ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2020
Complications after Perforated versus Nonperforated Acellular Dermal Matrix Use in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score Analysis.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Pooled it
- Thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risks after mastectomy with vs without direct-to-implant reconstruction.Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) were first incorporated into direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction by the senior author in 2001 and have since become foundational to implant-based reconstruction. ADM composition has evolved recently and now includes perforated types, which some speculate decrease the likelihood of seroma. The authors performed a retrospective review of perforated (P-ADM) and nonperforated (NP-ADM) ADM-assisted direct-to-implant breast reconstruction patients to evaluate differences in complication rates.
methodsRetrospective review of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction patients operated on by a single surgeon (CAS) from 2011 to 2018 was conducted. Patient and operative characteristics, including ADM type, were recorded. A propensity score matching algorithm accounting for potentially confounding variables was developed, followed by univariate analysis to evaluate the association between ADM perforation and postoperative complications.
resultsThe review began with 409 patients (761 breasts). Following exclusion of patients with missing demographic information, lack of ADM in their reconstruction, and follow-up times of less than 4 weeks, 364 patients (680 breasts) were included for analysis. A total of 530 (77.94%) and 150 (22.06%) breasts received NP-ADM and P-ADM, respectively. After propensity score matching, there were 294 breasts, composed of equal numbers of P-ADM and NP-ADM recipients. Univariate analysis showed no association between ADM type and any postoperative complication.
conclusionsThe complication profile of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction appears to be unaffected by the use of P-ADM or NP-ADM. Current understanding of the association between ADM type and clinical outcomes would benefit from multi-institution, prospective, randomized trials.
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.