Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34688959›Full record

ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2021

Immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: Evaluation of complications and safety.

Julie Kalstrup, Cecilie Balslev Willert, Marie Brinch-Møller Weitemeyer, Annette Hougaard Chakera, Lisbet Rosenkrantz Hölmich

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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.

Julie KalstrupDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.
Cecilie Balslev WillertDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730, Herlev, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3B, 2200, Copenhagen N, Denmark.
Marie Brinch-Møller WeitemeyerDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.
Annette Hougaard ChakeraDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730, Herlev, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3B, 2200, Copenhagen N, Denmark.
Lisbet Rosenkrantz HölmichDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730, Herlev, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3B, 2200, Copenhagen N, Denmark. Electronic address: lisbet.rosenkrantz.hoelmich@regionh.dk.
University of Copenhagen · DKGentofte Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveImmediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is the method of choice for many plastic surgeons and patients, but the use of ADM remains a controversial subject in the literature. This study aimed to investigate complications, reconstructive failure and possible risk factors in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with ADM (primarily Strattice™).

methodsWe retrospectively examined all patients undergoing immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with ADM, during a five-year period (2014-2019) at a university clinic. Study outcomes were all complications and explantations. Complications were stratified within and after 6 months postoperatively and subcategorized by type of intervention. Explantations were subcategorized into loss of implant or salvage with immediate insertion of a tissue expander, the same or a new implant.

resultsWe included 154 patients and 232 breasts. Complications within 6 months per patient included hematoma (4%), seroma (8%), infection (9%), necrosis, wound dehiscence and delayed wound healing (19%). The total complication rate per patient was 34%. Explantation occurred in 20 patients (13%) of which 9 (6% of all) had implant loss. Preoperative radiotherapy was a significant predictor of explantation (adjusted OR 4.9, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-23.5; p = 0.045), and smoking was also associated with risk of explantation, although only borderline significant (adjusted OR 4.0, 95% CI, 1.0-15.8; p = 0.050).

conclusionThis study demonstrates acceptable rates of re-operations and implant loss compared to other studies but highlights the importance of proper patient selection with regards to risk factors to minimize complications.

Indexed as

Acellular DermisBreast ImplantationBreast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsMammaplastyFemaleHumansMastectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesAcellular dermal matrixBreast reconstructionComplicationsImmediate direct-to-implantReconstructive failureRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID34688959
PMCPMC8551207
OpenAlexW3205027858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.