Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37551639›Full record

ArticleAesthetic surgery journal2023

A Cohort Analysis of Early Outcomes After AlloDerm, FlexHD, and SurgiMend Use in Two-Stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Jacqueline J Chu, Jonas A Nelson, George Kokosis, Kathryn Haglich, Cayla D McKernan, Robyn Rubenstein, Perri S Vingan, Robert J Allen, Michelle R Coriddi, Joseph H Dayan and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jacqueline J Chu
Jonas A Nelson
George Kokosis
Kathryn Haglich
Cayla D McKernan
Robyn Rubenstein
Perri S Vingan
Robert J Allen
Michelle R Coriddi
Joseph H Dayan
Joseph J Disa
Babak J Mehrara
Evan Matros
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USRush University Medical Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Charles M. Rudin · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center P30CA008748NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcellular dermal matrix (ADM) is frequently utilized in prepectoral breast reconstruction, but few studies have examined the role of ADM type in complication risk.

objectivesThis study was performed to determine the impact of ADM type on early complication rates in 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction.

methodsWe performed a cohort examination of all patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate 2-stage alloplastic prepectoral breast reconstruction with ADM support at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2018 to 2021. ADM types utilized included AlloDerm (LifeCell Corporation, Branchburg, NJ), FlexHD (MTF Biologics, Edison, NJ), and SurgiMend (Integra LifeSciences Corporation, Princeton, NJ). Complication rates based on the number of tissue expanders (TEs) were determined for each ADM type. Performance of multivariate logistic regression determined the impact of ADM type on complication risk after accounting for confounders.

resultsOverall, 726 patients (1054 TEs: 194 AlloDerm, 93 FlexHD, 767 SurgiMend) were included. The 3 cohorts differed in terms of mastectomy type (nipple-sparing: 23.5% of AlloDerm, 33.3% of FlexHD, 19.1% of SurgiMend, P = .038); ADM perforation (perforated: 94.8% of AlloDerm, 98.2% of FlexHD, 100% of SurgiMend, P < .001); and ADM size (AlloDerm: 153.2 cm2 [37.6], SurgiMend: 198.7 cm2 [10.4], FlexHD: 223.7 cm2 [37.9], P < .001). On univariate examination, no differences existed between ADM types for seroma, infection, exposure, malposition, or TE loss. Additionally, after adjustment for confounders with multivariate regression, no ADM type had higher odds of TE loss.

conclusionsIn this large cohort of prepectoral reconstruction patients, ADM type did not significantly affect the risk of complications. Additional prospective studies are warranted to better evaluate ADM choice for prepectoral breast reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:

Indexed as

Acellular DermisBreast ImplantationBreast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsCollagenMammaplastyCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMastectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesAllodermCollagenFlexHDSurgimend

Identifiers

PMID37551639
PMCPMC11184452
OpenAlexW4385642879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.