COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A Meta-analysis of Studies Comparing Outcomes of Diverse Acellular Dermal Matrices for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The current diversity of the available acellular dermal matrix (ADM) materials for implant-based breast reconstruction raises the issue of whether there are any differences in postoperative outcomes according to the kind of ADM used. The present meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether choice of ADM products can affect outcomes.

METHODS: Studies that used multiple kinds of ADM products for implant-based breast reconstruction and compared outcomes between them were searched. Outcomes of interest were rates of postoperative complications: infection, seroma, mastectomy flap necrosis, reconstruction failure, and overall complications.

RESULTS: A total of 17 studies met the selection criteria. There was only 1 randomized controlled trial, and the other 16 studies had retrospective designs. Comparison of FlexHD, DermaMatrix, and ready-to-use AlloDerm with freeze-dried AlloDerm was conducted in multiple studies and could be meta-analyzed, in which 12 studies participated. In the meta-analysis comparing FlexHD and freeze-dried AlloDerm, using the results of 6 studies, both products showed similar pooled risks for all kinds of complications. When comparing DermaMatrix and freeze-dried AlloDerm with the results from 4 studies, there were also no differences between the pooled risks of complications of the two. Similarly, the meta-analysis of 4 studies comparing ready-to-use and freeze-dried AlloDerm demonstrated that the pooled risks for the complications did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrates that the 3 recently invented, human cadaveric skin-based products of FlexHD, DermaMatrix, and ready-to-use AlloDerm have similar risks of complications compared with those of freeze-dried AlloDerm, which has been used for longer. However, as most studies had low levels of evidence, further investigations are needed.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app