Reach Us +44-1647-403003
Mesh Versus Acellular Dermal Matrix In Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Randomized Trial | 53454
ISSN: 1948-5956

Journal of Cancer Science & Therapy
Open Access

Like us on:

Our Group organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations
700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)

Mesh versus acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: A prospective randomized trial

3rd World Congress on Women’s Health & Breast Cancer

Daphne Gschwantler-Kaulich

Medical University of Vienna, Austria

ScientificTracks Abstracts: J Cancer Sci Ther

DOI: 10.4172/1948-5956.C1.087

Background: Comparative studies on the use of meshes and acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) have not yet been performed. Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter pilot study was performed at four Austrian breast cancer centers. 50 patients with oncologic or prophylactic indication for mastectomy and IBBR were randomized to immediate IBBR with either an ADM (Protexa®) or a titanized mesh (TiLOOP® Bra). Complications, failed reconstruction, cosmetic outcome, patients’ quality of life and the thickness of the overlying tissue were recorded immediately postoperatively and three and six months after surgery. Results: 48 patients participated in the study (Protexa® group: 23; TiLOOP® Bra group: 25 patients). The overall complication rate was 31.25% with similar rates in both groups (Protexa® group nine vs. TiLOOP® Bra group six; p=0.188). There was a higher incidence of severe complications leading to failed reconstructions with implant loss in the Protexa® group than in the TiLOOP® Bra group (seven vs. two; p<0.0001). An inverted T-incision technique led to significantly more complications and reconstructive failure with Protexa® (p=0.037, p=0.012, respectively). There were no significant differences in patients’ satisfaction with cosmetic results (p=0.632), but surgeons and external specialists graded significantly better outcomes with TiLOOP® Bra (p=0.034, p=0.032). Conclusion: This pilot study showed use of TiLOOP® Bra or Protexa® in IBBR and was feasible leading to good cosmetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. To validate the higher failure rates in the Protexa® group, data from a larger trial were required.

Daphne Gschwantler-Kaulich has completed her specialization in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, in 2009 with further specialization in Senology, Hereditary Breast Cancer and Breast Reconstruction. She has published more than 30 papers in reputed journals.

Email: [email protected]

Relevant Topics