These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35944534)

  • 1. [The Value of Synthetic and Biologic Meshes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction].
    Weinzierl A; Schmauss D; Harder Y
    Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir; 2022 Aug; 54(4):269-278. PubMed ID: 35944534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparing the Outcomes and Complication Rates of Biologic vs Synthetic Meshes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
    Makarewicz N; Perrault D; Sharma A; Shaheen M; Kim J; Calderon C; Sweeney B; Nazerali R
    Ann Plast Surg; 2023 May; 90(5):516-527. PubMed ID: 37146317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Biocompatibility, cell growth and clinical relevance of synthetic meshes and biological matrixes for internal support in implant-based breast reconstruction.
    Dieterich M; Stubert J; Gerber B; Reimer T; Richter DU
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2015 Jun; 291(6):1371-9. PubMed ID: 25502186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy.
    Roberts K; Mills N; Metcalfe C; Lane A; Clement C; Hollingworth W; Taylor J; Holcombe C; Skillman J; Fairhurst K; Whisker L; Cutress R; Thrush S; Fairbrother P; Potter S
    BMJ Open; 2021 Nov; 11(11):e050886. PubMed ID: 34848516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Acellular dermal matrix and synthetic mesh in implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: Current concepts].
    Billon R; Hersant B; Bosc R; Meningaud JP
    Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol; 2019 Mar; 47(3):311-316. PubMed ID: 30738819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh.
    Sewart E; Turner NL; Conroy EJ; Cutress RI; Skillman J; Whisker L; Thrush S; Barnes N; Holcombe C; Potter S;
    BJS Open; 2021 Jan; 5(1):. PubMed ID: 33609398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire.
    Mylvaganam S; Conroy E; Williamson PR; Barnes NLP; Cutress RI; Gardiner MD; Jain A; Skillman JM; Thrush S; Whisker LJ; Blazeby JM; Potter S; Holcombe C; ;
    Breast; 2017 Oct; 35():182-190. PubMed ID: 28768227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with complete ADM or synthetic mesh coverage - 36-Months follow-up in 200 reconstructed breasts.
    Reitsamer R; Peintinger F; Klaassen-Federspiel F; Sir A
    Breast; 2019 Dec; 48():32-37. PubMed ID: 31491673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Immediate surgical mesh-free implant-based breast reconstruction with fascial flap in breast cancer patients after mastectomy.
    Chen AX; Chen X; Yu Y; Wang X; Zhang B; Cao XC
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2023 Jun; 307(6):1941-1948. PubMed ID: 36477273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Implant-based breast reconstruction with meshes and matrices: biological vs synthetic.
    Jacobs JM; Salzberg CA
    Br J Hosp Med (Lond); 2015 Apr; 76(4):211-6. PubMed ID: 25853352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Acellular Dermal Matrix-sparing Direct-to-implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Study Including Cost Analysis.
    Viezel-Mathieu A; Alnaif N; Aljerian A; Safran T; Brabant G; Boileau JF; Dionisopoulos T
    Ann Plast Surg; 2020 Feb; 84(2):139-143. PubMed ID: 31335468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of Prepectoral Implant Placement and Complete Coverage with TiLoop Bra Mesh for Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study on Long-Term and Patient-Reported BREAST-Q Outcomes.
    Casella D; Di Taranto G; Marcasciano M; Sordi S; Kothari A; Kovacs T; Lo Torto F; Cigna E; Calabrese C; Ribuffo D
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2019 Jan; 143(1):1e-9e. PubMed ID: 30303929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. First-year complications after immediate breast reconstruction with a biological and a synthetic mesh in the same patient: A randomized controlled study.
    Hansson E; Edvinsson AC; Elander A; Kölby L; Hallberg H
    J Surg Oncol; 2021 Jan; 123(1):80-88. PubMed ID: 33051871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Are patients most satisfied with a synthetic or a biological mesh in dual-plane immediate breast reconstruction after 5 years? A randomized controlled trial comparing the two meshes in the same patient.
    Paganini A; Meyer S; Hallberg H; Hansson E
    J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg; 2022 Nov; 75(11):4133-4143. PubMed ID: 36154981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis.
    Li Y; Xu G; Yu N; Huang J; Long X
    Ann Plast Surg; 2020 Oct; 85(4):437-447. PubMed ID: 31913902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction with the use of biological and synthetic meshes in one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction.
    Gao P; Wang X; Bai P; Kong X; Wang Z; Fang Y; Wang J
    Breast Cancer; 2022 May; 29(3):450-457. PubMed ID: 34978672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Splitting the Difference: Using Synthetic and Biologic Mesh to Decrease Cost in Prepectoral Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction.
    Karp NS; Salibian AA
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2021 Mar; 147(3):580-584. PubMed ID: 33620924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Implant-based immediate reconstruction in prophylactic mastectomy: is the caudal dermis flap a reliable alternative to synthetic mesh or acellular dermal matrix?
    Heine N; Hoesl V; Seitz S; Prantl L; Brebant V
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2022 Apr; 305(4):937-943. PubMed ID: 34554314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. TIGR matrix for implant-based breast reconstruction - a long-term resorbable mesh.
    Cuffolo G; Holford NC; Contractor K; Tenovici A
    Expert Rev Med Devices; 2018 Sep; 15(9):689-691. PubMed ID: 30139282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Single-Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Subpectoral Versus Prepectoral Implant Placement.
    Manrique OJ; Kapoor T; Banuelos J; Jacobson SR; Martinez-Jorge J; Nguyen MT; Tran NV; Harless CA; Degnim AC; Jakub JW
    Ann Plast Surg; 2020 Apr; 84(4):361-365. PubMed ID: 31633546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.