ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Case-matched Comparison of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Outcomes of Acellular Dermal Matrix Use in Radiated Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Subgroup Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Beauty Under Pressure: The Impact of Hypertension on Outcomes in 54,000 Cases of Esthetic Breast Surgery.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Short-Term Outcomes of Post-Mastectomy Immediate Pre-Pectoral Reconstruction with Implant and Acellular Dermal Matrix.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is commonly used in implant-based breast reconstruction due to improved soft-tissue support and control of the implant pocket and decreased capsular contracture. However, concerns about complications have prompted the FDA to request more clinical data. This large-scale study aims to examine perioperative outcomes of ADM use in breast reconstruction. Methods: This study utilized a national insurance-based database to identify patients who underwent mastectomy between 2011 and 2019, with and without ADM. The groups were matched for age, region, and comorbidities. Complications within 90 days were compared using univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: A total of 49,366 patients were identified with 26,266 patients in the ADM group and 23,100 in the non-ADM group. Infection rates (4.7% ADM versus 4.4% no ADM) and seroma rates (3.9% ADM versus 4% no ADM) were similar. However, the ADM group had a 1% higher rate of implant removal (4.9% ADM versus 3.9% no ADM, Conclusions: This study found comparable infection and seroma rates in implant-based breast reconstruction with and without ADM. ADM use was associated with a 1% higher risk of implant removal, with risk factors including tobacco use, obesity, hypertension, depression, and direct-to-implant procedures. Multicenter studies and registry data on prepectoral breast reconstruction are warranted to help interpret these findings.
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.