ArticleAesthetic surgery journal2024
Performance of Human and Porcine Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Long-term Clinicaland Histologic Evaluation.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal, 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.
- Reconstructing Aesthetics: Aesthetic Surgery Journal and Aesthetic Breast Reconstruction.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Article
- Complications associated with acellular dermal matrix use in implant-based breast reconstruction.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- Retrospective study on the magnetic resonance imaging integration rate of acellular dermal matrix and complications after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Acellular Dermal Matrix-Associated Recurrent Capsular Contracture in a Breast Augmentation Patient.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Article
- Handling and Associated Material Properties of Porcine and Human Acellular Dermal Matrices.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 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
backgroundHuman acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) remain the most used matrices in prosthetic breast reconstruction. However, the availability and cost of ADMs limit their use in prepectoral reconstruction-which requires large amounts of ADM-and alternative matrices are therefore being explored.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of human-porcine ADM constructs via clinical outcomes and histologic evidence of graft integration.
methodsConsecutive patients undergoing tissue-expander/implant reconstructions with human-porcine ADM constructs were included. Biopsies of both ADMs were obtained at expander/implant exchange and evaluated for cellularization, vascularization, and inflammation. Postoperative complications were retrieved from patient records.
resultsFifty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean [standard deviation] follow-up was 6.7 [0.56] years; minimum follow-up was 5 years. Any complication rate was 8.6%, including skin necrosis (6.9%), seroma (1.7%), expander/implant exposure (1.7%), and return to the operating room (2.6%). A total of 138 ADM biopsy specimens were obtained from 38 patients at expander/implant exchange. Histologic analyses revealed lower fibroblast infiltration and vascularization and higher inflammatory response in porcine vs human ADM specimens, consistent with published results in nonhuman primates. Despite these differences, there were no cases of graft rejection, capsular contracture, or expander/implant loss.
conclusionsPorcine ADM performs clinically in a similar manner to human ADM, albeit with minor differences in cellular ingrowth and vascularization, suggesting that it may be an alternative to human ADM in prepectoral breast reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
Indexed as
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.