The Use of Reinforced Ovine Mesh in Implant Breast Reconstruction: Equivalent Outcomes to Human Acellular Dermal Matrices and More Cost-effective
Keith Sweitzer,Raquel Arias-Camison,Carolyn Cafro,Howard Langstein
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0000000000004133
2024-11-13
Annals of Plastic Surgery
Abstract:While nearly 300,000 cases of invasive breast cancer and 50,000 of DCIS are diagnosed annually in the United States, many will receive mastectomy and desire some form of breast reconstruction. 1 Approximately 70% of these patients will choose implant-based reconstruction. 1,2 The use of acellular or extracellular matrices or meshes in implant-based breast reconstruction is widespread, with purported advantages of reduced capsular contracture, faster and less painful expansion, facilitation of prepectoral placement, and allowing direct to implant reconstruction. 3–5 However, the use of mesh in implant breast reconstruction increases the overall costs of the procedure and introduces the theoretical risks of another device, with potential increases in seroma, abscess, skin changes over the mesh, like "red breast," implant loss, and reconstructive failure. 3,6,7 Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a communication highlighting that ADM use in implant breast reconstruction is off-label and certain types of meshes were associated with higher failure rates. 8 Notwithstanding, surgeons have continued to use mesh in implant breast reconstruction, and the literature suggests that complication rates for prepectoral breast reconstruction without ADM appear to be comparable to with ADM, but with an increase in seroma seen with ADM usage from 3%–42%. 7,9,10 However , the majority of studies show that capsular contracture with ADM usage is significantly decreased. 11 Complication rates in prepectoral reconstruction with ADM, implant loss, and need for return to the operating room (RTOR) vary throughout studies in the literature, with overall complication rates, appear to range from 9%–34%, implant loss ranging from 3%–18%, and RTOR ranging from 6%–24% 3–6,12–14
surgery