Annals of surgical oncology · 2025
Reconstruction of the Chest Wall in Primary and Secondary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Rigid Versus Flexible Materials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
da Nobrega Oliveira Rachid Eduardo Noleto, D Ambrosio Paula Duarte, Salvador Isabella Cabianca Moriguchi Caetano, Martins Marcelo Albuquerque Barbosa, Campos José Ribas Milanez
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chest wall reconstruction using rigid or flexible materials presents controversial clinical outcomes, particularly regarding complications and mortality. The optimal material for various clinical scenarios remains uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis to directly compare outcomes between rigid and flexible materials in chest wall reconstructions.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until 20 January 2025. Studies comparing chest wall reconstruction with rigid and flexible materials in adult patients were included. The effect measures used were mean differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios for binary outcomes. Statistical analysis was conducted using random-effects models, and heterogeneity was evaluated with I2 statistics.
RESULTS: In total, 13 retrospective studies involving 1111 patients were included. Of these, 39.5% underwent reconstruction with rigid materials and 60.5% with flexible materials. No statistically significant differences were found between materials in mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-4.97; p = 0.21), rupture (OR 2.02; 95% CI 0.49-8.26; p = 0.33), major complications (OR 1.49; 95% CI 0.84-2.63; p = 0.17), or pulmonary complications (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.80-1.98; p = 0.31).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that rigid and flexible materials yield similar clinical outcomes in chest wall reconstruction, though rigid materials were more frequently used for larger defects. Prospective studies with standardized criteria are needed to validate these findings.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until 20 January 2025. Studies comparing chest wall reconstruction with rigid and flexible materials in adult patients were included. The effect measures used were mean differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios for binary outcomes. Statistical analysis was conducted using random-effects models, and heterogeneity was evaluated with I2 statistics.
RESULTS: In total, 13 retrospective studies involving 1111 patients were included. Of these, 39.5% underwent reconstruction with rigid materials and 60.5% with flexible materials. No statistically significant differences were found between materials in mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-4.97; p = 0.21), rupture (OR 2.02; 95% CI 0.49-8.26; p = 0.33), major complications (OR 1.49; 95% CI 0.84-2.63; p = 0.17), or pulmonary complications (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.80-1.98; p = 0.31).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that rigid and flexible materials yield similar clinical outcomes in chest wall reconstruction, though rigid materials were more frequently used for larger defects. Prospective studies with standardized criteria are needed to validate these findings.