Li-Hong Wu1, Min-Xia Zhang1, Chun-Ye Chen1, Qing-Qing Fang1, Xiao-Feng Wang1, Wei-Qiang Tan2. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Yiwu, Zhejiang Province, China. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Yiwu, Zhejiang Province, China. Electronic address: tanweixxxx@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
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.
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.