Background:Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used extensively in implant-based breast reconstruction. It was reported that due to the different sources and processing methods, the outcomes of ADMs in implant-based breast reconstructions are expected to differ. We designed this study to statistically analyze and discuss the outcome of 3 commonly used ADMs, Alloderm, Strattice, and Surgimend in implant-based breast reconstruction.Methods:Comprehensive review of the literatures searched on electronic databases was done to identify studies published between 2006 and 2017 comparing the outcome of ADMs. Pooled random effect estimates for each complication and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. One-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni test were used to compare statistical significance between and within groups, respectively. Multiple linear regression was done to include confounding factors and R statistic program for forest plot.Results:Twenty-one studies met the inclusion with a total of 1,659, 999, and 912 breasts reconstructions in Alloderm, Strattice, and Surgimend, respectively. Seven complications extracted including major and minor infection, seroma, implant loss, hematoma, capsular contracture, and localized erythema. Pooled total complication rates were 23.82% (95% CI, 21.18–26.47%) in Strattice, 17.98% (95% CI, 15.49–20.47%) in Surgimend, 16.21% (95% CI, 14.44–17.99%) in Alloderm. Seroma rate was the highest in Strattice group (8.61%; 95% CI, 6.87–10.35%). There was no statistical significance between and within groups.Conclusion:Although Strattice exhibited a higher overall pooled complication rate compared with Alloderm and Surgimend, the incidence of individual complication varies between studies. A cost analysis of different ADMs may aid in choosing the type of ADMs to be used.

Recent introduction of rapid bromelain-based enzymatic debridement has been increasingly popular in its use in nonsurgical debridement in deep partial and full thickness burns. We designed this study to evaluate the evidence suggested by current studies on the perceived benefits of using Nexobrid® compared with traditional surgical standard of care in burns wound debridement. A comprehensive search on electronic databases Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science was done to identify studies published between 1986 and 2017 involving the use of Nexobrid® in deep partial and full thickness burns. Studies were evaluated for proposed benefits and categorized under supporting evidence, contradicting evidence, and anecdotal opinions. Seven well-designed prospective studies met the inclusion comprising four randomized controlled trials. Six proposed benefits associated with the use of Nexobrid® were extracted including reduced time to complete debridement, need for surgery, area of burns excised, need for autograft, time to wound closure, and improved scar quality. Most proposed benefits have strong supporting evidences with minimal anecdotal opinions from controlled trials except the proposed improvement in scar quality and reduced time to wound healing that had at least three refuting evidence and one anecdotal evidence. Incidence of pain was also evaluated and was mainly anecdotal lacking formal objective assessment or cohort study. Despite the lack of literatures available, the benefits of Nexobrid® are evident in published randomized and single arm studies. Large number of studies is needed to aid further evaluating the proposed benefits of Nexobrid®.

OBJECTIVE: Effective wound dressings should promote healing through cellular migration, neovascularization, and re-epithelialization. Silk fibroin (SF) and silk sericin (SS) are reported to have very good biocompatibility, excellent mechanical properties, and controlled biodegradability. This review investigates the use and performance of silk-based biomaterials in cutaneous wounds within in vitro, in vivo, and randomized controlled studies. METHODS: Study authors conducted a comprehensive literature search on the use of silk-based dressings in cutaneous wound healing and investigated reports of the advantages and disadvantages of SF and SS along with these materials’ methods of characterization, cell migration, neovascularization, wound closure, and cytotoxicity. RESULTS: In vitro and in vivo animal models have shown SF-based biomaterials promote good cellular adhesion and fibroblast proliferation in cutaneous wounds. The porosity and silk concentration of silk-based scaffolds are key determinants of biodegradation and plasmatic imbibition capabilities and can help promote wound healing. In reviewed studies, SF biomaterials promoted neovascularization as early as 7 days and better than common dressings, demonstrating low cytotoxicity and immunogenicity. That said, a concern with the use of SS is the tendency to cause a hypersensitivity reaction. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of silk-based biomaterials seem evident based on promising preclinical studies. Both SF and SS have been shown to have excellent wound healing properties by promoting cell attachment, migration, and collagen deposition. The authors encourage the use of SF and SS in more trials for wound healing.

Background:There have been many reported benefits of the usage of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in breast reconstruction. ADM reduces the need for rectus abdominis muscle and serratus anterior coverage by providing an inferolateral coverage of the implant/tissue expander. ADM can provide patients with a 1-staged reconstruction. This study was designed to look at the complication rates of 2 major hospitals in the United Kingdom.Methods:A large, 2-center retrospective cohort review of patients, who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction using Strattice (LifeCell Corp., Branchburg, N.J.) between March 2009 and November 2017, was performed. One-way analysis of variance was done to compare outcome significance between groups. Independent t test was performed to compare outcomes of 2 cohorts and regression analysis to include confounding factors using SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).Results:A total of 450 and 400 breast reconstructions were carried out in University Hospital of South Manchester (UHSM) and Royal Free London Hospital (RFH), respectively. We recorded a total complication of 37.8% in RFH cohort and 28% in UHSM cohort. The seroma rate was 11.25% and 13.33% in the UHSM and RFH cohort, respectively. Other complications reported were major and minor infections, implant loss, skin necrosis, hematomas, and implant exposure. Multiple linear regression analysis reported that confounding factors affected certain outcomes.Conclusion:Our 2-center complication rates were comparable to other articles. Results were comparable despite being in 2 different breast units in the United Kingdom.