Chest wall reconstruction, prosthesis and allografts: a narrative review
Girotti PNC., Bianchi F.
Narrative Review, published in J Thorac Dis (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- J Thorac Dis (2023)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 38249910
- PMCID
- PMC10797370
- DOI
- 10.21037/jtd-23-650
- Citations
- 7
Abstract (original English)
Background and objective What is the best material in the case of prosthesis used to replace major chest wall resection is still unknown. We reviewed most significant literature focused on the type of prosthetic materials available by highlighting their relative pros and cons. Methods We reviewed most significant articles, including clinical results of relevant case series (retrospective studies), published in English in the last 23 years: PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were used in our search in the period between the 1 st January 1999 and 31 st December 2022. Key content and findings Overall, our literature review revealed lack of uniformity or conformity in the surgical strategies described for chest wall reconstruction with no internationally accepted standard in terms of decisions and optimal prosthetic materials and type of prostheses (soft, rigid, biological). Despite the increased interest in chest wall reconstruction, we observed a general lack of substantial prospective and multicentric studies. Likewise, there are not substantial data which may guide to the choice of optimal prosthetics in terms of characteristics and biocompatibility. Conclusions A variety of materials are available for reconstruction, including synthetic and biological meshes, flexible and rigid patches, and metal osteosynthesis systems. The material chosen should be optimized to each patient
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.