2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.05.037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Editorial Commentary: Human Dermal Allograft Is Preferable to Fascia Lata Autograft Based on Similar Outcomes Without Donor-Site Morbidity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The two most frequently used materials for SCR are fascia lata autografts and biopatches. Unfortunately, the practical use of biopatches and human broad fascia has been constrained by numerous issues [24]. Using the LHBT for SCR effectively lowered costs while achieving surgical treatment goals, not requiring additional incisions, using less implant material, lowering the risk of postoperative infection, and being relatively surgeon‐friendly in terms of intraoperative suture management.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two most frequently used materials for SCR are fascia lata autografts and biopatches. Unfortunately, the practical use of biopatches and human broad fascia has been constrained by numerous issues [24]. Using the LHBT for SCR effectively lowered costs while achieving surgical treatment goals, not requiring additional incisions, using less implant material, lowering the risk of postoperative infection, and being relatively surgeon‐friendly in terms of intraoperative suture management.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 7 , 8 , 26 In an effort to minimize donor-site morbidity 12 , 16 and expedite surgery, the use of acellular dermal allografts has become a popular alternative 15 to autografts in the United States. 14 , 27 A recent systematic review of 14 studies commonly reported complications of SCR using dermal allografts, such as graft retear due to rupture of graft, anchor displacement, revision, reoperation, and infection. 12 Surgeons in our study reported their rationale for not using or decreasing the use of SCR to primarily be due to published reports of suboptimal outcomes and no perceived benefit to their personal patient outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%