Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27047784›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2016

Alloplastic adjuncts in breast reconstruction.

Miguel S Cabalag, Marie Rostek, George S Miller, Michael P Chae, Tam Quinn, Warren M Rozen, David J Hunter-Smith

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Acellular Dermal Matrix Reduces Myofibroblast Presence in the Breast Capsule.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Miguel S Cabalag1 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 2 Monash University Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit (Peninsula Clinical School), Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 3 Department of Surgery, Townsville Hospital, School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University Clinical School, Townsville, Queensland 4814, Australia.
Marie Rostek1 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 2 Monash University Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit (Peninsula Clinical School), Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 3 Department of Surgery, Townsville Hospital, School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University Clinical School, Townsville, Queensland 4814, Australia.
George S Miller1 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 2 Monash University Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit (Peninsula Clinical School), Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 3 Department of Surgery, Townsville Hospital, School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University Clinical School, Townsville, Queensland 4814, Australia.
Michael P Chae1 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 2 Monash University Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit (Peninsula Clinical School), Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 3 Department of Surgery, Townsville Hospital, School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University Clinical School, Townsville, Queensland 4814, Australia.
Tam Quinn1 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 2 Monash University Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit (Peninsula Clinical School), Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 3 Department of Surgery, Townsville Hospital, School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University Clinical School, Townsville, Queensland 4814, Australia.
Warren M Rozen1 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 2 Monash University Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit (Peninsula Clinical School), Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 3 Department of Surgery, Townsville Hospital, School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University Clinical School, Townsville, Queensland 4814, Australia.
David J Hunter-Smith1 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 2 Monash University Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit (Peninsula Clinical School), Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia ; 3 Department of Surgery, Townsville Hospital, School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University Clinical School, Townsville, Queensland 4814, Australia.
Frankston Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

acellular dermal matrices (ADMs)alloplastic implantsbreast implantsBreast reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID27047784
PMCPMC4791350
OpenAlexW1779570827

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.