Table 2.
Relevant Summary from Systematic Review by Hilar et al, 2009
| Primary Article | TYPE | Material | SSI Rate | Recurrence rate | Mesh Placement | Follow up (mean, months) | Correlations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gupta et al, 2007[41] | Series | Surgisis | 0% (0/3) | 0% (0/3) | Overlay, interposition, underlay | 29 | NR |
| Trevino et al, 2006[30] | Series | Surgisis | 0% (0/4) | 0% (0/4) | Two-layered method | 10 | NR |
| Bluebond- Langner et al, 2008[30] | Series | Alloderm | 86% (6/7) | 0% (0/7) | Interpositional, CS | 9 | Interpositional placement is associated with laxity; Infection is associated with laxity |
| Buinewicz et al, 2004[42] | Series | Alloderm | Not Clear | Not Clear | Onlay, interpositional, multi-layer | 20 | No association of contamination and recurrence. |
| Butler et al, 2005[37] | Series | Alloderm | 0% (0/6) | 0% (0/6) | Inlay | 6 | NR |
| Hirsch et al, 2004[57] | Report | Alloderm | 0% (0/1) | 0% (0/1) | Onlay | 9 | NR |
| Jin et al, 2007[43] | Series | Alloderm | NR | 32% (12/37) | Onlay, Interpositional, Underlay, CS | 22 | Interpositional placement associated with recurrence |
| Kolker et al, 2005[36] | Series | Alloderm | 0% (0/16) | 0% (0/16) | Two-layered method, CS | 16 | NR |
| Tung et al, 2006[40] | Report | Alloderm | 0% (0/1) | 0% (0/1) | Interpositional | 12 | NR |
| Adedeji et al, 2002[38] | Report | Permacol | 0% (0/1) | 0% (0/1) | Onlay | 12 | NR |
| Armellino et al, 2006[58] | Series | Permacol | 0% (0/6) | 0% (0/6) | NR | 3-24 | NR |
| Liyanage et al, 2006[39] | Report (0/1) | Permacol | 0% | 0% (0/1) | Underlay | 12 | NR |
Abbreviations: CS, component separation; NR, not reported