Breast Reconstruction with Alloderm Ready to Use: A Meta-Analysis of Nine Observational Cohorts

Li-Hong Wu,Min-Xia Zhang,Chun-Ye Chen,Qing-Qing Fang,Xiao-Feng Wang,Wei-Qiang Tan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2018.03.007
2018-01-01
Abstract:Background: AlloDerm-RTU is a new member of human acellular dermal matrix (HADM) which was launched in 2012. The present meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether AlloDerm-RTU was superior compared with previous HADMs. Methods: All available databases were searched for retrospective or prospective studies regarding breast reconstruction with AlloDerm-RTU compared with other HADMs. The primary outcome was the incidence of complications among different HADMs. Results: Two prospective and seven retrospective studies with a total of 1406 patients were enrolled. There was no significant difference in any of the complications, including the incidence of hematoma (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.19; P = 0.73), seroma (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.26; P = 0.97), cellulitis (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.11; P = 0.68), necrosis (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10; P = 0.12), infection (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.25; P = 0.22), explantation (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.06; P = 0.08), and total complications (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.52; P = 0.73). Subgroup analysis showed that AlloDerm-RTU demonstrated no superiority compared with FD AlloDerm, AlloMax, or DermACELL. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the outcomes were stabilized. No publication bias existed in the present meta-analysis. Conclusion: Four HADM products, AlloDerm-RTU, FD AlloDerm, AlloMax, and DermACELL, showed similar risks of complications. However since most of the included studies had a low level of evidence, further random trials with large numbers of patients are needed. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?