ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2016
A Complication Analysis of 2 Acellular Dermal Matrices in Prosthetic-based Breast Reconstruction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Analysis of Essence Human Acellular Dermal Matrix Compared With Other Products in Prepectoral Direct-to-implant Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- AlloDerm Versus Cortiva: A Multicenter Pooled Analysis of Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- AlloDerm® versus Cortiva® in implant-based breast reconstruction: framework for a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and economic outcomes.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Comparing Cortiva Silhouette to AlloDerm for Use in Prepectoral Two-stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Decellularized Extracellular Matrix Scaffolds for Soft Tissue Augmentation: From Host-Scaffold Interactions to Bottlenecks in Clinical Translation.Biomaterials research · 2024Review
- Surgical Outcomes in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2020Article
- A retrospective review of breast reconstruction outcomes comparing AlloDerm and DermaCELL.JPRAS open · 2019Article
- Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Comparison of Sterile and Aseptic AlloDerm in 2039 Consecutive Cases.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2018Article
- Cortiva Versus AlloDerm Ready-to-use in Prepectoral and Submuscular Breast Reconstruction: Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Study Design and Early Findings.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2018Article
- Complication analysis of complete versus partial coverage of tissue expanders using serratus anterior musculofascial flaps in immediate breast reconstruction.Surgery today · 2018Article
- A Histological Comparison of Two Human Acellular Dermal Matrix Products in Prosthetic-Based Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2017Article
- Optimizing Outcomes of Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction With Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Review of Recent Clinical Data.Eplasty · 2017Article
- Clinical applications of acellular dermal matrices: A review.Scars, burns & healingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcellular dermal matrices (ADM) are now routine in postmastectomy prosthetic-based breast reconstruction. The goal of the current study was to compare the complications of 2 ADM products-AlloDerm and Cortiva.
methodsA retrospective analysis of prosthetic-based breast reconstruction in Atlanta, Ga., over 5 years. Inclusion criteria were the use of the ADM types (AlloDerm or Cortiva) and use of a tissue expander or implant. Statistical analysis compared group demographics, risk factors, and early complications.
resultsOf the 298 breast reconstructions, 174 (58.4%) used AlloDerm and 124 (41.6%) used Cortiva. There was no difference in overall complication frequency (16 AlloDerm and 18 Cortiva; P = 0.195). Within specific categories, there was a difference in mastectomy skin flap necrosis, but, based on further regression analysis, this was attributable to differences in body mass index (P = 0.036). Furthermore, there were no differences in the rates of infection (6 AlloDerm and 5 Cortiva; P = 1.0), seroma/hematoma (9 AlloDerm and 7 Cortiva; P = 1.0), or drain duration (13.2 day AlloDerm and 14.2 day Cortiva, P = 0.2). By using a general estimating equation for binomial logistical regression, it was found that only current tobacco use (P = 0.033) was a significant predictor for a complication. Trending predictors were body mass index (P = 0.074) and age (P = 0.093). The type of matrix was not a significant predictor for any of the recorded complication (P = 0.160).
conclusionsAlthough AlloDerm is well established, we have shown that Cortiva has an equivalent complication frequency. Future work will focus on long-term outcome measures and histological evaluation of vascularization and integration.
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.