Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30100676›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of plastic surgery2018

Is single-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (SSBR) with an acellular matrix safe?: Strattice™ or Meso Biomatrix® in SSBR.

Nadine S Hillberg, Patrick I Ferdinandus, Rieky E G Dikmans, Bjorn Winkens, Juliette Hommes, René R W J van der Hulst

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of plastic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. [Update and Trends in Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy].Handchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie, plastische Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Handchirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Mikrochirurgie der Peripheren Nerven und Gefasse : Organ der V... · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nadine S Hillberg1Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Patrick I Ferdinandus1Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Rieky E G Dikmans2Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Bjorn Winkens3Department of Methodology and Statistics, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Science, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Juliette Hommes1Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
René R W J van der Hulst1Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcellular matrices (AM) might enable a direct single-stage breast reconstruction procedure resulting in an improved efficacy of the reconstruction phase for patients. Safety concerns are an important issue due to a recent study which shows that single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ resulted in more complications versus a two-stage reconstruction. Therefore, the goal of this study is to compare the short- and long-term complications of a single-stage breast reconstruction with the use of two types of AM (Strattice™ and Meso Biomatrix®) versus two-stage breast reconstruction without the use of an AM.

methodsCohort study with single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ (

resultsBaseline characteristics of all 52 patients were similar between groups. There was a significantly higher complication rate in the single-stage AM groups with loss of the implant in 40.0% of the breasts from the Meso BioMatrix® group and in 10.7% of the Strattice™ group compared to no implant loss in the control group.

conclusionsThis cohort study clearly suggests that the use of a single-stage breast reconstruction is not safe with the use of these AMs. Well-designed prospective studies that guarantee the safety of those matrices should be published before these AMs are used in implant-based surgery.Level of Evidence: Level III, risk / prognostic study.

Indexed as

Acellular dermisBreast implantBreast reconstructionImplant-basedMesh matrixPostoperative complications

Identifiers

PMID30100676
PMCPMC6061485
OpenAlexW2799632073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.