ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023
Comparing Polyurethane and Acellular Dermal Matrix Implant Cover in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Short-term Complications.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technique-Driven and Patient-Specific Variations in Complications of Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction: An Evidence-Based Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Changing Paradigms in Polyurethane-coated Breast Implant Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis of 4 Decades of Clinical Practice.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- ADM-Assisted Breast Reconstruction vs Micro-Polyurethane Foam-Covered Implants in the Prepectoral Space: A Monocentric Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Unveiling Upper-Limb Dysfunction Early After Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Insights from a Retrospective Cohort Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of prepectoral and subpectoral standalone placement of MicrothaneJPRAS open · 2026Article
- Anterior Intercostal Artery Perforator Flap for Delayed Implant Exposure Salvage After Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Early and Long-Term Complications and Outcomes of Total Coverage Acellular Dermal Matrix and Implants Vs Polyurethane-Coated Implants Without Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2025Article
- Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using a novel acellular dermal matrix: framework for a cohort study.International journal of surgery protocols · 2025Article
- Article
- Nipple-Sparing Skin-Reducing Mastectomy and Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A New Surgical Approach.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Article
- A Histological Evaluation of the Efficiency of Using Periprosthetic Autologous Fat to Prevent Capsular Contracture Compared to Other Known Methods-An Experimental Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implant covering with an interface material is the standard in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently used, but it is expensive and associated with complications. Alternatively, we have been using integrated devices consisting of a silicone implant coated with polyurethane (PU) foam. We aimed to compare both techniques in terms of acute complications. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction from June 2018 to January 2022. Two cohorts were defined based on the interface material used: ADM versus PU. Total drainage volume, time to drain removal, and acute complications (hematoma, seroma, infection, and explantation) were analyzed. Results: Forty-four breast reconstructions were performed in 35 patients (10 bilateral); implants were covered with ADM in 23 cases and with PU foam in 21. Median total drainage volume (500 versus 515 cc for ADM and PU, respectively) and time to drain removal (9 versus 8 days) were not affected by the interface material used, but seromas and infections occurred exclusively in the ADM cohort (seromas in four of 23 of cases, Conclusions: The use of interface materials is generally considered a prerequisite for state-of-the-art prepectoral breast reconstruction for a variety of reasons, including the prevention of capsular contracture. In this study, PU coating tended to be associated with fewer short-term complications than ADM, including seroma and infection.
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.