    Xiao, Yiding
    Long, Xiao
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2022, 75 (09): : 3030 - 3040
  • [47] Mesh-pocket supported prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Final results of a retrospective analysis
    Paepke, S.
    Kiechle, M.
    Ankel, C.
    Ohlinger, R.
    Thill, M.
    Kelling, K.
    Baumann, K.
    Pursche, T.
    Strittmatter, H. J.
    Bangemann, N.
    Blohmer, J. U.
    Weyrich, J.
    Steffek, A.
    Sawatzki, M.
    Fysh, T.
    Bensmann, E.
    Dedes, K.
    Rezai, M.
    Hilmer, K.
    Braeuer, M.
    Dupont, D.
    Ros, Huelbes A.
    Critchley, A.
    Luedders, D.
    Singh, V
    Kunjuraman, B.
    Mett, R.
    Hadad, S.
    Findt, S.
    Shtian, A.
    Aydogdu, M.
    Ollig, S.
    Faridi, A.
    GEBURTSHILFE UND FRAUENHEILKUNDE, 2020, 80 (06) : E51 - E51
  • [48] Mesh-Pocket supported prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Final results of a retrospective analysis
    Paepke, S.
    Kiechle, M.
    Ankel, C.
    Ohlinger, R.
    Thill, M.
    Kelling, K.
    Baumann, K.
    Pursche, T.
    Strittmatter, H. J.
    Faridi, A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2020, 138 : S27 - S28
  • [49] Comparative analysis of comorbidity indexes in implant-based breast reconstruction
    Green, Allen
    Francis, Shannon D.
    Akhter, Maheen F.
    Nazerali, Rahim S.
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2025, 100 : 120 - 128
  • [50] Bibliometric analysis of quality of life in implant-based breast reconstruction
    Daneshi, Kian
    Ruccia, Francesca
    Merh, Radhika
    Barlattani, Tommaso
    Alderhalli, Raed
    Clemens, Mark Warren
    Khajuria, Ankur
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2024, 14