The use of flaps for management of deep sternal wound complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Many options are available for reconstruction after deep sternal wound infections. However, these options have not been critically appraised. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the existing evidence on sternal rewiring versus flap reconstruction and pectoralis major muscle flaps (PMFs) versus greater omental flaps (GOFs).

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Outcomes of interest included mortality, treatment failure and length of hospital stay (LOS).

Results: Fourteen studies were included. Nine studies compared flaps to rewiring, reporting on 618 patients. Patients treated with flaps had significantly lower mortality compared with patient treated with rewiring (Risk ratio [RR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.77, P < 0.01). Flap patients had significantly lower treatment failure compared with those who were treated with rewiring (RR 0.22, 95% CI: 0.14-0.37, P < 0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed in LOS between patients treated with flaps compared those treated with rewiring (standard mean difference -0.84, 95% CI: -1.91 to 0.24, P = 0.13). Five studies compared PMF with GOF, reporting on 599 patients. No statistically significant differences were found in mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.24-1.68, P = 0.36), LOS (standard mean difference -14.52, 95% CI: -42.00 to 12.96, P = 0.30) or treatment failure (RR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.31-6.07, P = 0.68) in patients treated with PMF compared with patients treated with GOF.

Conclusions: Flap-based reconstruction demonstrated improved mortality and treatment outcomes compared to sternal rewiring. However, no significant differences were observed in outcomes between the PMF- and GOF-based reconstructions.

Keywords: Chest wall reconstruction; Deep sternal wound; Greater omental flap; Mediastinitis; Pectoralis major flap.