Literature DB >> 35257200

A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Complications Related to Breast Reconstruction Using Different Skin Flaps After Breast Cancer Surgery.

Jiahua Xing1,2, Ziqi Jia3, Yichi Xu2, Muzi Chen1,2, Youbai Chen4, Yan Han5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As the incidence of breast cancer rises, the number of mastectomy surgeries surges, so does the importance of postoperative breast reconstruction. The implementation of autologous flap restoration methods is becoming prevalent, although which is the best flap remains controversial. As a result, we performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the eight most common flap in the reconstruction processor of breast cancer surgery. Our findings may help surgeons decide which skin flaps to use for breast reconstruction.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library for relevant literature. For our Bayesian network meta-analysis, we scrutinized 37 papers and evaluated the postoperative complications of eight commonly used breast reconstruction procedures. We also registered this study on PROSPERO, with the number CRD42021251989.
RESULTS: A total of 21,184 patients were included in this Bayesian network meta-analysis from 37 different studies. The results demonstrate that TRAM flaps are more prone to complications such as hernias in the abdominal wall and blood flow problems. Hematoma and seroma are more likely to follow LDP flaps. Combining LDP flaps with a prosthetic or autologous adipose tissue does not enhance the risk of postoperative problems appreciably. Fat liquefaction are relatively common in DIEP.
CONCLUSIONS: After breast reconstruction, several skin flaps can be employed as clinical choices. TRAM flaps are not recommended for patients with a weak abdominal wall structure, although LDP flaps or SIEA flaps can be considered instead. We do not advocate LDP flaps for patients who have had breast surgery because of the higher risk of hematoma or seroma, but DIEP flaps or LAP flaps can be utilized instead. We do not propose DIEP flaps for individuals who are at a higher risk of postoperative fat liquefaction, but LDP flaps or SIEA flaps can be used instead. However, this Bayesian network meta-analysis has limitations, and further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm its findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian network meta-analysis; Breast cancer; Breast reconstruction; Postoperative complications; Skin flaps

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35257200     DOI: 10.1007/s00266-022-02828-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg        ISSN: 0364-216X            Impact factor:   2.708


  51 in total

1.  Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction.

Authors:  W J Schneider; H L Hill; R G Brown
Journal:  Br J Plast Surg       Date:  1977-10

2.  Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction.

Authors:  R J Allen; P Treece
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 1.539

3.  Breast reconstruction with a transverse abdominal island flap.

Authors:  C R Hartrampf; M Scheflan; P W Black
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1982-02       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  The economic viability of breast reconstruction in the UK: comparison of a single surgeon's experience of implant; LD; TRAM and DIEP based reconstructions in 274 patients.

Authors:  D D Atherton; A J Hills; P Moradi; N Muirhead; S H Wood
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 2.740

5.  Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study.

Authors:  Amy K Alderman; Edwin G Wilkins; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Julie C Lowery
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Paul S Gill; John P Hunt; Aldo B Guerra; Frank J Dellacroce; Scott K Sullivan; Jonathan Boraski; Stephen E Metzinger; Charles L Dupin; Robert J Allen
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Breast reconstruction by superior gluteal microvascular free flaps without silicone implants.

Authors:  W W Shaw
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Breast reconstruction with superficial inferior epigastric artery flaps: a prospective comparison with TRAM and DIEP flaps.

Authors:  Pierre M Chevray
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  Conventional TRAM flap versus free microsurgical TRAM flap for immediate breast reconstruction.

Authors:  J C Grotting; M M Urist; W A Maddox; L O Vasconez
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 4.730

10.  Effect of Dietary Chestnut or Quebracho Tannin Supplementation on Microbial Community and Fatty Acid Profile in the Rumen of Dairy Ewes.

Authors:  Arianna Buccioni; Grazia Pallara; Roberta Pastorelli; Letizia Bellini; Alice Cappucci; Federica Mannelli; Sara Minieri; Valentina Roscini; Stefano Rapaccini; Marcello Mele; Luciana Giovannetti; Carlo Viti; Mariano Pauselli
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-12-31       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.