Christian Eichler1,2, Jeria Efremova3, Klaus Brunnert4, Christian M Kurbacher5,6, Oleg Gluz7,8, Julian Puppe6, Mathias Warm3,6. 1. Breast Center, Municipal Hospital Holweide, Cologne, Germany ceichler@gmail.com eichlerc@kliniken-koeln.de. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Municipal Hospital Holweide, Cologne, Germany. 3. Breast Center, Municipal Hospital Holweide, Cologne, Germany. 4. Department of Senology, Clinic for Senology, Osnabrueck, Germany. 5. Clinic Center Bonn-Friedensplatz, Bonn, Germany. 6. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 7. West German Study Group (WSG), Moenchengladbach, Germany. 8. Breast Center Niederrhein Moenchengladbach, Moenchengladbach, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: 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 3,200 ADM reconstructions. Head-to-head comparisons between SurgiMend® and Tutomesh® are not yet reported. These are the first comparative clinical data reported on the use of Tutomesh® in breast reconstruction. Postoperative complication rates and costs for these devices were evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a 2-year experience with both SurgiMend® - fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix and Tutomesh® - a bovine pericardium collagen membrane in breast reconstruction in 45 cases from 2014-2015. RESULTS: Forty-five patients received a total of 45 implant-based reconstructions using SurgiMend® (18 cases; 40%) or Tutomesh® (27 cases; 60%). Gross complication rates were 27.8% for SurgiMend® and 37.0% for Tutomesh® including hematoma, postoperative skin irritation, infection, red breast syndrome and revision surgery. The most common complication was postoperative red breast syndrome. Severe complications requiring revision surgery did not differ significantly in patients treated with SurgiMend® (0 cases, 0%) compared to Tutomesh® (1 case, 3.7%). CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis shows similar overall clinical complication rates for Tutomesh® and SurgiMend®. Severe complication rates are comparable to those reported in literature for both products. Although the retrospective nature of this work limits its clinical impact, it is possible to opt for the cheaper alternative (Tutomesh®). Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: 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 3,200 ADM reconstructions. Head-to-head comparisons between SurgiMend® and Tutomesh® are not yet reported. These are the first comparative clinical data reported on the use of Tutomesh® in breast reconstruction. Postoperative complication rates and costs for these devices were evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a 2-year experience with both SurgiMend® - fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix and Tutomesh® - a bovine pericardium collagen membrane in breast reconstruction in 45 cases from 2014-2015. RESULTS: Forty-five patients received a total of 45 implant-based reconstructions using SurgiMend® (18 cases; 40%) or Tutomesh® (27 cases; 60%). Gross complication rates were 27.8% for SurgiMend® and 37.0% for Tutomesh® including hematoma, postoperative skin irritation, infection, red breast syndrome and revision surgery. The most common complication was postoperative red breast syndrome. Severe complications requiring revision surgery did not differ significantly in patients treated with SurgiMend® (0 cases, 0%) compared to Tutomesh® (1 case, 3.7%). CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis shows similar overall clinical complication rates for Tutomesh® and SurgiMend®. Severe complication rates are comparable to those reported in literature for both products. Although the retrospective nature of this work limits its clinical impact, it is possible to opt for the cheaper alternative (Tutomesh®). Copyright
Authors: Corey R Deeken; Braden J Eliason; Matthew D Pichert; Sheila A Grant; Margaret M Frisella; Brent D Matthews Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Claudia R Albornoz; Peter B Bach; Babak J Mehrara; Joseph J Disa; Andrea L Pusic; Colleen M McCarthy; Peter G Cordeiro; Evan Matros Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Fabinshy Thangarajah; Timo Treeter; Barbara Krug; Martin Hellmich; Christian Eichler; Bettina Hanstein; Peter Mallmann; Wolfram Malter Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 2.860