A Systematic Review of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma and Fat Graft Preparation Methods

Background:. The addition of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to adipose tissue may improve fat graft survival, although graft retention rates vary markedly between studies. To what extent this outcome heterogeneity reflects differing methodological factors remains unknown. This systematic review aims to synthesize and critically review methodological approaches to autologous PRP and fat cotransplantation in both human and animal studies. Methods:. In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to April 2017. Data were extracted from all in vivo studies involving autologous PRP and fat cotransplantation. A secondary aim was to assess reporting of technical detail; authors were not contacted to provide missing data. Results:. From 335 articles, 23 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Some 21 were performed in humans and 2 in rabbits. Six studies were randomized control trials; the remainder reported on observational data. Methods of PRP extraction and activation varied markedly between studies. Fat graft preparation was comparatively more consistent. Methods of PRP and fat mixing differed significantly, especially with regards to relative volume/volume ratios. Conclusions:. Our study represents the first systematic review of methodological factors in autologous PRP and fat cotransplantation. It demonstrates that technical factors in graft preparation and administration vary significantly between in vivo studies. Such methodological heterogeneity may explain observed differences in experimental and clinical outcomes. Reporting of key procedural information is inconsistent and often inadequate. These issues make meaningful evaluation of the PRP-enhanced fat grafting literature difficult and may limit its translation into clinical practice

Comparing the Outcome of Different Biologically Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-based Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of the Literatures

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