Literature DB >> 33416939

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

David J Samson1, Mahir Gachabayov2, Rifat Latifi3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, biologic mesh (BM) has become an important adjunct to surgical practice. Recent evidence-based clinical applications of BM include but are not limited to: reconstruction of abdominal wall defects; breast reconstruction; face, head and neck surgery; periodontal surgery; other hernia repairs (diaphragmatic, hiatal/paraesophageal, inguinal and perineal); hand surgery; and shoulder arthroplasty. Prior systematic reviews of BM in complex abdominal wall hernia repair had several shortcomings that our comprehensive review seeks to address, including exclusion of laparoscopic repair, assessment of risk of bias, use of an acceptable meta-analytic method and review of risk factors identified in multivariable regression analyses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We sought articles of BM for open ventral hernia repair reporting on early complications, late complications or recurrences and included minimum of 50. We used the quality in prognostic studies risk of bias assessment tool. Random effects meta-analysis was applied.
RESULTS: This comprehensive review selected 62 articles from 51 studies that included 6,079 patients. Meta-analytic pooling found that early complications are present in about 50%, surgical site occurrences (SSOs) in 37%, surgical site infections (SSIs) in 18%, reoperation in 7%, readmission in 20% and mortality in 3%. Meta-analytic estimates of late outcomes included overall complications (42%), SSOs (40%) and SSIs (22%). Specific SSOs included seroma (14%), hematoma (4%), abscess (10%), necrosis (5%), dehiscence (8%) and fistula formation (5%). Reoperation occurred in about 17%, mesh explantation in 9% and recurrence in 36%.
CONCLUSION: Estimates of nearly all outcomes from individual studies were highly heterogeneous and sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions generally failed to explain this heterogeneity. Recurrence is the only outcome for which there are consistent findings for risk factors. Bridge placement of BM is associated with higher risk of recurrence. Prior hernia repair, history of reintervention and history of mesh removal were also risk factors for increased recurrence.
© 2021. Société Internationale de Chirurgie.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33416939     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-020-05887-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  96 in total

Review 1.  Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity.

Authors:  Hani Sbitany; Joseph M Serletti
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 2.  Acellular dermal matrices in breast reconstructions - a literature review.

Authors:  Simon Skovsted Yde; Mette Eline Brunbjerg; Tine Engberg Damsgaard
Journal:  J Plast Surg Hand Surg       Date:  2016-02-16

Review 3.  An Algorithmic Approach to Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Version 2.0.

Authors:  Anuja K Antony; Emilie C Robinson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 4.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Goretti Ho; T JoAnna Nguyen; Ahva Shahabi; Brian H Hwang; Linda S Chan; Alex K Wong
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.539

Review 5.  Is the Right Research Being Conducted to Advance Knowledge about Breast Reconstruction? An Analysis of the Research Pipeline.

Authors:  Jake X Checketts; Joshua Gordon; Julia H Crawford; Haley Adams; Laurie Duckett; Matt Vassar
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 6.  Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Håkan Hallberg; Svanheidur Rafnsdottir; Gennaro Selvaggi; Annika Strandell; Ola Samuelsson; Ida Stadig; Therese Svanberg; Emma Hansson; Richard Lewin
Journal:  J Plast Surg Hand Surg       Date:  2018-01-10

Review 7.  Seroma in Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Sumanas W Jordan; Nima Khavanin; John Y S Kim
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 8.  Systematic review and critical appraisal of the impact of acellular dermal matrix use on the outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction.

Authors:  S Potter; D Browning; J Savović; C Holcombe; J M Blazeby
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  Breast Implants for Mammaplasty: An Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses of Multiple Complications.

Authors:  Siwei Bi; Ruiqi Liu; Beiyi Wu; Yinzhi Shen; Kaiyu Jia; Kaibo Sun; Jun Gu
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 2.326

10.  Complex ventral hernia repair using components separation with or without biologic mesh: a cost-utility analysis.

Authors:  David Macarios; Michael Franz; Anne Marie Dawidczyk
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.539

View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparison of outcomes of ventral hernia repair using different meshes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  H Zhou; Y Shen; Z Zhang; X Liu; J Zhang; J Chen
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 2.920

Review 2.  Ventral hernia repair in high-risk patients and contaminated fields using a single mesh: proportional meta-analysis.

Authors:  S Morales-Conde; P Hernández-Granados; L Tallón-Aguilar; M Verdaguer-Tremolosa; M López-Cano
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 2.920

3.  Pushing the Surgical Envelope.

Authors:  Rifat Latifi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 3.352

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.