Literature DB >> 29320921

Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Håkan Hallberg1,2, Svanheidur Rafnsdottir1,3, Gennaro Selvaggi1,2, Annika Strandell4, Ola Samuelsson4, Ida Stadig5, Therese Svanberg4, Emma Hansson1,2, Richard Lewin1,2.   

Abstract

In modern implant-based immediate breast reconstruction, it has become common to use biological acellular dermal and synthetic matrices in combination with a tissue expander or an implant. The aim of this systematic review was to examine differences in recurrence of cancer, impact on oncological treatment, health related quality of life, complications and aesthetic outcome between matrix and no matrix in immediate breast reconstruction. Systematic searches, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed according to predetermined criteria. Fifty-one studies were eligible and included in the review. The certainty of evidence for overall complication rate and implant loss is low (GRADE ⊕⊕□ □). The certainty of evidence for delay of adjuvant treatment, implant loss, infection, capsular contraction and aesthetic outcome is very low (GRADE ⊕□ □ □). No study reported data on recurrence of cancer or health related quality of life. In conclusion, there is a lack of high quality studies that compare the use of matrix with no matrix in immediate breast reconstruction. Specifically, there are no data on risk of recurrence of cancer, delay of adjuvant treatment and Health related quality of life (HRQoL). In addition, there is a risk of bias in many studies. It is often unclear what complications have been included and how they have been diagnosed, and how and when capsular contracture and aesthetic outcome have been evaluated. Controlled trials that further analyse the impact of radiotherapy, type of matrix and type of procedure (one or two stages) are necessary.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ADM; Breast reconstruction; aceullar dermal matrix; implant; matrix; mesh; systematic review; tissue expander

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29320921     DOI: 10.1080/2000656X.2017.1419141

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Plast Surg Hand Surg        ISSN: 2000-6764


  26 in total

Review 1.  Breast Reconstruction: Necessity for Further Standardization of the Current Surgical Techniques Attempting to Facilitate Scientific Evaluation and Select Tailored Individualized Procedures Optimizing Patient Satisfaction.

Authors:  Ekaterini Christina Tampaki; Athanasios Tampakis
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2021-09-09       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Delayed two-stage nipple sparing mastectomy and simultaneous expander-to-implant reconstruction of the large and ptotic breast.

Authors:  Thierry Tondu; Filip Thiessen; Guy Hubens; Wiebren Tjalma; Phillip Blondeel; Veronique Verhoeven
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2022-03

3.  Patient-Reported Outcomes and Aesthetic Results after Immediate Breast Reconstruction Using Human Acellular Dermal Matrices: Results of a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational NOGGO-AWOGyn Study.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Lea Beier; Andree Faridi; Christine Ankel; Barbara Krause-Bergmann; Stefan Paepke; Christine Mau; Maren Keller; Hans Joachim Strittmatter; Maria Margarete Karsten
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Human Acellular Dermal Matrix (Epiflex®) in Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Skin- and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Treatment of Capsular Fibrosis: Results of a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational NOGGO-AWOGyn Study.

Authors:  Lea Beier; Andree Faridi; Corina Neumann; Stefan Paepke; Christine Mau; Maren Keller; Hans Joachim Strittmatter; Claudia Gerber-Schäfer; Lelia Bauer; Maria Margarete Karsten; Sherko Kümmel; Jens-Uwe Blohmer
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Efficacy of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Capsular Contracture of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Single-Arm Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jian Liu; Jinfei Hou; Zhipeng Li; Bin Wang; Jiaming Sun
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 2.326

6.  Comparison of one-stage direct-to-implant with acellular dermal matrix and two-stage immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-a cohort study.

Authors:  Mette Eline Brunbjerg; Thomas Bo Jensen; Jens Overgaard; Peer Christiansen; Tine Engberg Damsgaard
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-01

7.  Comparisons of Therapeutic and Aesthetic Effects of One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with and without Biological Matrix.

Authors:  Peng Gao; Zhongzhao Wang; Xiangyi Kong; Xiangyu Wang; Yi Fang; Jing Wang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 3.989

Review 8.  Biologic Mesh in Surgery: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis of Selected Outcomes in 51 Studies and 6079 Patients.

Authors:  David J Samson; Mahir Gachabayov; Rifat Latifi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Can Skin Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Submuscular Implant-Based Reconstruction Be a Better Choice in Treatment of Early-Stage Breast Cancer?

Authors:  Münire Kayahan
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2021-12-30

10.  Biological Matrix-Assisted One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications.

Authors:  Peng Gao; Ping Bai; Yinpeng Ren; Xiangyi Kong; Zhongzhao Wang; Yi Fang; Jing Wang
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 2.326

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.