ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2020
Intraoperative Autoderm Decontamination for Use in Immediate Single-stage Direct-to-implant Breast Reconstruction.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autoderm in Direct-to-implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction Decreases Perioperative Complication Rates and Improves Reconstructive Outcomes.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in direct-to-implant breast cancer reconstruction is the standard of care due to superior cosmetic results and decreased capsular contracture, but can be cost prohibitive. Although more economical, using patient's own dermis ("Autoderm") instead of ADM has undescribed sterility. Sterility is essential, as bacterial contamination may cause infection and capsular contraction. This study aimed to determine the sterility and optimal decontamination protocol of Autoderm.
methodsA prospective controlled study of 140 samples from 20 DIEP (deep inferior epigastric perforator) breast cancer reconstruction patients was performed. Seven de-epithelialized dermal samples (2 × 1 cm) per patient were collected from excess abdominal tissue (6 decontamination protocols and one control). Samples were submerged in povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine, or cefazolin/tobramycin/bacitracin for 15 minutes; half of the samples were agitated (150 rpm) for 15 minutes, and half were not. The control was normal saline without agitation. The solution was removed, and the tissue was sent for aerobic colony count cultures. Patient's demographic data and complications were also collected.
resultsOf 140 samples, 3 of 20 non-agitated povidone-iodine and 1 of 20 control samples had aerobic bacterial growth. All of the other 100 samples from 5 experimental groups (povidone-iodine + agitation, chlorhexidine ± agitation, and cefazolin/tobramycin/bacitracin ± agitation) had no aerobic bacterial growth.
conclusionsThis study suggests povidone-iodine + agitation, chlorhexidine ± agitation, and cefazolin/tobramycin/bacitracin ± agitation are effective at sterilizing de-epithelialized dermis, whereas povidone-iodine without agitation and saline are ineffective. Autoderm with the appropriate decontamination protocol may be a potential sterile alternative to ADM.
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.