Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction with the use of biological and synthetic meshes in one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction

• Published in: Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) Vol. 29; no. 3; pp. 450 - 457
• Main Authors: Gao, Peng, Wang, Xiangyu, Bai, Ping, Kong, Xiangyi, Wang, Zhongzhao, Fang, Yi, Wang, Jing
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Singapore Springer Nature Singapore 01.05.2022; Springer
• Subjects: Breast Implants - adverse effects; Breast Neoplasms - surgery; Cancer Research; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mammaplasty - adverse effects; Mastectomy - adverse effects; Medical research; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Medicine, Experimental; Oncology; Original Article; Patient Satisfaction; Retrospective Studies; Surgery; Surgical Mesh - adverse effects; Surgical Oncology; Biological meshes; One-stage implant-based breast reconstruction; Breast cancer; Breast-Q version 2.0; Synthetic meshes
• ISSN: 1340-6868; 1880-4233; 1880-4233
• DOI: 10.1007/s12282-021-01324-y

Background Biological and synthetic meshes were used to cover the damaged muscle and augment the subpectoral pocket in breast reconstruction. However, few studies have directly compared the effects of biological and synthetic meshes. This study analyzed postoperative complications and assessed the patient-reported outcomes with the use of BioDesign® Surgisis and TiLOOP Bra/TiMesh® in one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods Patients undergoing one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction were enrolled in this study. Post-mastectomy breast reconstructions were facilitated with either Surgisis mesh or TiLOOP mesh. Complications were examined and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes were evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire (ver 2.0). The multivariate linear regression models were used for data analysis. Results Overall, 79 of 116 patients (68%) received breast reconstruction with Surgisis mesh and 37 (32%) with TiLOOP mesh. There was no difference in complication rates between the two groups postoperatively. But patient-reported satisfaction was higher with the use of Surgisis mesh than with TiLOOP mesh ( P  = 0.05). Conclusions This study reported no difference between the Surgisis group and the TiLOOP group in either complication rates or most patient-reported outcomes postoperatively. Yet the assessment of patient-reported satisfaction showed preference toward Surgisis mesh, a finding with a potential implication for mesh selection.