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

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).

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).

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.

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.