Complications of abdominal-based free flaps for breast reconstruction in obese patients: a meta-analysis and case series

The Impact of Obesity on Plastic Surgery Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a potential risk factor for complications in plastic surgeries. However, the data presented by primary studies are contradictory.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to summarize and clarify the divergences in the literature to provide a better understanding of the impact of obesity in different plastic surgery procedures.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of obesity on plastic surgery outcomes. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Opengrey.eu, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes assessed were surgical complications, medical complications, and reoperation rates. The secondary outcome assessed was patient satisfaction. Subgroup analysis was performed to investigate the impact of each BMI category on the outcomes.

RESULTS

Ninety-three articles were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 91 were used in the meta-analysis. Obese participants were 1.62 times more likely to present any of the primary outcomes (95% CI, 1.48-1.77; P < 0.00001). The highest increase in risk among plastic surgery types was observed in cosmetic procedures (risk ratio [RR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.43-2.32; P < 0.00001). Compared with normal-weight participants, overweight participants presented a significantly increased RR for complications (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07-1.27; P = 0.0004). Most authors found no relation between BMI and overall patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity leads to more complications and greater incidence of reoperation compared with nonobese patients undergoing plastic surgeries. However, this effect is not evident in reconstructive surgeries in areas of the body other than the breast.

A Systematic Quality Evaluation of Meta-Analyses Related to Plastic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Meta-analyses are considered to be an important source of evidence. This review aims to systematically assess the quality of meta-analyses addressing topics in plastic surgery.

METHODS

Electronic databases were selected for systematic review. A search was performed focusing on communication addresses containing terms related to plastic surgery, and detailed inclusion criteria were used. Related data were extracted and recorded according to the items of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. To assess the quality of the meta-analyses over time, studies published before and after PRISMA were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 116 meta-analyses were included. There was 1 study that was fully in compliance with the PRISMA items. The main flaws impacting the overall quality of the included studies were in the following areas: structured summary (48%), protocol and registration (2%), full electronic search strategy (35%), risk of bias in individual studies (41%), additional analyses (27%), risk of bias within studies (47%), additional analysis (30%), and funding (47%). Study quality was evaluated using relative risks (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI); this revealed that there were few significant improvements in adherence to the PRISMA statement after its release, especially in selection (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.08-2.99), results of individual studies (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.41-5.91), synthesis of results (RR, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.32-7.17), and funding (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.24).

CONCLUSIONS

There have been measurable improvements in the quality of meta-analyses over recent years. However, several serious deficiencies remain according to the PRISMA statement. Future reviewers should pay more attention to not only reporting the main findings but also encouraging compliance with proper standards.