Great question. Your dilemma affects hundreds of women who successfully pressured their plastic surgeons to do a periareolar mastopexy when a Vertical scar mastopexy would have been the answer.
Think about it for a second - WHY would you require a permanent periareolar suture after an areolar reduction if you areola was really that large? Was it because it was either over reduced and / or stressed with an implant whose foreward pressure put constant tension on the repair ("knot could be seen and felt ").
Your "solution" - ? remove or down-size the implants to reduce the tension on the areola as logic would dictate? No. Exactly the opposite. You remove the purse suture, the only barrier to areolar stretching, reduce the areolas again (increasing the tension of closureon them) and INCREASE the subsequent stretching of the areola by putting in larger implants. How does this make any sense unless you want ever increasing complex breast reconstructions.
The mesh technique was described by the Brazilian surgeon Sampaio Goes. Through a periareolar approach, he peels the skin off the breast (like a banana) and wraps the breast with a non-FDA approved mesh (NOT found on the American Market). The mesh caged breasts are then lifted and suspended with staples to the ribs in a higher position on the chest.
Few American plastic surgeons, if any, would recommend this operation in general, much less in your case. No one would date put permanent coarse mesh around a breast (infection risk, breast cancer detection concerns, scarring etc). Peeling the skin off your breast risks losing the circulation to your nipples which may result in in dead nipples. Finally, there is no reason why it should even work.
The easiest solution is to settle for the smallest implants, if any, that would NOT put tension on the areola and STOP removing breast skin ever increasing the tension on the closure.