scholarly journals AB033. Comparing the benefits and risks of using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) or synthetic mesh support in immediate breast cancer reconstruction—a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. AB033-AB033
Author(s):  
Dónal Murphy ◽  
Eanna Ryan ◽  
Billy Lane-O’Neill ◽  
Michael Boland ◽  
Aoife Lowery ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acellular Dermal Matrix ◽  
Synthetic Mesh ◽  
Dermal Matrix ◽  
Acellular Dermal

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Complications Associated With Acellular Dermal Matrix-Assisted Breast Reconstruction

2012 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 346-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Goretti Ho ◽  
T. JoAnna Nguyen ◽  
Ahva Shahabi ◽  
Brian H. Hwang ◽  
Linda S. Chan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acellular Dermal Matrix ◽  
Dermal Matrix ◽  
Acellular Dermal

scholarly journals Comparison of porcine and human acellular dermal matrix outcomes in wound healing: a deep dive into the evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-439
Author(s):  
Erin Cihat Saricilar ◽  
Sarah Huang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Wound Healing ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acellular Dermal Matrix ◽  
Small Range ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Dermal Matrix ◽  
Deep Dive ◽  
Manufacturing Method ◽  
Acellular Dermal

Acellular dermal matrices (ADM) are a novel graft. The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence behind differences in human and porcine ADM, irrelevant of manufacturing method, and to determine if there is enough of an evidence base to change clinical practice. An extensive literature search was performed through MEDLINE and Embase with search terms defining a population, intervention and outcome. Title and abstract exclusion were performed with other exclusion criteria. In 191 articles were found after exclusion of duplicates, with only 29 remaining following exclusions. Ten studies were found to have level I and II evidence (I=3, II=8), of which two were histopathological, one was an animal model, one was a systematic review, and six were clinical. The remaining studies were reviewed and considered for discussion, but did not hold high enough standards for medical evidence. Strong clinical evidence already exists for the use of human ADM, but questions of access, cost, and ethics require consideration of a xenograft. Histopathologically, evidence suggests minimal long-term differences between human and porcine ADM, although there is a short acute immune response with porcine ADM. Clinically, there is limited difference in outcomes, with a small range in effect of different ADM preparations. Considering the effectiveness of ADM in wound healing, more high-level research with appropriate statistical analysis to facilitate a future meta-analysis is recommended to justify a transition from human to porcine ADM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document