Published – Breast Reconstruction

NEW!

Fairman, W., et al. (2025).
Use of TIGR Synthetic Resorbable Mesh in Primary Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 13:e6622.
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000006622 https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006622

Razdan, S., et al. (2024).
Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Mastectomy and Implant-Based Prepectoral Reconstruction Using TIGR® Synthetic Mesh. Cureus 16(5): e61052.
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.61052 http://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.61052

Choi, Y.S., et al. (2023).
Comparing Complications of Biologic and Synthetic Mesh in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Arch Plast Surg, 50(01), p003-009.
DOI: 10.1055/a-1964-8181 https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/a-1964-8181

Paganini, A., et al. (2022).
Are patients most satisfied with a synthetic or a biological mesh in dual-plane immediate breast reconstruction after 5 years? A randomized controlled trial comparing the two meshes in the same patient. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 75(11), p4133-4143.
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.08.013  https://www.jprasurg.com/article/S1748-6815(22)00456-9/fulltext

Houvenaeghel, G., et al. (2022).
Mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with pre-pectoral or sub-pectoral implant: Assessing clinical practice, post-surgical outcomes, patient’s satisfaction, and cost. J Surg Res (Houst), 5(3), p500-510.
DOI: 10.26502/jsr.10020250 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36578374/

Wow, T., et al, (2022).
A retrospective study assessing the outcomes of immediate prepectoral and subpectoral implant and mesh-based breast reconstruction. Cancers, 14(13), 3188.
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14133188 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/14/13/3188

Hansson, E., et al (2021).
First-year complications after immediate breast reconstruction with a biological and a synthetic mesh in the same patient: A randomized controlled study. J Surg Oncol, 123, p80–88.
DOI: 10.1002/jso.26227 https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.26227

Hansson, E., et al (2020).
Drain secretion and seroma formation after immediate breast reconstruction with a biological and a synthetic mesh, respectively: A randomized controlled study. Breast J., 26, p1756–1759.
DOI: 10.1111/tbj.13921 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tbj.13921

Reitsamer, R., et al (2020).
Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with complete ADM or synthetic mesh coverage – 36-months follow-up in 200 reconstructed breasts. The Breast, 48, p32-37.
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2019.08.002 https://www.thebreastonline.com/article/S0960-9776(19)30547-8/abstract

Reconstruction mammaire prothéthique immédiate avec matrice synthétique resorbable

Marthan, J. (2019)
Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris Diderot, Dr Jessica Marthan, Institut Gustave Roussy

Quinn, E.M., et al. (2020).
Immediate implant reconstruction using absorbable TIGR® mesh after nipple-sparing mastectomy. European Journal of Plastic Surgery, 43, p279–284.
DOI: 10.1007/s00238-019-01603-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00238-019-01603-0

Marthan, J. (2019).
Reconstruction mammaire prothéthique immédiate avec matrice synthétique resorbable. Doctoral thesis, Université Paris Diderot, Institut Gustave Roussy.

Hansson, E., et al. (2019).
Comparison of inflammatory response and synovial metaplasia in immediate breast reconstruction with a synthetic and a biological mesh: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, 54(3), 131–136.
DOI: 10.1080/2000656X.2019.1704766 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2000656X.2019.1704766

Hallberg, H., et al. (2018).
TIGR® Matrix surgical mesh – a two-year follow-up study and complication analysis in 65 immediate breast reconstructions. Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, 52(4), p253-258.
DOI: 10.1080/2000656X.2018.1478841 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2000656X.2018.1478841

Pompei, S., et al. (2018).
The use of TIGR® Matrix in breast aesthetic and reconstructive surgery: Is a resorbable synthetic mesh a viable alternative to acellular dermal matrices? Clin Plastic Surg, 45(1), p65-73.
DOI: 10.1016/j.cps.2017.08.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2017.09.006

Sharma, S., et al. (2016).
De novo experience of resorbable woven mesh in immediate breast reconstruction post-mastectomy. European Journal of Plastic Surgery, 40, p17–22.
DOI: 10.1007/s00238-016-1227-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-016-1155-7

Todd, J. (2016).
Bi-pedicle nipple-sparing mastectomy (modified Letterman technique) and TIGR® Matrix mesh-assisted immediate implant reconstruction, in a patient with Cowden syndrome. Gland Surg, 5(3), p306-311.
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2227-684X.2015.12.01 https://gs.amegroups.org/article/view/9195/11012

Schrenk, P., (2014).
Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction using the TIGR® Matrix. Breast Cancer Management, 5(2), p53-59.
DOI: 10.2217/bmt-2016-0003 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.2217/bmt-2016-0003

Becker, H., et al. (2013).
The use of synthetic mesh in reconstruction, revision, and cosmetic breast surgery. Aesth Plast Surg, 37, p914–921.
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-013-0171-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00266-013-0171-8

Hjorth, H., et al. (2012).
Three-year results from a preclinical implantation study of a long-term resorbable surgical mesh with time-dependent mechanical characteristics. Hernia, 16, p191–197.
DOI:10.1007/s10029-011-0885-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0885-y