• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

牛与猪去细胞真皮基质在腹壁重建中的效果比较:倾向评分匹配分析。

Outcomes of Abdominal Wall Reconstruction with a Bovine versus a Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

机构信息

From the Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.

出版信息

Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023 Oct 1;152(4):872-881. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010292. Epub 2023 Feb 14.

DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000010292
PMID:36780366
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) is one of the most commonly performed procedures, yet large comparative studies comparing outcomes of AWR using bovine acellular dermal matrix (BADM) and porcine acellular dermal matrix (PADM) are lacking.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent AWR from March of 2005 to June of 2019, the primary comparative outcome measure was hernia recurrence with BADM versus PADM. The secondary outcome was the incidence of surgical-site occurrence (SSO) and surgical-site infection. A propensity score matching approach was applied to compare the clinical outcomes between the two study groups.

RESULTS

The authors identified 725 patients who underwent AWR using BADM (50.5%) or PADM (49.5%). Their mean ± SD age was 59.8 ± 11.5 years, mean body mass index was 31.4 ± 6.7 kg/m 2 , and mean follow-up time was 42 ± 29 months. With propensity score matching, 219 matched pairs were identified. Hernia recurrence rates in BADM (11.4%) and PADM (13.7%) groups did not differ significantly ( P = 0.793). SSO (26.5% versus 29.2%; P = 0.518) and SSI (13.2% versus 11%; P = 0.456) rates did not differ significantly in the PADM and BADM groups, respectively. Conditional logistic regression model and marginal Cox proportional hazards regression model determined that type of acellular dermal matrix was not significantly associated with SSOs (adjusted OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.70; P = 0.589) or hernia recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.42; P = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Both BADMs and PADMs provide durable, long-term outcomes. The hernia recurrence and postoperative surgical complication rates were not significantly different between BADM and PADM.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

摘要

背景

腹壁重建(AWR)是最常进行的手术之一,但缺乏比较使用牛去细胞真皮基质(BADM)和猪去细胞真皮基质(PADM)进行 AWR 结果的大型对照研究。

方法

在这项回顾性队列研究中,纳入了 2005 年 3 月至 2019 年 6 月期间接受 AWR 的患者,主要的对比结果测量指标是使用 BADM 与 PADM 的疝复发率。次要结果是手术部位发生(SSO)和手术部位感染的发生率。应用倾向评分匹配方法比较两组患者的临床结果。

结果

作者确定了 725 例使用 BADM(50.5%)或 PADM(49.5%)进行 AWR 的患者。他们的平均年龄 ± 标准差为 59.8 ± 11.5 岁,平均体重指数为 31.4 ± 6.7kg/m 2 ,平均随访时间为 42 ± 29 个月。经过倾向评分匹配,共匹配了 219 对。BADM(11.4%)和 PADM(13.7%)组的疝复发率差异无统计学意义(P = 0.793)。SSO(26.5%比 29.2%;P = 0.518)和 SSI(13.2%比 11%;P = 0.456)发生率在 PADM 和 BADM 组之间差异均无统计学意义。条件逻辑回归模型和边缘 Cox 比例风险回归模型确定,去细胞真皮基质的类型与 SSO (调整后的比值比,1.11;95%CI,0.74 至 1.70;P = 0.589)或疝复发(调整后的危险比,0.85;95%CI,0.50 至 1.42;P = 0.52)无显著相关性。

结论

BADM 和 PADM 均提供持久的长期结果。BADM 和 PADM 的疝复发和术后手术并发症发生率无显著差异。

临床问题/证据水平:治疗性,III 级。

相似文献

1
Outcomes of Abdominal Wall Reconstruction with a Bovine versus a Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.牛与猪去细胞真皮基质在腹壁重建中的效果比较:倾向评分匹配分析。
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023 Oct 1;152(4):872-881. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010292. Epub 2023 Feb 14.
2
Acellular Dermal Matrix Provides Durable Long-Term Outcomes in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A Study of Patients with Over 60 Months of Follow-up.脱细胞真皮基质在腹壁重建中提供持久的长期效果:一项超过 60 个月随访的患者研究。
Ann Surg. 2022 Nov 1;276(5):e563-e570. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004454. Epub 2020 Oct 19.
3
A Comparison of Component Separation With Porcine Acellular Dermal Reinforcement to Bovine Acellular Dermal Matrix in the Repair of Significant Midline Ventral Hernia Defects.补片分隔技术与猪脱细胞真皮基质和牛脱细胞真皮基质在修复巨大中线腹壁疝缺损中的比较。
Am Surg. 2023 Apr;89(4):1003-1008. doi: 10.1177/00031348211050844. Epub 2021 Nov 12.
4
Bovine versus porcine acellular dermal matrix for abdominal wall herniorrhaphy or bridging.用于腹壁疝修补或桥接的牛脱细胞真皮基质与猪脱细胞真皮基质的比较
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022 Jun;48(3):1993-2001. doi: 10.1007/s00068-021-01641-z. Epub 2021 Mar 13.
5
Outcomes with porcine acellular dermal matrix versus synthetic mesh and suture in complicated open ventral hernia repair.猪脱细胞真皮基质与合成补片及缝线用于复杂开放性腹疝修补术的疗效比较
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2014 Oct;15(5):506-12. doi: 10.1089/sur.2013.090. Epub 2014 Sep 12.
6
Abdominal Wall Reconstruction with Concomitant Ostomy-Associated Hernia Repair: Outcomes and Propensity Score Analysis.腹壁重建联合造口相关疝修补术:结果与倾向评分分析
J Am Coll Surg. 2017 Mar;224(3):351-361.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.11.013. Epub 2016 Dec 10.
7
A Comparison of Acellular Dermal Matrices in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.脱细胞真皮基质在腹壁重建中的比较
Ann Plast Surg. 2019 Apr;82(4):435-440. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001692.
8
Recurrent intestinal fistulation after porcine acellular dermal matrix reinforcement in enteric fistula takedown and simultaneous abdominal wall reconstruction.肠造口还纳及同期腹壁重建中使用猪去细胞真皮基质加强后出现复发性肠瘘。
Hernia. 2020 Jun;24(3):537-543. doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-02097-2. Epub 2019 Dec 6.
9
Primary fascial closure with mesh reinforcement is superior to bridged mesh repair for abdominal wall reconstruction.原发性筋膜闭合联合网片加强在腹壁重建中优于桥接网片修复。
J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Dec;217(6):999-1009. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.08.015. Epub 2013 Sep 29.
10
Primary fascial closure with biologic mesh reinforcement results in lesser complication and recurrence rates than bridged biologic mesh repair for abdominal wall reconstruction: A propensity score analysis.与桥接生物补片修复腹壁重建相比,采用生物补片加强的一期筋膜闭合术并发症和复发率更低:一项倾向评分分析。
Surgery. 2017 Feb;161(2):499-508. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.08.009. Epub 2016 Oct 31.

引用本文的文献

1
Three-Dimensional Disassemblable Scaffolds for Breast Reconstruction.用于乳房重建的三维可拆解支架
Polymers (Basel). 2025 Jul 25;17(15):2036. doi: 10.3390/polym17152036.
2
Synthetic vs. biologic mesh for abdominal wall reconstruction in contaminated surgical fields. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.在污染手术区域进行腹壁重建时合成补片与生物补片的比较:随机对照试验和观察性研究的荟萃分析
Hernia. 2024 Dec 12;29(1):43. doi: 10.1007/s10029-024-03239-x.
3
Contemporary Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: Emerging Techniques and Trends.
当代腹壁重建:新兴技术与趋势
J Clin Med. 2024 May 13;13(10):2876. doi: 10.3390/jcm13102876.
4
Tissue engineering strategies for breast reconstruction: a literature review of current advances and future directions.乳房重建的组织工程策略:当前进展与未来方向的文献综述
Ann Transl Med. 2024 Feb 1;12(1):15. doi: 10.21037/atm-23-1724. Epub 2023 Nov 15.