ArticleArchives of plastic surgery2021
Comparison of irradiated and non-irradiated acellular dermal matrices in breast reconstruction under radiotherapy.
Article in Archives of plastic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anterior tenting vs. whole wrapping technique for acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction under post-mastectomy radiotherapy in rats.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Decellularized Matrices for the Treatment of Tissue Defects: from Matrix Origin to Immunological Mechanisms.Biomolecules & therapeutics · 2024Review
- Abdominoplasty Skin-Based Dressing for Deep Wound Treatment-Evaluation of Different Methods of Preparation on Therapeutic Potential.Pharmaceutics · 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
backgroundAcellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have become an essential material for implant-based breast reconstruction. No previous studies have evaluated the effects of sterility of ADM under conditions of radiation. This study compared sterile (irradiated) and aseptic (non-irradiated) ADMs to determine which would better endure radiotherapy.
methodsEighteen male Balb/C mice were assigned to the control group with no irradiation (group 1) or one of two other groups with a radiation intensity of 10 Gy (group 2) or 20 Gy (group 3). Both sterile and aseptic ADMs were inserted into the back of each mouse. The residual volume of the ADM (measured using three-dimensional photography), cell incorporation, α-smooth muscle actin expression, and connective tissue growth factor expression were evaluated. The thickness and CD3 expression of the skin were measured 4 and 8 weeks after radiation.
resultsIn groups 2 and 3, irradiated ADMs had a significantly larger residual volume than the non-irradiated ADMs after 8 weeks (P<0.05). No significant differences were found in cell incorporation and the amount of fibrosis between irradiated and non-irradiated ADMs. The skin was significantly thicker in the non-irradiated ADMs than in the irradiated ADMs in group 3 (P<0.05). CD3 staining showed significantly fewer inflammatory cells in the skin of irradiated ADMs than in non-irradiated ADMs in all three groups after 4 and 8 weeks (P<0.05).
conclusionsUnder radiation exposure, irradiated ADMs were more durable, with less volume decrease and less deposition of collagen fibers and inflammatory reactions in the skin than in non-irradiated ADMs.
Indexed as
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.