Comparing the Outcome of Different Biologically Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-based Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of the Literatures

Background:. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used extensively in implant-based breast reconstruction. It was reported that due to the different sources and processing methods, the outcomes of ADMs in implant-based breast reconstructions are expected to differ. We designed this study to st...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yew L. Loo, MBChB (UK), Pragash Kamalathevan, BA (Cantab), MBBS (UK), Peng S. Ooi, MBChB (UK), Afshin Mosahebi, FRCS (Plast), PhD, MBA
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer 2018-03-01
Series:Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open
Online Access:http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001701
id doaj-23f06a02a65d481e88c881d7e72302f4
record_format Article
spelling doaj-23f06a02a65d481e88c881d7e72302f42020-11-24T23:23:04ZengWolters KluwerPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open2169-75742018-03-0163e170110.1097/GOX.0000000000001701201803000-00004Comparing the Outcome of Different Biologically Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-based Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of the LiteraturesYew L. Loo, MBChB (UK)0Pragash Kamalathevan, BA (Cantab), MBBS (UK)1Peng S. Ooi, MBChB (UK)2Afshin Mosahebi, FRCS (Plast), PhD, MBA3From the *University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom; and †Royal Free London NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.From the *University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom; and †Royal Free London NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.From the *University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom; and †Royal Free London NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.From the *University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom; and †Royal Free London NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.Background:. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used extensively in implant-based breast reconstruction. It was reported that due to the different sources and processing methods, the outcomes of ADMs in implant-based breast reconstructions are expected to differ. We designed this study to statistically analyze and discuss the outcome of 3 commonly used ADMs, Alloderm, Strattice, and Surgimend in implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods:. Comprehensive review of the literatures searched on electronic databases was done to identify studies published between 2006 and 2017 comparing the outcome of ADMs. Pooled random effect estimates for each complication and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. One-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni test were used to compare statistical significance between and within groups, respectively. Multiple linear regression was done to include confounding factors and R statistic program for forest plot. Results:. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion with a total of 1,659, 999, and 912 breasts reconstructions in Alloderm, Strattice, and Surgimend, respectively. Seven complications extracted including major and minor infection, seroma, implant loss, hematoma, capsular contracture, and localized erythema. Pooled total complication rates were 23.82% (95% CI, 21.18–26.47%) in Strattice, 17.98% (95% CI, 15.49–20.47%) in Surgimend, 16.21% (95% CI, 14.44–17.99%) in Alloderm. Seroma rate was the highest in Strattice group (8.61%; 95% CI, 6.87–10.35%). There was no statistical significance between and within groups. Conclusion:. Although Strattice exhibited a higher overall pooled complication rate compared with Alloderm and Surgimend, the incidence of individual complication varies between studies. A cost analysis of different ADMs may aid in choosing the type of ADMs to be used.http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001701
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Yew L. Loo, MBChB (UK)
Pragash Kamalathevan, BA (Cantab), MBBS (UK)
Peng S. Ooi, MBChB (UK)
Afshin Mosahebi, FRCS (Plast), PhD, MBA
spellingShingle Yew L. Loo, MBChB (UK)
Pragash Kamalathevan, BA (Cantab), MBBS (UK)
Peng S. Ooi, MBChB (UK)
Afshin Mosahebi, FRCS (Plast), PhD, MBA
Comparing the Outcome of Different Biologically Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-based Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of the Literatures
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open
author_facet Yew L. Loo, MBChB (UK)
Pragash Kamalathevan, BA (Cantab), MBBS (UK)
Peng S. Ooi, MBChB (UK)
Afshin Mosahebi, FRCS (Plast), PhD, MBA
author_sort Yew L. Loo, MBChB (UK)
title Comparing the Outcome of Different Biologically Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-based Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of the Literatures
title_short Comparing the Outcome of Different Biologically Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-based Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of the Literatures
title_full Comparing the Outcome of Different Biologically Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-based Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of the Literatures
title_fullStr Comparing the Outcome of Different Biologically Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-based Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of the Literatures
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the Outcome of Different Biologically Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-based Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of the Literatures
title_sort comparing the outcome of different biologically derived acellular dermal matrices in implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis of the literatures
publisher Wolters Kluwer
series Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open
issn 2169-7574
publishDate 2018-03-01
description Background:. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used extensively in implant-based breast reconstruction. It was reported that due to the different sources and processing methods, the outcomes of ADMs in implant-based breast reconstructions are expected to differ. We designed this study to statistically analyze and discuss the outcome of 3 commonly used ADMs, Alloderm, Strattice, and Surgimend in implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods:. Comprehensive review of the literatures searched on electronic databases was done to identify studies published between 2006 and 2017 comparing the outcome of ADMs. Pooled random effect estimates for each complication and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. One-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni test were used to compare statistical significance between and within groups, respectively. Multiple linear regression was done to include confounding factors and R statistic program for forest plot. Results:. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion with a total of 1,659, 999, and 912 breasts reconstructions in Alloderm, Strattice, and Surgimend, respectively. Seven complications extracted including major and minor infection, seroma, implant loss, hematoma, capsular contracture, and localized erythema. Pooled total complication rates were 23.82% (95% CI, 21.18–26.47%) in Strattice, 17.98% (95% CI, 15.49–20.47%) in Surgimend, 16.21% (95% CI, 14.44–17.99%) in Alloderm. Seroma rate was the highest in Strattice group (8.61%; 95% CI, 6.87–10.35%). There was no statistical significance between and within groups. Conclusion:. Although Strattice exhibited a higher overall pooled complication rate compared with Alloderm and Surgimend, the incidence of individual complication varies between studies. A cost analysis of different ADMs may aid in choosing the type of ADMs to be used.
url http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001701
work_keys_str_mv AT yewlloombchbuk comparingtheoutcomeofdifferentbiologicallyderivedacellulardermalmatricesinimplantbasedimmediatebreastreconstructionametaanalysisoftheliteratures
AT pragashkamalathevanbacantabmbbsuk comparingtheoutcomeofdifferentbiologicallyderivedacellulardermalmatricesinimplantbasedimmediatebreastreconstructionametaanalysisoftheliteratures
AT pengsooimbchbuk comparingtheoutcomeofdifferentbiologicallyderivedacellulardermalmatricesinimplantbasedimmediatebreastreconstructionametaanalysisoftheliteratures
AT afshinmosahebifrcsplastphdmba comparingtheoutcomeofdifferentbiologicallyderivedacellulardermalmatricesinimplantbasedimmediatebreastreconstructionametaanalysisoftheliteratures
_version_ 1725565566518820864