Contemporary Management of Alopecia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for Surgeons.

[BACKGROUND] The decision of surgical approach for hair restoration often involves evaluation of the type of alopecia; however, the impact of surgical hair restoration from existing techniques in specific population subsets has not been comprehensively investigated.

[OBJECTIVES] The authors sought to systematically review the literature on micrografts, minigrafts, mini-micrografts, tissue grafts, tissue flaps and expanders, as well as evaluate graft survival and satisfaction within specific populations in a meta-analysis.

[METHODS] PubMed and Scopus literature searches between 1980 and 2018 yielded 57 articles for systematic review and 34 articles for meta-analysis. Study design, mean patient age and gender, patient alopecia type, surgical hair restoration technique, number of treatment areas, mean follow-up, graft survival rate and satisfaction rate were extracted from each study, and a meta-analysis was performed.

[RESULTS] The pooled rates of graft survival were 84.98% (95% CI 78.90-91.06) using micrografts and 93.11% (95% CI 91.93-94.29) using micrografts and minigrafts in nonscarring alopecia patients, as well as 88.66% (95% CI 80.12-97.20) using micrografts and 86.25% (95% CI 74.00-98.50) using micrografts and minigrafts in scarring alopecia patients. The pooled rates of satisfaction were 89.70% (95% CI 82.64-96.76) using micrografts and 97.00% (95% CI 92.48-100.0) using micrografts and minigrafts in nonscarring alopecia patients, as well as 97.80% (95% CI 94.59-100.0) using micrografts and 88.70% (95% CI 66.49-100.0) using micrografts and minigrafts in scarring alopecia patients. Dot plots depict rates of graft survival rate from micrografts and satisfaction from micrografts and minigrafts.

[CONCLUSION] Surgical hair restoration for nonscarring and scarring alopecia yields high graft survival and satisfaction rates.

[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III] This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.