Table 3.
List of the published clinical trials in which different types of acellular dermis matrices (ADMs) were used for the implant breast reconstruction. These papers, included in the meta-analysis, analytically reported the rate of complications in patients treated or not with radiotherapy (RXT). All studies but two (Nicolau et al., 2012, Canada, [7], and Potter et al., 2013, UK, [8]) were from groups operating in the USA or cooperating with American institutions. NR: not reported.
| Reference | ADM | Period, location | Nr. Of Pts./Reconstr. | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gamboa-Bobadilla, 2006 [9] | Alloderm | 2003-2004, Medical College Georgia | 11/13 | 14 months |
|
| ||||
| Bindingnavele et al., 2007 [10] | Alloderm | 2004-2005, Univ. South California | 41/65 | 10 months |
|
| ||||
| Nahabedian, 2009 [11] | Alloderm | 1997–2008, Georgetown Univ. | 76/100 | NR |
|
| ||||
| Namnoum, 2009 [12] | Alloderm | NR, Atlanta Plastic Surg. | 20/29 | 21 months |
|
| ||||
| Colwell et al., 2011 [13] | Alloderm versus no ADM | 2006–2010, Univ. Massachusetts | 211/331 and NR/128 | NR |
|
| ||||
| Israeli and Feingold, 2011 [14] | Strattice versus Alloderm | 2005–2009, Hofstra Univ. | 44/77 versus 72/122 | 12–22 months |
|
| ||||
| Joanna Nguyen et al., 2011 [15] | Alloderm versus no ADM | 1998–2008, Harvard Med. School | NR/75 and 246 | NR |
|
| ||||
| Rawlani et al., 2011 [16] | Flex-HD | NR, Northwestern Univ. | 84/121 | 44 weeks |
|
| ||||
| Nicolau et al., 2012 [7] | Alloderm | 2008–2010, McGill University Health Centre, Canada | 46/73 | |
|
| ||||
| Salzberg et al., 2011 [17] | Alloderm | 2001–2010, NY Med. College | 260/466 | 29 months |
|
| ||||
| Salzberg et al., 2013 [18] | Strattice | 2008-2009, NY Med. College | 54/105 | 41 months |
|
| ||||
| Spear et al., 2012 [19] | Alloderm | 2004–2010, Georgetown Univ. | 289/428 | 10–14 weeks |
|
| ||||
| Seth et al., 2012 [20] | Alloderm/Flex-HD versus no ADM | 2006–2008, Northwestern Univ. | NR/393 and 199 | 23-24 months |
|
| ||||
| Parks et al., 2012 [21] | Alloderm versus no ADM | 2001–2011, private practice, USA | 232/346 and 114/165 | NR |
|
| ||||
| Cheng et al., 2013 [22] | Alloderm | 2008–2012, Univ. of Texas; Emory University and Mayo Clinic. | 11/16 | 9 months |
|
| ||||
| Clemens and Kronowitz, 2012 [23] | Human, porcine, and bovine | 2008–2012, Univ. of Texas | 364/548 | NR |
|
| ||||
| Hanna et al., 2013 [24] | Alloderm versus no ADM | 2007–2010, Virginia Univ. | 31/38 and 44/62 | 8–10 months |
|
| ||||
| Patel et al., 2013 [25] | ADM (not specified) versus no ADM | 2005–2012, Univ. of California | NR/74 and NR/118 | 34 and 38 months |
|
| ||||
| Potter et al., 2013 [8] | Protexa | 2011-2012, University of Bristol, UK | 31/46 | 3 months |
|
| ||||
| Weichman et al., 2013 [26] | Alloderm | 2006–2011, NY University | 23/46 | 19 months |