Shah R, Rodrigues R, Phillips V, Khatib M. The use of artificial dermal substitutes for repair of the donor site following harvesting of a radial forearm free flap: A systematic review.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2024;
88:501-516. [PMID:
38101265 DOI:
10.1016/j.bjps.2023.11.046]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2023] [Revised: 11/01/2023] [Accepted: 11/26/2023] [Indexed: 12/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Artificial dermal substitutes (ADMs) have been trialled to improve outcomes at the donor site following the harvesting of a radial forearm free flap (RFFF). This systematic review compares donor site aesthetic and functional outcomes, with the use of an ADM versus conventional practice.
METHODS
The databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (Core Collection), and Scopus were searched for retrospective, prospective, and case-control studies and randomised control trials (RCTs) involving any ADM. Studies with adult patients having undergone RFFF harvesting and donor site repair with an ADM, commenting on appropriate clinical outcomes and without high risk of bias, were included. Direction-of-effect analysis was performed on relevant groupings of studies since heterogeneity in outcome measurement precluded meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Across eight non-comparative studies included, 132 patients had donor site coverage with AlloDerm™, Integra™, Matriderm™, or Rapiderm. Across 11 comparative studies included, 240 patients had donor site coverage with fish-skin matrix, AlloDerm™, amniotic membrane, MegaDerm™, Hyalomatrix, Integra™, or Matriderm™. Five out of 11 comparative studies demonstrated superior aesthetic outcomes with ADMs according to at least one aesthetic metric compared to controls, whilst 6/11 demonstrated superior functional outcomes with ADMs. No study demonstrated poorer aesthetic or functional outcomes with an ADM compared to conventional practice.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the lack of studies reporting poorer outcomes with them compared to conventional practices, and a cumulative effect direction in their favour, provide strong indications in support of the use of AlloDerm™, Integra™, or Matriderm™ grafts. Further comparative studies, including RCTs, are needed to reinforce these initial indications.
Collapse