Download PDF
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2013; 73(11): 1100-1106
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1350930
Review
GebFra Science
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Biological Matrices and Synthetic Meshes Used in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction – a Review of Products Available in Germany

Biologische Matrizes und synthetische Netze im Rahmen der implantatgestützten Brustrekonstruktion – Eine Übersicht verfügbarer Materialien in Deutschland
M. Dieterich
1   Universitätsfrauenklinik und Poliklinik, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
3   Working Group of the German Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology for Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery , in Gynecology (AWOgyn)
,
A. Faridi
2   Senology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany
3   Working Group of the German Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology for Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery , in Gynecology (AWOgyn)
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 02 July 2013
revised 20 August 2013

accepted 16 September 2013

Publication Date:
05 December 2013 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

While autologous breast reconstruction was considered the procedure of choice for immediate breast reconstruction, there has been a shift towards implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) in recent years. The proven safety of silicone breast implants and the development of biological matrices and synthetic meshes have contributed to the growing popularity of this approach. Although these different products are widely used, only limited clinical data are available with regard to breast surgery. The aim of this review was to give an overview of available biological matrices and synthetic meshes and discuss their use in clinical practice.

Zusammenfassung

War die autologe Brustrekonstruktion lange Zeit das bevorzugte Operationsverfahren im Rahmen der Sofortrekonstruktion, ist in den letzten Jahren eine Verschiebung hin zur implantatgestützten Brustrekonstruktion zu beobachten. Die nachgewiesene Sicherheit von Silikonimplantaten und die Entwicklung biologischer Matrizes und synthetischer Netze haben zu dieser Entwicklung beigetragen. Obwohl diese unterschiedlichen Produkte breite Anwendung finden, liegen nur wenige klinische Daten zur Brustrekonstruktion vor. Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, einen Überblick über die zur Verfügung stehenden biologischen Matrizes und synthetischen Netze zu geben und deren Anwendung kritisch zu diskutieren.

Key words

breast cancer - breast reconstruction - biological matrix - synthetic mesh - ADM

Schlüsselwörter

Mammakarzinom - Brustrekonstruktion - biologische Matrix - synthetische Netze - ADM
 

  • References

  • 1 Gerber B, Krause A, Dieterich M et al. The oncological safety of skin sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction: an extended follow-up study. Ann Surg 2009; 249: 461-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: 15-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Beier J, Arkudas A, Horch R. [Is there a paradigm shift in reconstructive breast surgery?]. Gibt es einen Paradigmenwechsel in der rekonstruktiven Brustchirurgie?. GMS Ger Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 3: Doc01
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Spear SL, Pelletiere CV. Immediate breast reconstruction in two stages using textured, integrated-valve tissue expanders and breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113: 2098-2103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E et al. Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008; 32: 418-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Breuing KH, Warren SM. Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings. Ann Plast Surg 2005; 55: 232-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Scheidbach H, Tannapfel A, Schmidt U et al. Influence of titanium coating on the biocompatibility of a heavyweight polypropylene mesh. An animal experimental model. Eur Surg Res 2004; 36: 313-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dieterich M, Dieterich H, Timme S et al. Using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP® Bra) for implant-based breast reconstruction: case report and histological analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 286: 273-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dieterich M, Gerber B, Reimer T et al. Biokompatibilität synthetischer und biologischer Netze im Rahmen der implantatgestützen Brustrekonstruktion. Posterbeitrag, Senologiekongress München 2013.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dieterich M, Reimer T, Dieterich H et al. A short-term follow-up of implant based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLoop((R)) Bra). Eur J Surg Oncol 2012; 38: 1225-1230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dieterich M, Paepke S, Zwiefel K et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP Bra): a multicenter study of 231 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 8e-19e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Paepke SKE, Dittmer S, Ohlinger R et al. Einsatz des teilresorbierbaren Zweikomponenten-Polypropylen-Vicryl-Meshs (SERAGYN® BR) als Gewebeinterponat in der plastisch-rekonstruktiven Mammachirurgie – Erste Erfahrungen. Abstract, Kongressbeitrag Senologiekongress 2012.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hjort H, Mathisen T, Alves A et al. Three-year results from a preclinical implantation study of a long-term resorbable surgical mesh with time-dependent mechanical characteristics. Hernia 2012; 16: 191-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Becker H, Lind 2nd JG. The use of synthetic mesh in reconstructive, revision, and cosmetic breast surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2013; 37: 914-921
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 KCIs LifeCell Granted CE Mark for its Strattice® Reconstructive Tissue Matrix. Online: http://www.kci-medical.de/DE-GER/strattice last access: 12.07.2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ibrahim AM, Ayeni OA, Hughes KB et al. Acellular dermal matrices in breast surgery: a comprehensive review. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 70: 732-738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Spear SL, Sinkin JC, Al-Attar A. Porcine acellular dermal matrix (strattice) in primary and revision cosmetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: 1140-1148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Salzberg CA, Dunavant C, Nocera N. Immediate breast reconstruction using porcine acellular dermal matrix (Strattice): long-term outcomes and complications. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66: 323-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Orenstein SB, Qiao Y, Kaur M et al. Human monocyte activation by biologic and biodegradable meshes in vitro. Surg Endosc 2009; 24: 805-811
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Losken A. Early results using sterilized acellular human dermis (Neoform) in post-mastectomy tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123: 1654-1658
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 DIZG Deutsches Institut für Zell- und Gewebeersatz Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft mbH Online: http://epiflex.de/files/epiflex-brustchirurgie.pdf last access: 21.03.2013
    PubMed
  • 22 Hwang K, Hwang JH, Park JH et al. Experimental study of autologous cartilage, acellular cadaveric dermis, lyophilized bovine pericardium, and irradiated bovine tendon: applicability to nasal tip plasty. J Craniofac Surg 2007; 18: 551-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Craft RO, May jr. JW. Staged nipple reconstruction with vascularized SurgiMend acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 148e-149e
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Butterfield JL. 440 Consecutive immediate, implant-based, single-surgeon breast reconstructions in 281 patients: a comparison of early outcomes and costs between SurgiMend fetal bovine and AlloDerm human cadaveric acellular dermal matrices. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: 940-951
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ohkuma R, Buretta KJ, Mohan R et al. Initial experience with the use of foetal/neonatal bovine acellular dermal collagen matrix (SurgiMend) for tissue-expander breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66: 1195-1201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Orenstein S, Qiao Y, Kaur M et al. In vitro activation of human peripheral blood mononuclear cells induced by human biologic meshes. J Surg Res 2010; 158: 10-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ngo MD, Aberman HM, Hawes ML et al. Evaluation of human acellular dermis versus porcine acellular dermis in an in vivo model for incisional hernia repair. Cell Tissue Bank 2011; 12: 135-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Liu DZ, Mathes DW, Neligan PC et al. Comparison of outcomes using AlloDerm versus FlexHD for implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2013; DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318268a87c.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Brooke S, Mesa J, Uluer M et al. Complications in tissue expander breast reconstruction: a comparison of AlloDerm, DermaMatrix, and FlexHD acellular inferior pole dermal slings. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 69: 347-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Becker S, Saint-Cyr M, Wong C et al. AlloDerm versus DermaMatrix in immediate expander-based breast reconstruction: a preliminary comparison of complication profiles and material compliance. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123: 1-6 discussion 107–108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Petersen A, Eftekhari AL, Damsgaard TE. Immediate breast reconstruction: a retrospective study with emphasis on complications and risk factors. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2012; 46: 344-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cordeiro PG, Snell L, Heerdt A et al. Immediate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction after salvage mastectomy for cancer recurrence following lumpectomy/irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 341-350
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Chun YS, Verma K, Rosen H et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125: 429-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Weichman KE, Wilson SC, Weinstein AL et al. The use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 1049-1058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Peled AW, Foster RD, Garwood ER et al. The effects of acellular dermal matrix in expander-implant breast reconstruction after total skin-sparing mastectomy: results of a prospective practice improvement study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 901e-908e
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Salzberg CA, Dunavant C, Nocera N. Immediate breast reconstruction using porcine acellular dermal matrix (Strattice): Long-term outcomes and complications. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012; 66: 323-328
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sbitany H, Serletti JM. Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128: 1162-1169
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kim JY, Davila AA, Persing S et al. A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 28-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Michelotti BF, Brooke S, Mesa J et al. Analysis of clinically significant seroma formation in breast reconstruction using acellular dermal grafts. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 71: 274-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Dieterich M, Gerber B. Patient selection and technical considerations in nipple-sparing and areola-sparing mastectomy. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2011; 3: 79-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 de Blacam C, Momoh AO, Colakoglu S et al. Cost analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 69: 516-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Krishnan NM, Chatterjee A, Van Vliet MM et al. A comparison of acellular dermal matrix to autologous dermal flaps in single-stage, implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: 953-961
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Danovic S, Phillips B, Verma R et al. A systemic review of infections in breast reconstruction: autologous flap versus implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (PS RC 2013 Abstract Supplement 5s) 3-192
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Nahabedian MY. AlloDerm performance in the setting of prosthetic breast surgery, infection, and irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: 1743-1753
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Komorowska-Timek E, Oberg KC, Timek TA et al. The effect of AlloDerm envelopes on periprosthetic capsule formation with and without radiation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123: 807-816
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kronowitz SJ. Current status of implant-based breast reconstruction in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130: 513e-523e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Nava MB, Cortinovis U, Ottolenghi J et al. Skin-reducing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118: 603-610 discussion 611–613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Dieterich M, Dieterich H, Nestle-Krämling C et al. Certification of breast surgeons in Germany – AWO-gyn curriculum in an international comparison. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2009; 69: 987-991
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Albornoz CR, Cordeiro PG, Hishon L et al. A nationwide analysis of the relationship between hospital volume and outcome for autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 192e-200e
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Endara M, Chen D, Verma K et al. Breast reconstruction following nipple sparing mastectomy; a systematic review of the literature with pooled analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a48b8a.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar