Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with TiLOOP® Bra Pocket – a single-centre retrospective study

Abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

How to convert a submuscular/dual plane reconstruction to a pre‐pectoral pocket implant reconstruction

“…Our preference is to use TiLOOP Bra Pocket™ due to its ease of use and its cost profile. [13][14][15][16][17] However, if the selected new implant, fits snuggly within the neo pocket, no mesh or ADM may be needed, or the use of internal bra sutures may be sufficient.…”

“…If there is discrepancy between the surface area of the implant selected and the overlying skin envelope and or the implant is >400 cc the implant will need the support of a mesh and or controlling with internal lateral bra sutures. Our preference is to use TiLOOP Bra Pocket™ due to its ease of use and its cost profile 13–17 . However, if the selected new implant, fits snuggly within the neo pocket, no mesh or ADM may be needed, or the use of internal bra sutures may be sufficient.…”

Application of TiLOOP bra in implant‐based breast reconstruction is associated with decreased complication risk compared with other meshes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…One retrospective multicenter study showed that major complications (need for additional surgery) occurred in 13.4% of patients using TiLOOP bra, minor complications (need for conservative treatment) in 15.6%, and implant loss in 8.7% 11 . Other previous studies reported that the risk of complications using TiLOOP bra in immediate or delayed‐immediate IBBR ranged from 2.4% to 30.2% 12–15 . It is also noted that other synthetic mesh alternatives, such as short‐term absorbable mesh (Seragyn ® ), reported a comparable rate of complications to ADM 16 …”

“…11 Other previous studies reported that the risk of complications using TiLOOP bra in immediate or delayedimmediate IBBR ranged from 2.4% to 30.2%. [12][13][14][15] It is also noted that other synthetic mesh alternatives, such as short-term absorbable mesh (Seragyn ® ), reported a comparable rate of complications to ADM. 16 However, most current studies comparing TiLOOP bra to other techniques for IBBR regarding postoperative complication profiling are small and retrospective. There are rarely randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or relevant meta-analyses.…”

“…Therefore, the above-mentioned observed lowered early postoperative complications rates are still inclusive with such limited evidence. [11][12][13][14][15] Hence, we conducted this systemic review and metaanalysis to compare the postoperative risks of complications and patient satisfaction between TiLOOP bra and other meshes with the purpose to provide highlevel evidence to evaluate its safety and potential benefits.…”