ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022
Postsurgical Outcomes with Meshes for Two-stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction in 20,817 Patients.
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 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Clinical Practice Guideline.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Guideline
- Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Pooled it
- Assisted Breast Reconstruction With Biosynthetic Mesh and Implants: A Pilot Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) for tissue expander breast reconstruction remains controversial with an uncertain safety and efficacy profile. This study analyzes the rates and factors for reoperation and postoperative infection in patients who underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction with and without ADM. Methods: Patients who underwent breast reconstruction with and without ADM were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database utilizing CPT codes. Covariates included patient demographics, preoperative comorbidities, and operative characteristics, while outcomes of interest were postoperative infection and reoperation. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of adverse outcomes. Results: There were 8334 patients in the ADM cohort and 12,451 patients who underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction without ADM. There were significantly fewer reoperations in the non-ADM cohort (5.4%) compared to the ADM cohort (7.7%) ( Conclusion: Our study of 20,817 patients revealed significantly higher risk of infection and reoperation in patients who underwent breast reconstruction utilizing ADM versus without ADM. Patients considering ADM for breast reconstruction should engage in discussion with their surgeon about complications, aesthetics, and cost.
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.