Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Autologous Versus Alloplastic Reconstruction for Patients with Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Autologous Versus Alloplastic Reconstruction for Patients with Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Autologous Versus Alloplastic Reconstruction for Patients with Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Autologous Versus Alloplastic Reconstruction for Patients with Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
2022
Overview
BackgroundAutologous 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionThe 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 IIIThis 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.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
