Early Experience with Mesh Suture for DIEP Flap Abdominal Site Closures.

Background: The gold standard of microsurgical breast reconstruction is the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap. As techniques have evolved, DIEP flaps have significantly reduced the morbidity previously caused by transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM) and muscle-sparing TRAM flaps. However, abdominal wall complications continue to persist after DIEP flap surgery, with bulge rates reported as high as 33%. Methods: The first 25 patients undergoing DIEP flap surgery with the use of Duramesh (MSI, Chicago, Ill.) by the senior author were identified. A retrospective chart review of patient and surgical details was performed. Charts were reviewed for outcomes, including surgical site infections, surgical site events, incisional hernia formation, and/or bulge. Standard descriptive summary statistics were used for patient characteristics, surgical details, and primary and secondary outcomes. Results: Twenty-five patients were reviewed. Average follow-up duration was 216 ±â€…39 days. One patient (4%) developed a surgical site infection, and four patients (16%) developed a surgical site event. One patient developed a bulge, but no patients developed an incisional hernia. Conclusions: Duramesh mesh suture provides a promising opportunity for DIEP surgeons to minimize both abdominal wall morbidity and mesh-related complications. Mesh suture can be used in a similar fashion as other sutures to perform primary closure of the anterior rectus sheath while also providing force-distribution benefits typically unique to planar mesh. This pilot study suggests that Duramesh is a safe, simple alternative to existing techniques in DIEP flap surgery and can be considered by microsurgeons to reduce fascial dehiscence, bulge, and/or hernia formation.

A Comparison of Capsular Contracture Rates after Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Using Biologic versus Synthetic Mesh.

Background: Capsular contracture is one of the most common reasons for reoperation after implant-based breast reconstruction. Prior investigations have suggested that biologic mesh may mitigate capsular contracture development. This study sought to compare capsular contracture rates between patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with biologic versus synthetic mesh. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of the senior author's primary implant-based breast reconstructions between 2008 and 2023. Demographics and the incidence of clinically significant Baker grade III or IV capsular contractures were compared between biologic and synthetic mesh cohorts. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were then performed to assess potential risk factors for the development of capsular contracture. Results: A total of 772 breasts underwent immediate reconstruction, of which 689 (89.2%) used biologic and 83 (10.8%) used synthetic mesh. Capsular contracture occurred in 15 (2.2%) biologic mesh breasts and three (3.6%) synthetic mesh breasts with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.430). Logistic regression showed that radiation was a borderline significant risk factor for developing capsular contracture, but the use of either biologic or synthetic mesh was not significant (P = 0.351). Conclusions: Biologic and synthetic meshes function as effective tools in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Our long-term data suggest that the risk of capsular contracture with these devices is low, and there does not seem to be a difference between the two materials. However, there does need to be a shift in how capsular contracture is assessed and discussed in the reconstruction population.

Revision Breast Reconstruction With Biologic or Synthetic Mesh: An Analysis of Postoperative Capsular Contracture Rates.

Background: Both biologic and synthetic mesh have been found to reduce the risk of capsular contracture, yet there is limited data assessing the use of these scaffold materials in revision breast reconstruction. Objectives: This investigation sought to assess the ability of either biologic or synthetic mesh to prevent capsular contracture in the revision breast reconstruction population. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of implant-based revision reconstructions performed by the senior author between 2008 and 2023. Patient demographics and outcomes were assessed, including the incidence of Baker Grade III or IV capsular contractures. Results were compared between biologic and synthetic mesh groups using univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: Ninety-five breasts underwent revision reconstruction with 90 (94.7%) for correction of malposition, 4 (4.2%) for size change, and 1 (1.1%) for revision after additional oncologic breast surgery. Of these breasts, 26 (27.4%) used biologic mesh and 69 (72.6%) used synthetic mesh. Capsular contracture occurred in 1 (3.8%) biologic mesh breast and 4 (5.8%) synthetic mesh breasts. There was no significant difference in the incidence of capsular contracture between the 2 groups (P = 1.000). None of the recorded demographics were risk factors for capsular contracture, including the use of biologic or synthetic mesh (P = .801). Conclusions: Both biologic and synthetic mesh are successful at preventing capsular contracture in patients undergoing implant-based revision reconstruction. This adds to the growing evidence that both scaffold materials can be used in complex revision breast reconstruction to aid in preventing capsular contracture.