ArticleGland surgery2022
Effect of acellular dermal matrix thickness and surface area on direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.
Article in Gland surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Actual Hydrated Volume of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Complications associated with acellular dermal matrix use in implant-based breast reconstruction.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- Anterior tenting vs. whole wrapping technique for acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction under post-mastectomy radiotherapy in rats.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Effect of Early Cultures and Dual-port Expanders on Two-stage, Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: The 25/25 Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of an acellular dermal matrix is advantageous for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after skin-preserving mastectomy, but is associated with postoperative complications, especially increased seroma. Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether acellular dermal matrix surface area and thickness are associated with an increased risk of seroma. Methods: This retrospective chart review was based on the medical records of patients who underwent submuscular direct-to-implant breast reconstruction from January 2011 to June 2018 by a single surgeon. The acellular dermal matrices were divided into groups according to surface area and thickness (group I, thin and small; group II, thin and large; group III, thick and small; and group IV, thick and large). The drainage volume and period were analyzed between the groups using an analysis of variance. The factors influencing drainage were analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: Of the 219 cases of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction (217 patients), 77, 63, 42, and 37 were in groups I, II, III, and IV, respectively. A large acellular dermal matrix resulted in a larger drainage volume, longer drainage period, and more complications. The drainage volume increased as the body mass index (r=0.217; P<0.01), mastectomy volume (r=0.358; P<0.01), and implant volume (r=0.385; P<0.01) increased. There was no difference in drainage volume, drainage period, and complications depending on the thickness and manufacturer of the acellular dermal matrix. Conclusions: In direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, the use of a larger acellular dermal matrix, not a thicker acellular dermal matrix, increases the drainage volume and period, thereby resulting in a greater risk of seroma or infection.
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.