ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Absorbable Biosynthetic Scaffolds in Place of Silicone for Breast Reconstruction: A 9-Year Experience with 53 Patients.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- 4-Hydroxybutyrate (4HB) released from poly-4-hydroxybutyrate scaffolds does not impact hallmark phenotypes of cancer in malignant or non-malignant breast cells.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2026Article
- Low-detergent sonication decellularization preserves extracellular matrix architecture and enhances cell infiltration in human acellular dermal matrix.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Histomorphologic Outcomes of GalaFLEX Scaffold Used in Breast Surgery: Clinical Follow-up From 6 Weeks to 63 Months.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2025Article
- Review
- Implantable Polymer Scaffolds Loaded with Paclitaxel-Cyclodextrin Complexes for Post-Breast Cancer Tissue Reconstruction.Polymers · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Few series report on using fat grafting as the primary form of breast reconstruction. A 9-year experience with absorbable biosynthetic scaffolds, used in place of silicone implants, for breast reconstruction is reviewed. Methods: A clinical quality improvement approach was used to evaluate real-world data on a single plastic surgeon's experience treating breast reconstruction patients over a 7-year period. Results: Fifty-three patients had 74 breasts reconstructed, (following 51 therapeutic mastectomies and 23 prophylactic). Five of the 51 breasts (9.80 %) developed a local recurrence (mean follow-up of 4.5-5.5 years). This compared favorably with the practice's previous 6 years of silicone reconstructions. The most common complications were benign fat necrosis and oil cysts. More than 100 radiologic examinations were performed without interference by the absorbable implants. By 12-18 months post implantation, very little immune response was seen on histologic examinations of the biosynthetic scaffold constructs. Mature collagen and robust vascularity characterized the "mesh zone," whereas regenerated adipose tissue was seen in between and on top of the folded sheets of the implants. The average number of fat graft sessions in immediate reconstructions was 2.3, with a mean total fat graft volume of 551 mL, to restore an average mastectomy defect volume of 307 mL. Aesthetic outcomes were much better in the immediate reconstruction of nipple-sparing mastectomy group, which saw 68% achieve an A/B grade; 19%, C grade; and 13%, D/F on subjective grading. Conclusion: This composite strategy, using biosynthetic scaffold and autologous fat grafting, yielded outcomes equivalent to flap reconstructions with the ease of implants.
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.