Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023
Postoperative Complications Following Prepectoral Versus Partial Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhu Liwen, Liu Chunjun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of evidence comparing the safety of prepectoral and partial subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADM). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the postoperative complications of the two approaches.
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The rates of the complications were, respectively, pooled, and relative risk (RR) was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the incidence between the two cohorts.
RESULTS: Ten articles reporting on 2667 breast reconstructions were eligible. The hematoma rate was lower in the prepectoral group (RR = 0.590, 95% CI 0.351-0.992). No significant difference was observed in terms of seroma (RR = 1.079, 95% CI 0.489-2.381), skin flap necrosis (RR = 0.936, 95% CI 0.587-1.493), infection (RR = 0.985, 95% CI 0.706-1.375), tissue expander/implant explantation (RR = 0.741, 95% CI 0.506-1.085), wound dehiscence (RR = 1.272, 95% CI 0.605-2.673), capsular contracture (RR = 0.939, 95% CI 0.678-1.300) and rippling (RR = 2.485, 95% CI 0.986-6.261). The RR of animation deformity for the prepectoral group compared with the subpectoral group was 0.040 (95% CI, 0.002-0.853).
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggested that with appropriate patient selection, prepectoral breast reconstruction could avoid animation deformity without incurring higher risk of early wound complications, capsular contracture or rippling than partial subpectoral breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should complete a comprehensive assessment of the patients before choosing appropriate surgical approaches in clinical practice.
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 .
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The rates of the complications were, respectively, pooled, and relative risk (RR) was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the incidence between the two cohorts.
RESULTS: Ten articles reporting on 2667 breast reconstructions were eligible. The hematoma rate was lower in the prepectoral group (RR = 0.590, 95% CI 0.351-0.992). No significant difference was observed in terms of seroma (RR = 1.079, 95% CI 0.489-2.381), skin flap necrosis (RR = 0.936, 95% CI 0.587-1.493), infection (RR = 0.985, 95% CI 0.706-1.375), tissue expander/implant explantation (RR = 0.741, 95% CI 0.506-1.085), wound dehiscence (RR = 1.272, 95% CI 0.605-2.673), capsular contracture (RR = 0.939, 95% CI 0.678-1.300) and rippling (RR = 2.485, 95% CI 0.986-6.261). The RR of animation deformity for the prepectoral group compared with the subpectoral group was 0.040 (95% CI, 0.002-0.853).
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggested that with appropriate patient selection, prepectoral breast reconstruction could avoid animation deformity without incurring higher risk of early wound complications, capsular contracture or rippling than partial subpectoral breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should complete a comprehensive assessment of the patients before choosing appropriate surgical approaches in clinical practice.
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 .