SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Implant Based Breast Reconstruction Using a Titanium-Coated Polypropylene Mesh (TiLOOP® Bra): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral and partial subpectoral immediate single-stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Capsular Contracture in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, and Contemporary Controversies.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Shifting Practice Patterns in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in China: Insights From a 13-year Large-scale Retrospective Cohort.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- AGO Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2026.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- TILOOP mesh in immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction via single-port endoscopic axillary approach: a study in early- and mid-stage breast cancer patients.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Mesh-free prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe and effective alternative.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Current Practices and Evolving Trends in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in China: A Nationwide Cross-sectional Survey.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- The triple-plane technique: a surgical technique for subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Size Does Matter: Mastectomy Flap Thickness as an Independent Decisional Factor for the Peri-Prosthetic Device Choice in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Use of Fascia Lata as Matrix for Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) can be performed using a variety of biological and synthetic meshes. However, there has yet to be a consensus on the optimal mesh. This study investigates the safety and patient satisfaction of using TiLOOP® Bra in IBBR and compares its postoperative complication risk with that of porcine acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and SERAGYN® BR.
methodsThe literature review was performed via PRISMA criteria, 23 studies met the inclusion criteria for the TiLOOP® Bra review, and 5 studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Patient characteristics and per-breast complications were collected. Data were analyzed using Cochrane RevMan and IBM SPSS.
resultsIn 3175 breasts of 2685 patients that underwent IBBR using TiLOOP® Bra, rippling was observed as the most common complication, followed by seroma and capsular contracture. No significant difference in the overall complication rate between pre- and sub-pectoral IBBR using TiLOOP® Bra. However, the meta-analysis showed that the TiLOOP® Bra group had significantly lower odds of implant loss, seroma, wound dehiscence, and the need for reoperation or hospitalization than the ADM group. Additionally, the TiLOOP® Bra group had a significantly lower seroma rate compared to the SERAGYN® BR group, while the other outcome indicators were similar between the two groups.
conclusionTiLOOP® Bra has become increasingly popular in IBBR in recent years. This review and meta-analysis support the favorable safety profile of TiLOOP® Bra reported in the current literature. The meta-analysis revealed that TiLOOP® Bra has better safety than ADM and a comparable risk of complications compared to SERAGYN® BR. However, as most studies had low levels of evidence, further investigations are necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.