Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24941900›Full record

ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2015

Histologic characterization of acellular dermal matrices in a porcine model of tissue expander breast reconstruction.

Christopher A Carruthers, Christopher L Dearth, Janet E Reing, Caroline R Kramer, Darcy H Gagne, Peter M Crapo, Onelio Garcia, Amit Badhwar, Jeffrey R Scott, Stephen F Badylak

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Development of nanostructured bioplastic material for wound healing.European journal of translational myology · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Dural repair using porcine ADM: two cases and a literature review.Case reports in plastic surgery & hand surgery · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher A Carruthers1 Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Christopher L Dearth
Janet E Reing
Caroline R Kramer
Darcy H Gagne
Peter M Crapo
Onelio Garcia
Amit Badhwar
Jeffrey R Scott
Stephen F Badylak
University of Pittsburgh · USBrown University · USMcGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine · USUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

Training in Biomechanics in Regenerative MedicineT32EB003392 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WOO, SAVIO L-Y. · 2005 to 2020
$4.0M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB003392
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been commonly used in expander-based breast reconstruction to provide inferolateral prosthesis coverage. Although the clinical performance of these biologic scaffold materials varies depending on a number of factors, an in-depth systematic characterization of the host response is yet to be performed. The present study evaluates the biochemical composition and structure of two ADMs, AlloDerm(®) Regenerative Tissue Matrix and AlloMax™ Surgical Graft, and provides a comprehensive spatiotemporal characterization in a porcine model of tissue expander breast reconstruction.

methodsEach ADM was characterized with regard to thickness, permeability, donor nucleic acid content, (residual double-stranded DNA [dsDNA]), and growth factors (basic fibroblast growth factor [bFGF], vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], and transforming growth factor-beta 1 [TGF-β1]). Cytocompatibility was evaluated by in vitro cell culture on the ADMs. The host response was evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks at various locations within the ADMs using established metrics of the inflammatory and tissue remodeling response: cell infiltration, multinucleate giant cell formation, extent of ADM remodeling, and neovascularization.

resultsAlloMax incorporated more readily with surrounding host tissue as measured by earlier and greater cell infiltration, fewer foreign body giant cells, and faster remodeling of ADM. These findings correlated with the in vitro composition and cytocompatibility analysis, which showed AlloMax to more readily support in vitro cell growth.

conclusionsAlloMax and AlloDerm demonstrated distinct remodeling characteristics in a porcine model of tissue expander breast reconstruction.

Indexed as

Acellular DermisTissue Expansion DevicesAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalFemaleGiant CellsHumansMammaplastyMammary Glands, AnimalMaterials TestingMiceNeovascularization, PhysiologicNIH 3T3 CellsSus scrofa

Identifiers

PMID24941900
PMCPMC4292858
OpenAlexW2317303028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.