Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33633977›Full record

ArticleGland surgery2021

Comparison of one-stage direct-to-implant with acellular dermal matrix and two-stage immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-a cohort study.

Mette Eline Brunbjerg, Thomas Bo Jensen, Jens Overgaard, Peer Christiansen, Tine Engberg Damsgaard

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gland surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04209010 (Comparison of One-stage Direct-to-implant With Acellular Dermal Matrix and Two-stage Implant-based Breast Reconstruction), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

NCT04209010 completednot on this map

Comparison of One-stage Direct-to-implant With Acellular Dermal Matrix and Two-stage Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A Cohort Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorAarhus University HospitalRan2012 to 2016Enrolled44ConditionsBreast Cancer, Breast Carcinoma in Situ, Mammaplasty, Acellular DermisArmsone-stage technique
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. The Language of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: Can We Do Better?Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022
    Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mette Eline BrunbjergDepartment of Plastic and Breast Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Thomas Bo JensenDepartment of Plastic and Breast Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Jens OvergaardDepartment of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Peer ChristiansenDepartment of Plastic and Breast Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Tine Engberg DamsgaardDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University Hospital · DKAarhus University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in one-stage immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (BR) may offer advantages over the two-stage expander-to-implant technique, but literature shows conflicting results. The aim of the present study was to compare these two techniques for immediate implant-based BR regarding postoperative complications, aesthetic correction procedures and aesthetic outcome.

methodsThe study was designed as an observational cohort study with 44 participants admitted for immediate implant-based BR at Department of Plastic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. 21 patients underwent BR with a one-stage direct-to-implant technique using ADM and 23 patients underwent BR with a two-stage expander-to-implant technique. Follow-up time was 2 years.

resultsThe risk of implant loss was equal between groups; one-stage group 16% and two-stage group 17% whereas the risk of implant exchange (but not loss of BR) was 13% in the one-stage group compared to 7% in the two-stage group. The risk of at least one major complication were equal between groups; 28% and 24% but the risk of at least one minor complication was significantly higher in the two-stage group (41%) compared to the one-stage group (3%). Number of aesthetic corrections were equally frequent in the two treatment groups (one-stage group 1.8, two-stage group 1.5). Patient and investigator assessed aesthetic outcome was very high in both groups as well as the degree of symmetry between breasts. No capsular contracture Baker grade 3 or 4 was observed.

conclusionsThe present study design sets limitations for drawing wide conclusions. This study did not reveal any significant differences between the two breast reconstructive techniques besides a higher risk of minor complications in the two-stage group, that did, however, not lead to a higher risk of implant loss. With equally high satisfaction with the aesthetic result and no significant difference in number of aesthetic corrections between the two groups we suggest, that the one-stage approach using ADM may be feasible and allows the patient to achieve an implant-based BR with a minimum of surgeries and outpatient visits. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04209010).

Indexed as

acellular dermal matrix (ADM)aesthetic outcomecomplicationsImplant-based breast reconstruction (BR)

Identifiers

PMID33633977
PMCPMC7882334
OpenAlexW3113012422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.