PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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 1st January 1999 and 31st December 2022.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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 and damaged tissues to be restored. Prospective and multicentric studies are necessary to address current limits in this surgical field.
UNASSIGNED: 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 1st January 1999 and 31st December 2022.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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 and damaged tissues to be restored. Prospective and multicentric studies are necessary to address current limits in this surgical field.
摘要：
■在用于替代主要胸壁切除术的假体的情况下，最好的材料是什么仍然未知。我们回顾了最重要的文献，重点是通过突出它们的相对利弊来研究可用的假体材料的类型。
■我们回顾了最重要的文章，包括相关病例系列的临床结果（回顾性研究），在过去的23年中以英文出版：PubMed，我们在1999年1月1日至2022年12月31日期间的搜索中使用了Embase和Scopus数据库。
■总的来说，我们的文献综述显示，在胸壁重建所描述的手术策略中缺乏一致性或一致性，在决定和最佳假体材料以及假体类型方面没有国际公认的标准（软，刚性,生物）。尽管人们对胸壁重建的兴趣越来越大，我们观察到普遍缺乏实质性的前瞻性和多中心研究.同样，在特性和生物相容性方面，没有大量数据可以指导选择最佳假肢。
■有多种材料可用于重建，包括合成和生物网格，柔性和刚性贴片，和金属接骨术系统。所选择的材料应针对每个患者和要修复的受损组织进行优化。前瞻性和多中心研究对于解决该手术领域的当前限制是必要的。
■我们回顾了最重要的文章，包括相关病例系列的临床结果（回顾性研究），在过去的23年中以英文出版：PubMed，我们在1999年1月1日至2022年12月31日期间的搜索中使用了Embase和Scopus数据库。
■总的来说，我们的文献综述显示，在胸壁重建所描述的手术策略中缺乏一致性或一致性，在决定和最佳假体材料以及假体类型方面没有国际公认的标准（软，刚性,生物）。尽管人们对胸壁重建的兴趣越来越大，我们观察到普遍缺乏实质性的前瞻性和多中心研究.同样，在特性和生物相容性方面，没有大量数据可以指导选择最佳假肢。
■有多种材料可用于重建，包括合成和生物网格，柔性和刚性贴片，和金属接骨术系统。所选择的材料应针对每个患者和要修复的受损组织进行优化。前瞻性和多中心研究对于解决该手术领域的当前限制是必要的。
