ReviewGland surgery2016
Alloplastic adjuncts in breast reconstruction.
Review in Gland surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct-to-Implant Subcutaneous Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Complications and Patient's Quality of Life.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Complications associated with acellular dermal matrix use in implant-based breast reconstruction.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- Advances in abiotic tissue-based biomaterials: A focus on decellularization and devitalization techniques.Materials today. Bio · 2025Article
- Revisiting low complications of VICRYL mesh in breast reconstruction: Insights from an updated systematic review.JPRAS open · 2025Review
- Long-Term Shape and Volume Retention of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery: A 2-Year Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical progression following acellular dermal matrix use for volume replacement after breast-conserving surgery.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- The Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Radioulnar Heterotopic Ossification.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Volume replacement in tumor plastic surgery and breast-conserving surgery using 3D grid and strip‑shaped acellular dermal matrix: Two case reports.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Article
- Current Global Trends in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- AGO Recommendations for the Surgical Therapy of Breast Cancer: Update 2022.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2022Article
- Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy, from the Subpectoral to the Prepectoral Approach: An Evidence-Based Change of Mind?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: A single center comparison between different procedures.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- The Comparison of Breast Reconstruction Using Two Types of Acellular Dermal Matrix after Breast-Conserving Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- The Prepectoral, Hybrid Breast Reconstruction: The Synergy of Lipofilling and Breast Implants.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2020Article
- Acellular Dermal Matrix Reduces Myofibroblast Presence in the Breast Capsule.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019Article
- Managing Postoperative Infection following Breast Reconstruction with the Sientra AlloX2 Tissue Expander.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2018Article
- Acellular dermal matrix in implant-based immediate breast reconstructions: a comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral approach.Gland surgery · 2018Article
- Novel devices for implant-based breast reconstruction: is the use of meshes to support the lower pole justified in terms of benefits? A review of the evidence.Ecancermedicalscience · 2018Review
- Clinical Approaches to Breast Reconstruction: What Is the Appropriate Reconstructive Procedure for My Patient?Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
- Surveillance and Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Breast Oncologic Surgery with Immediate Reconstruction.Current treatment options in infectious diseases · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been an increasing role of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and synthetic meshes in both single- and two-stage implant/expander breast reconstruction. Numerous alloplastic adjuncts exist, and these vary in material type, processing, storage, surgical preparation, level of sterility, available sizes and cost. However, there is little published data on most, posing a significant challenge to the reconstructive surgeon trying to compare and select the most suitable product. The aims of this systematic review were to identify, summarize and evaluate the outcomes of studies describing the use of alloplastic adjuncts for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. The secondary aims were to determine their cost-effectiveness and analyze outcomes in patients who also underwent radiotherapy.
methodsUsing the PRSIMA 2009 statement, a systematic review was conducted to find articles reporting on the outcomes on the use of alloplastic adjuncts in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Multiple databases were searched independently by three authors (Cabalag MS, Miller GS and Chae MP), including: Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to present), Embase (1980 to 2015), PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
resultsCurrent published literature on available alloplastic adjuncts are predominantly centered on ADMs, both allogeneic and xenogeneic, with few outcome studies available for synthetic meshes. Outcomes on the 89 articles, which met the inclusion criteria, were summarized and analyzed. The reported outcomes on alloplastic adjunct-assisted breast reconstruction were varied, with most data available on the use of ADMs, particularly AlloDerm(®) (LifeCell, Branchburg, New Jersey, USA). The use of ADMs in single-stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction resulted in lower complication rates (infection, seroma, implant loss and late revision), and was more cost effective when compared to non-ADM, two-stage reconstruction. The majority of studies demonstrated inferior outcomes in ADM assisted, two-stage expander-to-implant reconstruction compared to non-ADM use. Multiple studies suggest that the use of ADMs results in a reduction of capsular contracture rates. Additionally, the reported beneficial effects of ADM use in irradiated tissue were varied.
conclusionsADM assisted two-stage breast reconstruction was associated with inferior outcomes when compared to non-ADM use. However, alloplastic adjuncts may have a role in single stage, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Published evidence comparing the long-term outcomes between the different types of adjuncts is lacking, and further level one studies are required to identify the ideal product.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.