Novel devices for implant-based breast reconstruction

Is the use of meshes to support the lower pole justified in terms of benefits? A review of the evidence

Lorna Jane Cook, Tibor Kovacs

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The use of novel devices such as acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) to support the lower pole in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) has been described as one of the most important advances in breast reconstructive surgery following mastectomy. However, the majority of outcomes studies focus primarily on providing evidence for the rates of short-term complications associated with their use, as opposed to their reported benefits. Given the high costs associated with using ADMs, together with an increasing number of alternative, cheaper synthetic products entering the market, it is important to clarify whether their use is actually justified and whether the alternative products offer equivalent or superior outcomes. The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive and updated review of the evidence for the benefits of using different products for lower pole support (LPS) in IBBR compared to reconstructions without. A secondary aim was to determine if there is any evidence to support the use of one product over another.

Original languageEnglish
Article number796
Journalecancermedicalscience
Volume12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 10 2018

Fingerprint

Acellular Dermis
Mammaplasty
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures
Equipment and Supplies
Mastectomy
Breast
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Acellular dermal matrices
  • Benefits review
  • Breast reconstruction
  • Complications
  • Implants

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

@article{bd3be3d7d52d4fa8bb98fcfe5aaa7e0f,
title = "Novel devices for implant-based breast reconstruction: Is the use of meshes to support the lower pole justified in terms of benefits? A review of the evidence",
abstract = "The use of novel devices such as acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) to support the lower pole in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) has been described as one of the most important advances in breast reconstructive surgery following mastectomy. However, the majority of outcomes studies focus primarily on providing evidence for the rates of short-term complications associated with their use, as opposed to their reported benefits. Given the high costs associated with using ADMs, together with an increasing number of alternative, cheaper synthetic products entering the market, it is important to clarify whether their use is actually justified and whether the alternative products offer equivalent or superior outcomes. The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive and updated review of the evidence for the benefits of using different products for lower pole support (LPS) in IBBR compared to reconstructions without. A secondary aim was to determine if there is any evidence to support the use of one product over another.",
keywords = "Acellular dermal matrices, Benefits review, Breast reconstruction, Complications, Implants",
author = "Cook, {Lorna Jane} and Tibor Kovacs",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "10",
doi = "10.3332/ecancer.2018.796",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
journal = "ecancermedicalscience",
issn = "1754-6605",
publisher = "Cancer Intellilgence",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Novel devices for implant-based breast reconstruction

T2 - Is the use of meshes to support the lower pole justified in terms of benefits? A review of the evidence

AU - Cook, Lorna Jane

AU - Kovacs, Tibor

PY - 2018/1/10

Y1 - 2018/1/10

N2 - The use of novel devices such as acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) to support the lower pole in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) has been described as one of the most important advances in breast reconstructive surgery following mastectomy. However, the majority of outcomes studies focus primarily on providing evidence for the rates of short-term complications associated with their use, as opposed to their reported benefits. Given the high costs associated with using ADMs, together with an increasing number of alternative, cheaper synthetic products entering the market, it is important to clarify whether their use is actually justified and whether the alternative products offer equivalent or superior outcomes. The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive and updated review of the evidence for the benefits of using different products for lower pole support (LPS) in IBBR compared to reconstructions without. A secondary aim was to determine if there is any evidence to support the use of one product over another.

AB - The use of novel devices such as acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) to support the lower pole in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) has been described as one of the most important advances in breast reconstructive surgery following mastectomy. However, the majority of outcomes studies focus primarily on providing evidence for the rates of short-term complications associated with their use, as opposed to their reported benefits. Given the high costs associated with using ADMs, together with an increasing number of alternative, cheaper synthetic products entering the market, it is important to clarify whether their use is actually justified and whether the alternative products offer equivalent or superior outcomes. The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive and updated review of the evidence for the benefits of using different products for lower pole support (LPS) in IBBR compared to reconstructions without. A secondary aim was to determine if there is any evidence to support the use of one product over another.

KW - Acellular dermal matrices

KW - Benefits review

KW - Breast reconstruction

KW - Complications

KW - Implants

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041117870&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041117870&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3332/ecancer.2018.796

DO - 10.3332/ecancer.2018.796

M3 - Review article

VL - 12

JO - ecancermedicalscience

JF - ecancermedicalscience

SN - 1754-6605

M1 - 796

ER -