Cargando…
Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review
Mesh use in surgical breast reconstruction is becoming increasingly common; however, there is still no consensus on whether synthetic matrices or biological matrices produce the best outcomes. This review analyses these outcomes, namely the differences in aesthetic outcomes, cost, and the rates of t...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4839154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27102580 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-0874-9 |
_version_ | 1782428103797112832 |
---|---|
author | Logan Ellis, Hugh Asaolu, Oluwatosin Nebo, Vivien Kasem, Abdul |
author_facet | Logan Ellis, Hugh Asaolu, Oluwatosin Nebo, Vivien Kasem, Abdul |
author_sort | Logan Ellis, Hugh |
collection | PubMed |
description | Mesh use in surgical breast reconstruction is becoming increasingly common; however, there is still no consensus on whether synthetic matrices or biological matrices produce the best outcomes. This review analyses these outcomes, namely the differences in aesthetic outcomes, cost, and the rates of the most commonly reported complications. The results indicate that breast reconstruction with a synthetic matrix produces comparable aesthetic outcomes to a biological matrix, with lower costs and complication rates. The individual results for complication rates show that biological matrixes are associated with lower infection rates and slightly lower capsular contracture, but higher haematoma rates, and slightly higher rates of skin necrosis and explantation—although many had post-op radiotherapy. The majority of the studies evaluated used biological matrices, and there are no randomised controlled trials directly comparing the two types of meshes; definite conclusions cannot be drawn from the available evidence. The authors suggest that a randomised controlled trial comparing these outcomes in synthetic and biological matrix use is needed. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12957-016-0874-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4839154 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48391542016-04-22 Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review Logan Ellis, Hugh Asaolu, Oluwatosin Nebo, Vivien Kasem, Abdul World J Surg Oncol Review Mesh use in surgical breast reconstruction is becoming increasingly common; however, there is still no consensus on whether synthetic matrices or biological matrices produce the best outcomes. This review analyses these outcomes, namely the differences in aesthetic outcomes, cost, and the rates of the most commonly reported complications. The results indicate that breast reconstruction with a synthetic matrix produces comparable aesthetic outcomes to a biological matrix, with lower costs and complication rates. The individual results for complication rates show that biological matrixes are associated with lower infection rates and slightly lower capsular contracture, but higher haematoma rates, and slightly higher rates of skin necrosis and explantation—although many had post-op radiotherapy. The majority of the studies evaluated used biological matrices, and there are no randomised controlled trials directly comparing the two types of meshes; definite conclusions cannot be drawn from the available evidence. The authors suggest that a randomised controlled trial comparing these outcomes in synthetic and biological matrix use is needed. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12957-016-0874-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-04-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4839154/ /pubmed/27102580 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-0874-9 Text en © Logan Ellis et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Review Logan Ellis, Hugh Asaolu, Oluwatosin Nebo, Vivien Kasem, Abdul Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review |
title | Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review |
title_full | Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review |
title_fullStr | Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review |
title_full_unstemmed | Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review |
title_short | Biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review |
title_sort | biological and synthetic mesh use in breast reconstructive surgery: a literature review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4839154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27102580 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-0874-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT loganellishugh biologicalandsyntheticmeshuseinbreastreconstructivesurgeryaliteraturereview AT asaoluoluwatosin biologicalandsyntheticmeshuseinbreastreconstructivesurgeryaliteraturereview AT nebovivien biologicalandsyntheticmeshuseinbreastreconstructivesurgeryaliteraturereview AT kasemabdul biologicalandsyntheticmeshuseinbreastreconstructivesurgeryaliteraturereview |