Breast reconstruction with Alloderm Ready to Use: A meta-analysis of nine observational cohorts
| Autor: | Min-Xia Zhang, Xiao-Feng Wang, Li-Hong Wu, Wei-Qiang Tan, Chun-Ye Chen, Qing-Qing Fang |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2018 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Breast Implants Mammaplasty Breast Neoplasms Subgroup analysis 030230 surgery 03 medical and health sciences Postoperative Complications 0302 clinical medicine Internal medicine medicine Humans Prospective Studies Prospective cohort study Retrospective Studies Hematoma business.industry Incidence (epidemiology) Tissue Expansion Devices Retrospective cohort study General Medicine Publication bias Middle Aged medicine.disease Observational Studies as Topic Seroma Treatment Outcome 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Meta-analysis Female Surgery Collagen business Breast reconstruction |
| Zdroj: | The Breast. 39:89-96 |
| ISSN: | 0960-9776 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.breast.2018.03.007 |
| Popis: | Background AlloDerm-RTU is a new member of human acellular dermal matrix (HADM) which was launched in 2012. The present meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether AlloDerm-RTU was superior compared with previous HADMs. Methods All available databases were searched for retrospective or prospective studies regarding breast reconstruction with AlloDerm-RTU compared with other HADMs. The primary outcome was the incidence of complications among different HADMs. Results Two prospective and seven retrospective studies with a total of 1406 patients were enrolled. There was no significant difference in any of the complications, including the incidence of hematoma (RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.19 to 3.19; P = 0.73), seroma (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.43 to 2.26; P = 0.97), cellulitis (RR 0.82, 95%CI 0.32 to 2.11; P = 0.68), necrosis (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.44 to 1.10; P = 0.12), infection (RR 0.68, 95%CI 0.37 to 1.25; P = 0.22), explantation (RR 0.61, 95%CI 0.35 to 1.06; P = 0.08), and total complications (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.55 to 1.52; P = 0.73). Subgroup analysis showed that AlloDerm-RTU demonstrated no superiority compared with FD AlloDerm, AlloMax, or DermACELL. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the outcomes were stabilized. No publication bias existed in the present meta-analysis. Conclusion Four HADM products, AlloDerm-RTU, FD AlloDerm, AlloMax, and DermACELL, showed similar risks of complications. However since most of the included studies had a low level of evidence, further random trials with large numbers of patients are needed. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect