Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy has already shown several advantages. Synthetic meshes are often used as a supportive layer to achieve satisfying and stable results. We present our data using Serasynth Mesh BR Pocket, a fully dissolvable, ready-to-use mesh pocket. Methods: Between December 2021 and August 2023, a single-center retrospective study evaluated 53 breast reconstructions (43 patients) for short-term complications. Complications were classified as major (requiring revision surgery) or minor (managed conservatively). All patients underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy followed by direct-to-implant or direct-to-expander reconstruction using Serasynth Mesh BR Pocket. The minimum follow-up was 4 weeks. Results: Of 53 breasts, 44 (83%) required no further surgical intervention, with a mean follow-up of 10 months (range 1–20, mo). Major complications occurred in 9 breasts (17%), and minor complications occurred in 13 (24.5%). Implant loss (13.2%) was primarily due to necrosis (7.5%). A higher body mass index (≥27 kg/m 2 ) and axillary lymph node excision were associated with an increased risk of complications. Notably, 41.9% of patients received adjuvant radiotherapy. Conclusions: Serasynth Mesh BR Pocket demonstrates a favorable safety profile in prepectoral breast reconstruction, even in a high-risk cohort with substantial radiotherapy exposure. Outcomes are comparable to those of other synthetic meshes, with the added benefit of full resorbability. Careful patient selection, considering body mass index, soft-tissue quality, and lymph node dissection, is essential to optimize results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wimmer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: