References
- Aide N, Deux J-F, Peretti I et al. 2005. Persistent foreign body reaction around inguinal mesh prostheses: a potential pitfall of FDG PET. American Journal of Roentgenology 184:1172–1177.
- Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al. 2009. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent uterine cancer: comparison with PET and enhanced CT. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 36:362–372.
- Nahabedian MY. 2009. AlloDerm performance in the setting of prosthetic breast surgery, infection, and irradiation. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 124:1743–1753.
- Orenstein SB, Qiao Y, Kaur M et al. 2010. Human monocyte activation by biologic and biodegradable meshes in vitro. Surgical Endoscopy 24:805–811.
- Park J-Y, Kim EN, Kim D-Y et al. 2008. Role of PET or PET/CT in the post-therapy surveillance of uterine sarcoma. Gynecologic Oncology 109:255–262.
- Rosenbaum SJ, Lind T, Antoch G et al. 2006. False-positive FDG PET uptake – the role of PET/CT. European Radiology 16:1054–1065.
- Shaltz AT, Leath CA, Wiedenhoefer JF et al. 2011. Reaction to a surgical implant foreign body masquerading as recurrent uterine sarcoma. Obstetrics and Gynecology 117:450–452.
- Yilmaz M, Sevinc A, Aybasti N et al. 2008. FDG uptake in abdominal mesh implant on FDG PET/CT. Clinical Nuclear Medicine 33:351–352.