Nelson Rodriguez-Unda1, Stephanie Leiva1, Hsu-Tang Cheng1, Stella M Seal2, Carisa M Cooney1, Gedge D Rosson3. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 601 North Caroline Street, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. William H. Welch Medical Library, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Department of Plastic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 601 North Caroline Street, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: gedge@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mastectomy and breast reconstruction are essential parts of the treatment of breast cancer. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used for the reconstruction of the lower pole due to many advantages; however, its cost is seen as a major drawback in this era of concern for the allocation of health-care funds. Recently, polyglactin 910 (Vicryl; Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) mesh has been published as an alternative. We assessed the published literature, in particular investigating for studies that compare Vicryl mesh with ADM. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Searched databases included Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials, and SCOPUS. Search criteria were as follows: (1) reporting of clinical data using Vicryl mesh in breast reconstruction, (2) reporting of original data, and (3) outcome of interest reported. RESULTS: We retrieved 290 de-duplicated articles. After title and abstract screening, we dismissed 258 articles, and thus full text was reviewed for 32 articles; only three retrospective articles met inclusion criteria. The total population included 112 patients and 156 breasts. The reported incidence of complications was as follows: infection 2.6% (confidence interval (CI): 0.7-6.6%), reconstruction failure 3.2% (CI: 1.0-7%), and seroma 1.3% (CI: 0.2-4.6%). A seven- to 12-fold cost difference was reported. Follow-up length ranged from 1.2 to 3.6 years. No studies directly compared Vicryl mesh with ADM. CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence is limited, polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) mesh for immediate breast reconstruction appears to be a potentially safe, effective, and less expensive alternative to ADM. Prospective studies are needed to further compare mesh with ADM.
BACKGROUND: Mastectomy and breast reconstruction are essential parts of the treatment of breast cancer. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used for the reconstruction of the lower pole due to many advantages; however, its cost is seen as a major drawback in this era of concern for the allocation of health-care funds. Recently, polyglactin 910 (Vicryl; Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) mesh has been published as an alternative. We assessed the published literature, in particular investigating for studies that compare Vicryl mesh with ADM. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Searched databases included Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials, and SCOPUS. Search criteria were as follows: (1) reporting of clinical data using Vicryl mesh in breast reconstruction, (2) reporting of original data, and (3) outcome of interest reported. RESULTS: We retrieved 290 de-duplicated articles. After title and abstract screening, we dismissed 258 articles, and thus full text was reviewed for 32 articles; only three retrospective articles met inclusion criteria. The total population included 112 patients and 156 breasts. The reported incidence of complications was as follows: infection 2.6% (confidence interval (CI): 0.7-6.6%), reconstruction failure 3.2% (CI: 1.0-7%), and seroma 1.3% (CI: 0.2-4.6%). A seven- to 12-fold cost difference was reported. Follow-up length ranged from 1.2 to 3.6 years. No studies directly compared Vicryl mesh with ADM. CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence is limited, polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) mesh for immediate breast reconstruction appears to be a potentially safe, effective, and less expensive alternative to ADM. Prospective studies are needed to further compare mesh with ADM.
Authors: Paula R Gravina; Rowland W Pettit; Matthew J Davis; Sebastian J Winocour; Jesse C Selber Journal: Semin Plast Surg Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 2.314
Authors: Nikhil Sobti; Neel Vishwanath; Victor A King; Vinay Rao; Ben Rhee; Carole S L Spake; Mimi R Borrelli; Ronald A Akiki; Karl H Breuing Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-09-28
Authors: Heather R Faulkner; Lauren Shikowitz-Behr; Matthew McLeod; Eric Wright; John Hulsen; William G Austen Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 5.169