ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2019
Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Comparing Freeze-dried Aseptic Alloderm and Sterile Ready-to-use Alloderm.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 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
- Trends in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds.Current medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- Bioengineering Skin Substitutes for Wound Management-Perspectives and Challenges.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Reconstruction: CARE Trial 5-Year Outcomes Data for More Than 9500 Patients.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- Direct comparison of CGCRYODERM and DermACELL in the same patient for outcomes in bilateral implant-based breast reconstruction: a retrospective case series.Gland surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of acellular dermal matrix has revolutionized implant-based breast reconstruction in the 21st century. There have been a number of different dermal matrices introduced to clinical use and their equivalence has been debated. The purpose of this study is to examine a sequential series of acellular dermal matrix assisted implant-based breast reconstructions by a single surgeon and to compare the outcomes between a freeze-dried (FD) Alloderm cohort and a sterile ready to use Alloderm cohort.
methodsAfter institutional review board approval, all consecutive implant-based breast reconstructions of a single surgeon (D.S.W.) from January 2009 to June 2016 were examined. Two hundred thirty-six patients received either FD Alloderm in the first 151 breasts reconstructed or sterile ready-to-use Alloderm in the last 227 breasts.
resultsThe FD Alloderm patients had more tissue expander reconstructions performed and were all subpectoral placement. The ready-to-use Alloderm patients had more direct-to-implant procedures and some prepectoral placements. The complication rates were similar for seroma, hematoma, skin necrosis, and dehiscence. There were more infections, implant losses, and unexpected reoperations in the FD Alloderm group.
conclusionThe rate of infection, explantation, and unexpected reoperation was lower in the sterile ready-to-use Alloderm group versus the FD Alloderm group.
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.