ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Abnormal Ultrasonographic Findings of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Correlations with Histopathology.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Imaging Surveillance After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Cancer With Acellular Dermal Matrix Reconstruction.Korean journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Application of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Gynaecology-A Current Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Prevention of Abdominal Bulging Using Onlay Dermal Autografts from Discarded Zone IV TRAM Flap Tissue.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstruction can show various ultrasound (US) findings. However, there are limited reports on the US features of the ADM. The aims of this study were to evaluate US findings of the ADM in implant-based breast reconstruction and correlate them with histopathological findings.
methodsBetween January 2015 and August 2020, 250 women who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction with ADM and a breast US examination at 6 months to 1 year after reconstruction were retrospectively analyzed. Abnormal US findings were classified as type 1 (focal thickening with decreased echogenicity), 2 (diffusely hyperechoic), or 3 (bright echogenic spots). ADM biopsy was performed in 33 patients who underwent second stage or revisional surgeries.
resultsIn total, 176 consecutive women with 207 US findings were analyzed. The US findings were normal in 52.2% of the women. The percentages of type 1, 2, and 3 patients were 13.5%, 11.1%, and 23. 2%, respectively. These patients had microscopic findings that showed patchy areas with chronic inflammatory infiltrates, dense collagen bundles without degenerative or inflammatory changes, and empty spaces or degenerated foci unaccompanied by inflammation.
conclusionKnowing the various ADM presentations on US can help avoid unnecessary invasive procedures.
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.