2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Braxon ®-assisted prepectoral breast reconstruction: A decade later

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We are sitting on the cusp of the bioengineered breast era, in which implant-based breast reconstruction is seeing a growing trend and biotechnology research progressively empowers clinical practice. As never before, the choice of biomaterials has acquired great importance for achieving reconstructive outcomes, and the increase in the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in the field of senology tells us a story of profound upheaval and progress. With the advent of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR), plenty of devices have been proposed to wrap the silicone prosthesis, either completely or partially. However, this has caused a great deal of confusion and dissent with regard to the adoption of feasible reconstructive strategies as well as the original scientific rationale underlying the prepectoral approach. Braxon ® is the very first device that made prepectoral implant positioning possible, wrapping around the prosthesis and exerting the proven ADM regenerative potential at the implant–tissue interface, taking advantage of the body's physiological healing mechanisms. To date, the Braxon ® method is among the most studied and practiced worldwide, and more than 50 publications confirm the superior performance of the device in the most varied clinical scenarios. However, a comprehensive record of the working of this pioneering device is still missing. Therefore, our aim with this review is to lay a structured knowledge of surgery with BRAXON ® and to provide a decision-making tool in the field of PPBR through a complete understanding on the very first device for prepectoral, one decade after its introduction.

          Related collections

          Most cited references132

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          On the mechanisms of biocompatibility.

          The manner in which a mutually acceptable co-existence of biomaterials and tissues is developed and sustained has been the focus of attention in biomaterials science for many years, and forms the foundation of the subject of biocompatibility. There are many ways in which materials and tissues can be brought into contact such that this co-existence may be compromised, and the search for biomaterials that are able to provide for the best performance in devices has been based upon the understanding of all the interactions within biocompatibility phenomena. Our understanding of the mechanisms of biocompatibility has been restricted whilst the focus of attention has been long-term implantable devices. In this paper, over 50 years of experience with such devices is analysed and it is shown that, in the vast majority of circumstances, the sole requirement for biocompatibility in a medical device intended for long-term contact with the tissues of the human body is that the material shall do no harm to those tissues, achieved through chemical and biological inertness. Rarely has an attempt to introduce biological activity into a biomaterial been clinically successful in these applications. This essay then turns its attention to the use of biomaterials in tissue engineering, sophisticated cell, drug and gene delivery systems and applications in biotechnology, and shows that here the need for specific and direct interactions between biomaterials and tissue components has become necessary, and with this a new paradigm for biocompatibility has emerged. It is believed that once the need for this change is recognised, so our understanding of the mechanisms of biocompatibility will markedly improve.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Collagen Suprafamily: From Biosynthesis to Advanced Biomaterial Development

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              On the nature of biomaterials.

              The situations in which biomaterials are currently used are vastly different to those of just a decade ago. Although implantable medical devices are still immensely important, medical technologies now encompass a range of drug and gene delivery systems, tissue engineering and cell therapies, organ printing and cell patterning, nanotechnology based imaging and diagnostic systems and microelectronic devices. These technologies still encompass metals, ceramics and synthetic polymers, but also biopolymers, self assembled systems, nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes and quantum dots. These changes imply that our original concepts of biomaterials and our expectations of their performance also have to change. This Leading Opinion Paper addresses these issues. It concludes that many substances which hitherto we may not have thought of as biomaterials should now be considered as such so that, alongside the traditional structural biomaterials, we have substances that have been engineered to perform functions within health care where their performance is directly controlled by interactions with tissues and tissue components. These include engineered tissues, cells, organs and even viruses. This essay develops the arguments for a radically different definition of a biomaterial.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Surg
                Front Surg
                Front. Surg.
                Frontiers in Surgery
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-875X
                01 November 2022
                2022
                : 9
                : 1009356
                Affiliations
                Department of Neuroscience: Neurological, Psychiatric, Sensorial, Reconstructive, and Rehabilitative Sciences, University of Padua , Padua, Italy
                Author notes

                Edited by: Andrea Lisa, Humanitas Research Hospital, Italy

                Reviewed by: Mihir Chandarana, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, United Kingdom Leonardo Cattelani, University Hospital of Parma, Italy

                [* ] Correspondence: Vincenzo Vindigni vincenzo.vindigni@ 123456unipd.it

                Specialty Section: This article was submitted to Reconstructive and Plastic Surgery, a section of the journal Frontiers in Surgery

                Article
                10.3389/fsurg.2022.1009356
                9677958
                36420412
                d8d9fe1b-c88d-4269-893e-c3496955d016
                © 2022 Bassetto, Pandis, Facchin, Azzena and Vindigni.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 01 August 2022
                : 28 September 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 132, Pages: 0, Words: 0
                Categories
                Surgery
                Review

                acellular dermal matrix,prepectoral breast reconstruction,biocompatibility,braxon®,capsular contracture,cost-effectiveness,radiotherapy,seroma

                Comments

                Comment on this article