Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38285304›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2024

Review: Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Studies Comparing Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) Versus Without ADM.

Trina Priscilla Ng, Brandon Yong Kiat Loo, Nicole Yong, Clement Luck Khng Chia, Visnu Lohsiriwat

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Hot Topics in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  5. Assisted Breast Reconstruction With Biosynthetic Mesh and Implants: A Pilot Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Trina Priscilla NgYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Brandon Yong Kiat LooYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Nicole YongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Clement Luck Khng Chia *Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. chia.clement.lk@ktph.com.sg.
Visnu Lohsiriwat *Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Khoo Teck Puat Hospital · SGNational University of Singapore · SGMahidol University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is the world's most prevalent cancer, and many breast cancer patients undergo mastectomy as the choice of treatment, often with post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) use has become a method to improve outcomes of reconstruction for these patients. We aimed to compare postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes, which are still poorly characterized, between groups utilizing acellular dermal matrix during reconstruction and those without. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched electronic databases from inception to 16 June 2022 for randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies comparing the outcomes of patients who have and have not received acellular dermal matrix in implant-based breast reconstruction. The results were quantitatively combined and analyzed using random-effects models.

resultsA total of nine studies were included, representing 3161 breasts. There was no significant difference in postoperative outcomes, such as seroma formation (p = 0.51), hematomas (p = 0.20), infections (p = 0.21), wound dehiscence (p = 0.09), reoperations (p = 0.70), implant loss (p = 0.27), or skin necrosis (p = 0.21). Only two of the studies included evaluated patient-reported outcomes between the use and non-use of ADM in implant-based breast reconstruction using BREAST-Q questionnaire, as well as self-reported pain. There was no reported significant difference in BREAST-Q or pain scores.

conclusionsThis meta-analysis shows comparable short- and long-term outcomes between ADM and non-ADM breast reconstruction, suggesting that the use of ADM may not be necessary in all cases given their additional cost. However, there is a paucity of data for patient-reported outcomes, and further research is required to determine whether ADM use affects patient-reported outcomes.

Indexed as

Acellular DermisBreast ImplantationBreast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsMammaplastyFemaleHumansMastectomyPainPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesAcellular dermal matrixBreastCancerImplantMastectomyReconstruction

Identifiers

PMID38285304
OpenAlexW4391323781

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.