Nationwide Survey of the Use of Absorbable Mesh in Breast Surgery in Korea.
10.4048/jbc.2009.12.3.210
- Author:
Ku Sang KIM
1
;
Man Young PARK
;
Woo Jae KIM
;
Kuk Young NA
;
Yong Sik JUNG
;
Young Jin CHOI
;
Yong Lai PARK
;
Se Jeong OH
;
Hyuk Jae SHIN
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
Breast;
Surgery;
Surgical mesh
- MeSH:
Breast;
Breast Neoplasms;
Comorbidity;
Congenital Abnormalities;
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Diabetes Mellitus;
Diagnostic Imaging;
Electronic Mail;
Follow-Up Studies;
Korea;
Polyglactin 910;
Surgical Mesh;
Ultrasonography, Mammary;
Wound Healing
- From:Journal of Breast Cancer
2009;12(3):210-214
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The aim of this study is to investigate the use of absorbable mesh in breast surgery in Korea. We conducted a survey from members of Korea Breast Cancer Society by phone, E-mail, and notice on the website from 6th to 20th April 2009. A total of 54 breast surgeons had responded to the survey. Of these, 40 surgeons (74.1%) had used absorbable mesh during breast surgery, with Vicryl mesh(R) being the choice of every surgeon and Interceed(R) having been used by 36 (90%) of the surgeons. In responding to the indications for mesh use, 26 surgeons (65%) indicated that mesh use was effective when a deformity was expected regardless of T stage. Contraindications for mesh use principally included existing patients' comorbidity such as a wound healing problem, diabetes mellitus and immunocompromised condition. Thirty one surgeons (77.5%) had experienced an infection in the mesh insertion site. However, on a case basis, only 39 of 843 cases (4.6%) had resulted in an infection. In the follow up after mesh use, 33 of the 37 responding surgeons (89.2%) used breast ultrasonography. Nineteen of the 38 respondents (50%) replied that the mesh was absorbed in 6 months and it did not confuse diagnostic imaging. The cited merits of mesh included maintenance of breast shape following surgery (n=38/49, 77.6%) and ease of surgical use (n=35/49, 71.4%). However, the high price of mesh was cited as a disadvantage by 33 of the 48 respondents (68.8%). In summary, survey results mentioned above show that surgical mesh use in breast surgery is increasing by times and the procedures greatly varies by surgeons. Thereby, we suggest that a guideline for mesh use should be made in the near future.
