ArticleEplasty2014
Comparative host response of 2 human acellular dermal matrices in a primate implant model.
Article in Eplasty, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collagen Remodeling of Strattice™ Firm in a Nonhuman Primate Model of Abdominal Wall Repair.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biologic Response With and Without Acellular Dermal Matrix in Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Comparison of mechanical properties and host tissue response to OviTex™ and Strattice™ surgical meshes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
- Design Considerations for Macroencapsulation Devices for Stem Cell Derived Islets for the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021Review
- Implant Fibrosis and the Underappreciated Role of Myofibroblasts in the Foreign Body Reaction.Cells · 2021Review
- Dielectric Elastomer Actuators, Neuromuscular Interfaces, and Foreign Body Response in Artificial Neuromuscular Prostheses: A Review of the Literature for an In Vivo Application.Advanced healthcare materials · 2021Review
- Decellularized dermis extracellular matrix alloderm mechanically strengthens biological engineered tunica adventitia-based blood vessels.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Characterization of Inflammatory and Fibrotic Aspects of Tissue Remodeling of Acellular Dermal Matrix in a Nonhuman Primate Model.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2021Article
- Domesticating the foreign body response: Recent advances and applications.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2019Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe examined the differences in capsule formation between 2 commercially available human acellular dermal matrices in a nonhuman primate model.
methodsPrimates were implanted dorsally with a subcutaneously placed tissue expander and randomized into 3 groups, receiving skin coverage only, coverage with non-irradiated freeze-dried human acellular dermal matrix, or coverage with gamma-irradiated human acellular dermal matrix. After 9 weeks, soft tissue around the tissue expander was excised and evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively to assess extent of inflammation (CD68 antibodies and interleukin-6 levels), degradation and fibrosis (matrix metalloproteinase-1 and procollagen-1 staining), and mechanical (tensile) strength.
resultsHistological evaluation of tissue around the tissue expander indicated differences in host response, suggesting capsule presence in the gamma-irradiated matrix group but not the freeze-dried matrix group. The extent of local inflammation was much higher in the gamma-irradiated matrix group which demonstrated mean (standard deviation) localized interleukin-6 concentration of 67.3 (53.6) vs 16.3 (6.7) pg/mg protein in the non-irradiated matrix group. There was robust degradation and fibrotic response in the gamma-irradiated matrix group versus the freeze-dried matrix group. Mechanical testing indicated mean (standard deviation) ultimate tensile strength of 12.0 (7.1) N in the gamma-irradiated matrix group versus 99.3 (48.8) N in the freeze-dried matrix group.
conclusionsEnclosure of a tissue expander with human acellular dermal matrix untreated by gamma irradiation led to minimal inflammation and minimal evidence of fibrosis/capsule around the tissue expander compared with robust capsule formation around the tissue expander that was covered by a gamma-irradiated human acellular dermal matrix.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24570768PMC3914385What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.