The Use of Absorbable Mesh in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A 7-Year Review.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is most frequently performed using implants or expanders. Adjunctive materials such as acellular dermal matrix and synthetic meshes are used to support the implant or expander. A paucity of large studies exist on the use of synthetic mesh for breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients over the past 7 years who had implant reconstruction with synthetic absorbable mesh at the Massachusetts General Hospital was performed. Data were collected on demographic and surgical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients (376 mastectomies) were treated with direct-to-implant subpectoral reconstruction with absorbable mesh from 2011 to 2017. The infection rate was 2.1 percent. The rate of capsular contracture was 4.8 percent. Patients who had radiation therapy either preoperatively or postoperatively had a higher rate of complications, including capsular contracture. Cost savings for using mesh instead of acellular dermal matrix surpassed $1.2 million. CONCLUSION: Synthetic absorbable mesh is a safe alternative to acellular dermal matrix in prosthetic breast reconstruction and provides stable results along with significant cost savings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

A comparison of outcomes and cost in VHWG grade II hernias between Rives-Stoppa synthetic mesh hernia repair versus underlay biologic mesh repair.

BACKGROUND: The current literature is void of evidence-based guidelines regarding optimal choice of mesh. We aim to perform a comparative outcome analysis of synthetic mesh and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in Ventral Hernia Working Grade (VHWG) grade II hernias with primary fascial closure. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing ventral hernia repair (VHR) by the senior author (S.J.K.) from 2007 to 2012 was performed. Patients undergoing VHR with primary fascial closure were risk stratified using the VHWG defined grading system. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients met the abovementioned inclusion criteria with 45 receiving synthetic mesh and 27 receiving ADM. The mean length of follow-up was 12.1 ± 9.1 months. Patients were, on average, 53.2 ± 11.6 years of age with a BMI of 33.9 ± 10.6 kg/m(2). The overall incidence of surgical site occurrence (SSO) in the cohort was 41.7 % and the incidence of hernia recurrence was 5.6 %. 30-day mortality was 1.2 %. Bivariate analysis demonstrated that obesity (P = 0.038) and number of comorbidities (P = 0.043) were associated with SSO. Bivariate analysis demonstrated that prior failed hernia, use of ADM, and operative time were associated with higher rates of hernia recurrence; however, adjusted multivariate regression found only prior failed hernia (OR = 4.1, P = 0.03) and biologic mesh (OR = 3.4, P = 0.046) to be independently associated with recurrent hernia. Comparison of mesh types revealed few differences in preoperative or operative characteristics between synthetic mesh and acellular dermal matrices (ADM). The rate of hernia recurrence was significantly higher with ADM (14.8 % vs. 0.0 %, P = 0.017). Patients receiving ADM repairs incurred significantly greater cost ($56,142.1 ± 54,775.5 vs. $30,599.8 ± 39,000.8, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest synthetic mesh is indicated in higher risk VHWG grade II repairs. In comparison to ADM, synthetic mesh was associated with significantly fewer hernia recurrences and lower cost utilization at 1-year. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/risk category, level III.

Dermal autografts as a substitute for acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in tissue expander breast reconstruction: a prospective comparative study.

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in tissue expander breast reconstruction has several advantages but increased complications have been reported. Dermal autografts may offer a safer and more cost-effective alternative. The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the outcomes of tissue expander breast reconstruction using dermal autografts with ADM-assisted reconstruction. Patients undergoing tissue expander breast reconstruction with either ADM or dermal autografts were enrolled. Autografts were harvested from the lower abdomen. At each follow-up visit, patients were surveyed on a seven-point scale for scar and overall satisfaction. Biopsies taken at the time of device exchange were evaluated histologically with CD34 staining to assess tissue integration and vessel ingrowth. Expansion parameters, complications, procedural costs, and operative times were compared. Forty-eight patients were enrolled (76 breasts). Twenty-seven patients received ADM, and twenty-one patients received dermal autograft. Wound healing complications were significantly higher in the ADM group (14.8% versus 4.8%, p-value = 0.03), as were major complications (18.5% versus 0%, p-value < 0.01). Histologic vessel counts in the autograft group averaged 21 vessels/mm(2), compared to 7 vessels/mm(2) in the ADM group (p-value < 0.01). There was no difference between the two groups in scar satisfaction or overall satisfaction. Patients receiving dermal autograft had a lower incidence of major complications and delayed wound healing than patients who received ADM. Despite harvest time, the overall cost of the ADM-assisted expander placement was higher. Dermal autograft-assisted breast reconstruction offers many of the benefits of ADM, but with a lower cost and improved safety profile.