ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022
Evaluation of Xenograft Efficacy in Immediate Prosthesis-based Breast Reconstruction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel Porcine Xenograft as a Salvage Strategy for Lower Extremity Wound Reconstruction Following Free Flap Failure.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Performance of Human and Porcine Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Long-term Clinicaland Histologic Evaluation.Aesthetic surgery journal · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The advent of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has revolutionized prosthesis-based breast reconstruction. However, paucity of human cadaveric tissue has resulted in limitation of supply and increased associated costs, prompting concerted effort to identify xenograft alternatives. Although studies have examined the safety of Artia, a porcine-derived ADM, few have evaluated its clinical efficacy as soft tissue reinforcement. This study uniquely evaluates the clinical efficacy of Artia in implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods: IRB-approved retrospective chart review was conducted to identify 243 consecutive TE-based procedures performed at a tertiary academic medical center between March 2017 and March 2021. Propensity matching was conducted to minimize differences between cohorts. Efficacy metrics, defined as initial tissue expander (TE) fill volume, number of TE fills, and time interval between exchange of TE for final implant, were compared between xenograft (Artia) and allograft (AlloDerm) groups. Results: Patients who underwent Artia-based breast reconstruction achieved superior initial TE fill volume relative to those who underwent AlloDerm-based breast reconstruction via univariate analysis (317.3 ± 185.8 mL versus 286.1 ± 140.4 mL, Conclusion: This study suggests that Artia can be used as a safe and efficacious alternative to human-derived ADM in immediate TE-based breast reconstruction.
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.