Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
World Journal of Surgical Oncology
Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Review

Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review

Authors: Hugh Logan Ellis, Oluwatosin Asaolu, Vivien Nebo, Abdul Kasem

Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Mesh use in surgical breast reconstruction is becoming increasingly common; however, there is still no consensus on whether synthetic matrices or biological matrices produce the best outcomes. This review analyses these outcomes, namely the differences in aesthetic outcomes, cost, and the rates of the most commonly reported complications.
The results indicate that breast reconstruction with a synthetic matrix produces comparable aesthetic outcomes to a biological matrix, with lower costs and complication rates. The individual results for complication rates show that biological matrixes are associated with lower infection rates and slightly lower capsular contracture, but higher haematoma rates, and slightly higher rates of skin necrosis and explantation—although many had post-op radiotherapy.
The majority of the studies evaluated used biological matrices, and there are no randomised controlled trials directly comparing the two types of meshes; definite conclusions cannot be drawn from the available evidence. The authors suggest that a randomised controlled trial comparing these outcomes in synthetic and biological matrix use is needed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit. A national audit of provision and outcomes of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery for women in England. Report no. Fourth Annual Report. Leeds: Health and Social Care Information Centre. 2011.
2.
3.
4.
McCarthy CM, Pusic AL, Disa JJ, et al. Unilateral postoperative chest wall radiotherapy in bilateral tissue expander/implant reconstruction patients: a prospective outcomes analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:1642–7.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Drucker-Zertuche M, Robles-Vidal C. A 7 year experience with immediate breast reconstruction after skin sparing mastectomy for cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:140–6.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
8.
Hartzell TL, Taghinia AH, Chang J, et al. The use of human acellular dermal matrix for the correction of secondary deformities after breast augmentation: results and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1711–20.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Becker S, Saint-Cyr M, Wong C, et al. AlloDerm versus DermaMatrix in immediate expander-based breast reconstruction: a preliminary comparison of complication profiles and material compliance. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1–6. discussion 107–8.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Tessler O, Reish RG, Maman DY, et al. Beyond biologics: absorbable mesh as a low-cost, low-complication sling for implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:90e–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Forsberg CG, Kelly DA, Wood BC, et al. Aesthetic outcomes of acellular dermal matrix in tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72(6):S116–20.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Israeli R. Complications of acellular dermal matrices in breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:159S–72.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Vardanian AJ, Clayton JL, Roostaeian J, et al. Comparison of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:403e–10.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Gamboa-Bobadilla GM. Implant breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;56:22–5.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, et al. Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32:418–25.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Breuing KH, Warren SM. Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;55:232–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Salzberg CA. Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann Plast Surg. 2006;57:1–5.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zienowicz RJ, Karacaoglu E. Implant-based breast reconstruction with allograft. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:373–81.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Bindingnavele V, Gaon M, Ota KS, et al. Use of acellular cadaveric dermis and tissue expansion in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60:1214–8.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Kim T, Cho H. The suitability of absorbable mesh insertion for oncoplastic breast surgery in patients with breast cancer scheduled to be irradiated. J Breast Cancer. 2013;16:84–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Rietjens M, De Lorenzi F, Venturino M, et al. The suspension technique to avoid the use of tissue expanders in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54:467–70.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Sbitany H, Langstein HN. Acellular dermal matrix in primary breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31:30S–7.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Johnson RK, Wright CK, Gandhi A, et al. Cost minimisation analysis of using acellular dermal matrix (Strattice) for breast reconstruction compared with standard techniques. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:242–7.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Dieterich M, Paepke S, Zwiefel K, 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–19.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Loustau HD, Mayer HF, Sarrabayrouse M. Immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction: the ensured subpectoral pocket (ESP). J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60:1233–8.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Dieterich M, Reimer T, Dieterich H, et al. A short-term follow-up of implant based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLoop((R)) Bra). Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:1225–30.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Moyer HR, Pinell-White X, Losken A. The effect of radiation on acellular dermal matrix and capsule formation in breast reconstruction: clinical outcomes and histologic analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:214–21.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Moyer KE, Potochny JD. Technique for seroma drainage in implant-based breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65:1614–7.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Jansen LA, Macadam SA. The use of AlloDerm in postmastectomy alloplastic breast reconstruction: part I. A systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:2232–44.CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Rulli A, Caracappa D, Castellani E, et al. Optimizing therapeutic timing in patients undergoing mastectomy through use of the Tiloop(R) synthetic mesh: single-step surgery. In Vivo. 2013;27:383–6.PubMed
32.
Lanier ST, Wang ED, Chen JJ, 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.PubMed
33.
McCarthy CM, Mehrara BJ, Riedel E, et al. Predicting complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction: an outcomes analysis based on preoperative clinical risk. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:1886–92.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Endress R, Choi MS, Lee GK. Use of fetal bovine acellular dermal xenograft with tissue expansion for staged breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:338–41.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Topol BM, Dalton EF, Ponn T, et al. 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.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Weichman KE, Wilson SC, Saadeh PB, 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.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Ibrahim AM, Shuster M, Koolen PG, et al. Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database in 19,100 patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction: complication rates with acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1057–66.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Kim JY, Davila AA, Persing S, et al. A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:28–41.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Koch RM, et al. An 8-year experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm). Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:514–24.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Peled AW, Foster RD, Garwood ER, et al. The effects of acellular dermal matrix in expander-implant breast reconstruction after total skin-sparing mastectomy: results of a prospective practice improvement study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:901e–8.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Clemens MW, Kronowitz SJ. Acellular dermal matrix in irradiated tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction: evidence-based review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:27S–34.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Adetayo OA, Salcedo SE, Bahjri K, et al. A meta-analysis of outcomes using acellular dermal matrix in breast and abdominal wall reconstructions: event rates and risk factors predictive of complications. Ann Plast Surg. 2011 Dec 9. [Epub ahead of print].
43.
Spear SL, Sinkin JC, Al-Attar A. Porcine acellular dermal matrix (strattice) in primary and revision cosmetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:1140–8.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Salzberg CA, Dunavant C, Nocera N. Immediate breast reconstruction using porcine acellular dermal matrix (Strattice): long-term outcomes and complications. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66:323–8.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Ganske I, Verma K, Rosen H, et al. Minimizing complications with the use of acellular dermal matrix for immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;71:464–70.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Sbitany H, Sandeen SN, Amalfi AN, et al. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction versus complete submuscular coverage: a head-to-head comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1735–40.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Antony AK, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, et al. Acellular human dermis implantation in 153 immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstructions: determining the incidence and significant predictors of complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1606–14.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Newman MI, Swartz KA, Samson MC, et al. The true incidence of near-term postoperative complications in prosthetic breast reconstruction utilizing human acellular dermal matrices: a meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011;35:100–6.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Hanna KR, DeGeorge Jr BR, Mericli AF, et al. Comparison study of two types of expander-based breast reconstruction: acellular dermal matrix-assisted versus total submuscular placement. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:10–5.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Collis GN, TerKonda SP, Waldorf JC, et al. Acellular dermal matrix slings in tissue expander breast reconstruction: are there substantial benefits? Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:425–8.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Cassileth L, Kohanzadeh S, Amersi F. One-stage immediate breast reconstruction with implants: a new option for immediate reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69:134–8.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:346–56.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Kobraei EM, Nimtz J, Wong L, et al. Risk factors for adverse outcome following skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate prosthetic reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:234e–41.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Colwell AS, Damjanovic B, Zahedi B, et al. Retrospective review of 331 consecutive immediate single-stage implant reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix: indications, complications, trends, and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:1170–8.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Sbitany H, Serletti JM. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:1162–9.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Hoppe IC, Yueh JH, Wei CH, et al. Complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction utilizing acellular dermal matrix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eplasty. 2011;11:e40.PubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Seth AK, Hirsch EM, Fine NA, et al. Utility of acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction in the setting of radiation: a comparative analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:750–8.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Brooke S, Mesa J, Uluer M, et al. Complications in tissue expander breast reconstruction: a comparison of AlloDerm, DermaMatrix, and FlexHD acellular inferior pole dermal slings. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69:347–9.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Spear SL, Seruya M, Rao SS, et al. Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction using AlloDerm including outcomes of different timings of radiotherapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:1–9.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Selber JC, Clemens MW, Oates S, et al. Autoderm: an alternative bioprosthetic for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:985–7.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Losken A. Early results using sterilized acellular human dermis (neoform) in post-mastectomy tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Mar 23. [Epub ahead of print].
62.
Breuing KH, Colwell AS. Immediate breast tissue expander-implant reconstruction with inferolateral AlloDerm hammock and postoperative radiation: a preliminary report. Eplasty. 2009;9:e16.PubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Nyame TT, Lemon KP, Kolter R, et al. High-throughput assay for bacterial adhesion on acellular dermal matrices and synthetic surgical materials. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:1061–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
64.
Avashia YJ, Mohan R, Berhane C, et al. Postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:453–61.CrossRefPubMed
65.
66.
Gorgu M, Aslan G, Tuncel A, et al. Late and long-standing capsular hematoma after aesthetic breast augmentation with a saline-filled silicone prosthesis: a case report. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1999;23:443–4.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Hsiao HT, Tung KY, Lin CS. Late hematoma after aesthetic breast augmentation with saline-filled, textured silicone prosthesis. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2002;26:368–71.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Veiga DF, Filho JV, Schnaider CS, et al. Late hematoma after aesthetic breast augmentation with textured silicone prosthesis: a case report. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2005;29:431–3. discussion 434.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Breuing KH, Colwell AS. Inferolateral AlloDerm hammock for implant coverage in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59:250–5.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Spear SL, Seruya M, Clemens MW, et al. Acellular dermal matrix for the treatment and prevention of implant-associated breast deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1047–58.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Araco A, Caruso R, Araco F, et al. Capsular contractures: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1808–19.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Bengtson B. Discussion: use of dermal matrix to prevent capsular contracture in aesthetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:137S–41.CrossRefPubMed
73.
Schreml S, Heine N, Eisenmann-Klein M, et al. Bacterial colonization is of major relevance for high-grade capsular contracture after augmentation mammaplasty. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59:126–30.CrossRefPubMed
74.
Spear SL, Baker Jr JL. Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;96:1119–23. discussion 1124.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Namnoum JD. Expander/implant reconstruction with AlloDerm: recent experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:387–94.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Hester Jr TR, Ghazi BH, Moyer HR, et al. Use of dermal matrix to prevent capsular contracture in aesthetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:126S–36.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Basu CB, Leong M, Hicks MJ. Acellular cadaveric dermis decreases the inflammatory response in capsule formation in reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1842–7.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Koltz PF, Frey JD, Langstein HN. The use of human acellular dermal matrix in the first stage of implant-based breast reconstruction simplifies the exchange procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:691e–2.CrossRefPubMed
79.
Komorowska-Timek E, Oberg KC, Timek TA, et al. The effect of AlloDerm envelopes on periprosthetic capsule formation with and without radiation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:807–16.CrossRefPubMed
80.
Dieterich M, Dieterich H, Timme S, et al. Using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP((R)) Bra) for implant-based breast reconstruction: case report and histological analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:273–6.CrossRefPubMed
81.
Crosby MA, Dong W, Feng L, et al. Effect of intraoperative saline fill volume on perioperative outcomes in tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1065–72.CrossRefPubMed
82.
Pestana IA, Campbell DC, Bharti G, et al. Factors affecting complications in radiated breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:542–5.CrossRefPubMed
83.
Seth AK, Persing S, Connor CM, et al. A comparative analysis of cryopreserved versus prehydrated human acellular dermal matrices in tissue expander breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:632–5.CrossRefPubMed
84.
Glasberg SB, Light D. AlloDerm and Strattice in breast reconstruction: a comparison and techniques for optimizing outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:1223–33.CrossRefPubMed
85.
Venturi ML, Mesbahi AN, Boehmler 4th JH, et al. Evaluating sterile human acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander-based breast reconstruction: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:9e–18.CrossRefPubMed
86.
Johnson JK, Haider F, Ellis K, et al. The prevalence of domestic violence in pregnant women. BJOG. 2003;110:272–5.CrossRefPubMed
87.
Kasem A, Choy C, Mokbel K. Skin-sparing mastectomy and breast reconstruction: an update for clinical practice. J Cancer Ther. 2014;5:264–80.CrossRef
88.
Reish RG, Damjanovic B, Austen Jr WG, et al. Infection following implant-based reconstruction in 1952 consecutive breast reconstructions: salvage rates and predictors of success. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:1223–30.CrossRefPubMed
89.
Potter S, Chambers A, Govindajulu S, et al. Early complications and implant loss in implant-based breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix (Protexa(R)): a comparative study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(1):113–9.CrossRefPubMed
90.
Parks JW, Hammond SE, Walsh WA, et al. Human acellular dermis versus no acellular dermis in tissue expansion breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:739–46.CrossRefPubMed
91.
Ibrahim AM, Ayeni OA, Hughes KB, et al. Acellular dermal matrices in breast surgery: a comprehensive review. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:732–8.CrossRefPubMed
92.
Wong AK, Schonmeyr B, Singh P, et al. Histologic analysis of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in acellular human dermis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:1144–52.CrossRefPubMed
93.
94.
Lallement M, Missana MC, Bourgeon Y, et al. Closure of the abdominal wall after removal of a mucocutaneous flap from the transverse rectus abdominis for breast reconstruction. Apropos of 48 cases. Review of the literature. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 1994;39:733–41.PubMed
95.
Pinell-White XA, Kapadia SM, Losken A. The management of abdominal contour defects following TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34:264–71.CrossRefPubMed
96.
Svaerdborg M, Damsgaard TE. Donor-site morbidity after pedicled TRAM breast reconstruction: a comparison of two different types of mesh. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;71:476–80.CrossRefPubMed
97.
Metadata
Title
Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review
Authors
Hugh Logan Ellis
Oluwatosin Asaolu
Vivien Nebo
Abdul Kasem
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7819
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-0874-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

World Journal of Surgical Oncology 1/2016 Go to the issue

Case report

Porta hepatic schwannoma: case report and a 30-year review of the literature yielding 15 cases

Research

Preoperative pre-albumin predicts prognosis of patients after gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction

Research

Downregulation of selenium-binding protein 1 is associated with poor prognosis in lung squamous cell carcinoma

Case report

Transverse carcinoma after Miles operation: a case in which preoperative evaluation was assisted by computed tomographic colonography

Case report

FDG-PET in the evaluation of response to nivolumab in recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer

Case report

Secondary metastasis in the lymph node of the bowel invaded by colon cancer: a report of three cases