TIGR Matrix synthetic long-term resorbable mesh for pre-pectoral and sub-pectoral implant based breast reconstruction: outcomes of two years practice
Association of Breast Surgery ePoster Library. Cuffolo G. 05/13/19; 257160; P117
Giulio Cuffolo
REGULAR CONTENT
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
P117
Topic: Oncoplastic and aesthetic surgery
Introduction: The use of biological matrices to assist implant-based breast reconstruction is a widespread but costly technique. Our unit has used TIGR Matrix, a synthetic long-term resorbable mesh, as our primary method to assist implant coverage since 2016. We present our initial outcomes. Methods All patients in whom TIGR mesh was used for pre-pectoral or sub-pectoral implant based breast reconstruction between 2016-2018 were included in the analysis. Their demographics, co-morbidities, pathology, treatment details and outcomes were accessed from electronic patient records. Results: 34 patients underwent 40 implant reconstructions using TIGR. The average age and BMI were 48 and 25.7 respectively, 2 patients were active smokers and none were diabetic. 30 operations were for breast cancer, 5 for DCIS and 5 risk-reducing. Average specimen weight was 523g (186-1100g) with a median 415cc implant volume (125-690cc) and the majority were pre-pectoral reconstructions (n=30). 2 patients had previous ipsilateral breast radiotherapy, 6 had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (17.6%) with 12 undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy (35%) and 9 radiotherapy (26.4%). There were 3 cases of infection, 3 of wound necrosis, 2 symptomatic seromas and 1 revision due to implant rotation. Overall 2 implants were lost (5%) both due to wound breakdown and infection. Conclusions: Our initial outcomes using this synthetic mesh are comparable to other published studies of biological and synthetic mesh-assisted breast implant reconstruction. Its low cost compared to biological meshes could make it an attractive option pending longer term outcome data.
Topic: Oncoplastic and aesthetic surgery
Introduction: The use of biological matrices to assist implant-based breast reconstruction is a widespread but costly technique. Our unit has used TIGR Matrix, a synthetic long-term resorbable mesh, as our primary method to assist implant coverage since 2016. We present our initial outcomes. Methods All patients in whom TIGR mesh was used for pre-pectoral or sub-pectoral implant based breast reconstruction between 2016-2018 were included in the analysis. Their demographics, co-morbidities, pathology, treatment details and outcomes were accessed from electronic patient records. Results: 34 patients underwent 40 implant reconstructions using TIGR. The average age and BMI were 48 and 25.7 respectively, 2 patients were active smokers and none were diabetic. 30 operations were for breast cancer, 5 for DCIS and 5 risk-reducing. Average specimen weight was 523g (186-1100g) with a median 415cc implant volume (125-690cc) and the majority were pre-pectoral reconstructions (n=30). 2 patients had previous ipsilateral breast radiotherapy, 6 had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (17.6%) with 12 undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy (35%) and 9 radiotherapy (26.4%). There were 3 cases of infection, 3 of wound necrosis, 2 symptomatic seromas and 1 revision due to implant rotation. Overall 2 implants were lost (5%) both due to wound breakdown and infection. Conclusions: Our initial outcomes using this synthetic mesh are comparable to other published studies of biological and synthetic mesh-assisted breast implant reconstruction. Its low cost compared to biological meshes could make it an attractive option pending longer term outcome data.
P117
Topic: Oncoplastic and aesthetic surgery
Introduction: The use of biological matrices to assist implant-based breast reconstruction is a widespread but costly technique. Our unit has used TIGR Matrix, a synthetic long-term resorbable mesh, as our primary method to assist implant coverage since 2016. We present our initial outcomes. Methods All patients in whom TIGR mesh was used for pre-pectoral or sub-pectoral implant based breast reconstruction between 2016-2018 were included in the analysis. Their demographics, co-morbidities, pathology, treatment details and outcomes were accessed from electronic patient records. Results: 34 patients underwent 40 implant reconstructions using TIGR. The average age and BMI were 48 and 25.7 respectively, 2 patients were active smokers and none were diabetic. 30 operations were for breast cancer, 5 for DCIS and 5 risk-reducing. Average specimen weight was 523g (186-1100g) with a median 415cc implant volume (125-690cc) and the majority were pre-pectoral reconstructions (n=30). 2 patients had previous ipsilateral breast radiotherapy, 6 had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (17.6%) with 12 undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy (35%) and 9 radiotherapy (26.4%). There were 3 cases of infection, 3 of wound necrosis, 2 symptomatic seromas and 1 revision due to implant rotation. Overall 2 implants were lost (5%) both due to wound breakdown and infection. Conclusions: Our initial outcomes using this synthetic mesh are comparable to other published studies of biological and synthetic mesh-assisted breast implant reconstruction. Its low cost compared to biological meshes could make it an attractive option pending longer term outcome data.
Topic: Oncoplastic and aesthetic surgery
Introduction: The use of biological matrices to assist implant-based breast reconstruction is a widespread but costly technique. Our unit has used TIGR Matrix, a synthetic long-term resorbable mesh, as our primary method to assist implant coverage since 2016. We present our initial outcomes. Methods All patients in whom TIGR mesh was used for pre-pectoral or sub-pectoral implant based breast reconstruction between 2016-2018 were included in the analysis. Their demographics, co-morbidities, pathology, treatment details and outcomes were accessed from electronic patient records. Results: 34 patients underwent 40 implant reconstructions using TIGR. The average age and BMI were 48 and 25.7 respectively, 2 patients were active smokers and none were diabetic. 30 operations were for breast cancer, 5 for DCIS and 5 risk-reducing. Average specimen weight was 523g (186-1100g) with a median 415cc implant volume (125-690cc) and the majority were pre-pectoral reconstructions (n=30). 2 patients had previous ipsilateral breast radiotherapy, 6 had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (17.6%) with 12 undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy (35%) and 9 radiotherapy (26.4%). There were 3 cases of infection, 3 of wound necrosis, 2 symptomatic seromas and 1 revision due to implant rotation. Overall 2 implants were lost (5%) both due to wound breakdown and infection. Conclusions: Our initial outcomes using this synthetic mesh are comparable to other published studies of biological and synthetic mesh-assisted breast implant reconstruction. Its low cost compared to biological meshes could make it an attractive option pending longer term outcome data.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}