Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024
Benefit of the Omental Flap in Breast Reconstruction for Oncoplastic Treatment: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Yang Liehao, Tao Chen, Yan Yan, Pan Lingfeng, Li Caihong, Jin Xiaoyu, Kong Jiao, Wu Zhuoxia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer patients poses the challenge of achieving optimal aesthetic outcomes without increasing the risk of complications. Omental flap has emerged as n reconstructive option in breast surgery, yet the efficacy and safety of large omental flaps remain uncertain. This study aims to conduct a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and cosmetic outcomes of large omental flap breast reconstruction, providing updated evidence for clinical practice.
METHODS: We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CNKI databases until August 2023. Studies were screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of each study was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed using R version 4.2.0.
RESULTS: A total of 22 studies with 1031 patients were reviewed and analyzed. Meta-analysis results showed that hematoma and seroma rate were 4.1% (95%CI 0.8-8.8, P < 0.01). The pooled cosmetic outcomes demonstrated excellent rate 56.7% (95%CI 46.4-69.3, P < 0.01), good rate 7.9% (95%CI 3.9-11.9, P < 0.01), fair rate 28.7% (95%CI 19.9-37.5, P < 0.01). The pooled blood loss was 110.74 ml (95%CI: 72.33-149.14, P = 0), hospital stays was 7.27 (95%CI 5.65-8.89, P < 0.01), the time of omental flap harvest was 65.63 min (95%CI 59.95-71.32, P < 0.01), the time for surgery was 240.87 min (95%CI 5.65- 8.89, P = 0).
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicates that the omental flap in breast reconstruction is safe and effective with good cosmetic outcomes and a low incidence of complications. The study highlights the benefits of comprehensive assessment, warranting further investigation through high-quality studies and long-term follow-up.
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: We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CNKI databases until August 2023. Studies were screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of each study was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed using R version 4.2.0.
RESULTS: A total of 22 studies with 1031 patients were reviewed and analyzed. Meta-analysis results showed that hematoma and seroma rate were 4.1% (95%CI 0.8-8.8, P < 0.01). The pooled cosmetic outcomes demonstrated excellent rate 56.7% (95%CI 46.4-69.3, P < 0.01), good rate 7.9% (95%CI 3.9-11.9, P < 0.01), fair rate 28.7% (95%CI 19.9-37.5, P < 0.01). The pooled blood loss was 110.74 ml (95%CI: 72.33-149.14, P = 0), hospital stays was 7.27 (95%CI 5.65-8.89, P < 0.01), the time of omental flap harvest was 65.63 min (95%CI 59.95-71.32, P < 0.01), the time for surgery was 240.87 min (95%CI 5.65- 8.89, P = 0).
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicates that the omental flap in breast reconstruction is safe and effective with good cosmetic outcomes and a low incidence of complications. The study highlights the benefits of comprehensive assessment, warranting further investigation through high-quality studies and long-term follow-up.
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 .