Autologous Versus Alloplastic Reconstruction for Patients with Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Rawan ElAbd, Neetin Prabhu, Alaa Alibrahim, Emily Burke, Jason Williams, Osama Samargandi

Résultat de recherche: Review articleexamen par les pairs

10 Citations (Scopus)

Résumé

Background: Autologous flaps may have superior outcomes when compared to implant breast reconstruction in patients with obesity. To date, no published review has illustrated the superiority of autologous to implant-based reconstruction in this study group in terms of aesthetics outcomes and surgical complications. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Embase from inception to December 31, 2020. Studies comparing the outcomes (patient satisfaction and complications) of autologous versus implant-based reconstruction in patients with BMI > 30 were selected. Results: The search yielded 1633 articles, of which 76 were assessed in full text. A total of 12 articles fit inclusion for qualitative review; of them, 7 were meta-analyzed. Autologous reconstruction had a lower incidence of infection (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.59, 0.92]), hematoma/seroma formation (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.23, 0.49]), and reconstructive failure (OR 0.47 [95% CI 0.36, 0.62]), but not skin necrosis (OR 0.95 [95% CI 0.73, 1.25]) or wound dehiscence (OR 1.03 [95% CI 0.72, 1.49]) when compared to implant-based reconstruction. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism occurred more frequently with autologous versus alloplastic reconstruction (OR 2.21 [95% CI 1.09, 4.49] for DVT and OR 2.49 [95% CI 1.13, 5.48] for PE). BREASTQ scores were higher for the autologous breast reconstruction when compared to implant-based group, but failed to reach significance (p value >0.05). Conclusion: The current evidence in the literature suggests that autologous breast reconstruction has lower surgical complication rate when compared to implant-based reconstruction at the expense of higher risk of thrombotic complications for patients with BMI > 30. 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.

Langue d'origineEnglish
Pages (de-à)597-609
Nombre de pages13
JournalAesthetic Plastic Surgery
Volume46
Numéro de publication2
DOI
Statut de publicationPublished - avr. 2022

Note bibliographique

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

  • Surgery

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article
  • Meta-Analysis
  • Review
  • Systematic Review

Empreinte numérique

Plonger dans les sujets de recherche 'Autologous Versus Alloplastic Reconstruction for Patients with Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis'. Ensemble, ils forment une empreinte numérique unique.

Citer