Background/Aim: Clinical data concerning synthetic meshes in comparison to acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in breast reconstruction are limited. Also, direct comparisons between titanium-coated polypropylene mesh and partially absorbable polypropylene mesh have not yet been reported. Materials and Methods: This analysis represents a retrospective, single-surgeon, multi-center study of 320 cases using either TiLoop Bra/TiMesh ® (n=192) or Seragyn ® (n=128) in breast reconstruction. Results were compared with ADM-based reconstructions (Epiflex ® and SurgiMend ® ). Results: Major complication rates (i.e. revision surgery) occurred in 3.9% (Seragyn ® ) and 8.3% (TiLoop Bra/TiMesh ® ) of all cases. Minor complications occurred in 18% (Seragyn ® ) and 8.9% (TiLoop Bra/TiMesh ® ). Subgroup analysis showed red breast syndrome to occur more often in the Seragyn group (3.9% Seragyn ® vs. 0.5% TiLoop Bra/TiMesh ® , p<0.05). Conclusion: TiLoop Bra/TiMesh ® and Seragyn ® do not differ significantly in complication rates. There was no difference in performance when compared to ADMs. Materials and MethodsThis work evaluated a multicenter, single surgeon experience over the course of 14 years with a total of 320 cases (Seragyn ® , n=128; TiLoop Bra/TiMesh ® , n=192) (Figure 1

No abstract

Background:The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) has become a widely used option in breast reconstruction. A great deal of literature is available, totaling over 2400 ADM reconstructions. Nonetheless, head-to-head comparisons between SurgiMend and Epiflex are not yet reported. In fact, this is the first clinical data report on the use of Epiflex. This work will, therefore, compare postoperative complication rates and costs for these ADMs.Methods:This analysis is a retrospective review of a single surgeon’s 6-year experience with both SurgiMend—an acellular bovine dermal collagen matrix for soft-tissue reconstruction and Epiflex—a decellularized human skin tissue from 2008 to 2013.Results:One hundred patients had a total of 127 implant-based reconstructions using SurgiMend (64 cases; 50.4%) or Epiflex (63 cases; 49.6%). Gross complication rates were 11.1% for SurgiMend and 40.6% for Epiflex including hematoma, postoperative skin irritation, infection, necrosis, and revision surgery. The most common complication was postoperative red breast syndrome. Severe complications requiring revision surgery were significantly increased in patients treated with Epiflex (12.5%) compared with SurgiMend (4.8%).Conclusions:This retrospective analysis favors the use of SurgiMend over Epiflex because of significantly lower gross complication rates. Severe complication rates are comparable with those reported in literature for both products. Although results promote the use of SurgiMend, the single surgeon retrospective nature of this work limits its clinical impact.

No abstract

No abstract