SynthesisBMC cancer2024
A comparison of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) efficacy and complication profile in women undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practice patterns in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: A survey of UK plastic surgeons.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Use of Poly-4-Hydroxybutyrate Scaffold (GalaFLEX™) in Primary and Secondary Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Structured Review of the Literature and Preliminary Single-Center Experience.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Analysis of Essence Human Acellular Dermal Matrix Compared With Other Products in Prepectoral Direct-to-implant Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- 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
- Clinical safety and breast symmetry after injectable acellular dermal fibers reconstruction: an MR-based volumetric study.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Complications associated with acellular dermal matrix use in implant-based breast reconstruction.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- AlloDerm Versus Cortiva: A Multicenter Pooled Analysis of Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Effects of poly-L-lactic acid combined with acellular dermal matrix in the treatment of abdominal adiposity, skin laxity, and striae gravidarum.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- AlloDerm® versus Cortiva® in implant-based breast reconstruction: framework for a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and economic outcomes.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Short-Term Outcomes of Post-Mastectomy Immediate Pre-Pectoral Reconstruction with Implant and Acellular Dermal Matrix.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBreast cancer is the leading cause of cancer amongst women in the United Kingdom, with implant-based reconstruction (IBR) using Acellular Dermal Matrices (ADM) gaining popularity for post-mastectomy procedures. This study compares outcomes of different ADMs that are commonly used in women undergoing IBR, this was short and long-term complications.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CDSR databases was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines, focusing on women undergoing IBR with FlexHD, AlloDerm, Bovine, or Porcine ADMs. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was also conducted.
resultsA total of 51 studies were captured by the search, of which 27 were included in the network meta-analysis. Alloderm was the most used ADM (54%), followed by Porcine (17%), Bovine (11%), DermAcell (11%), and FlexHD (7%). The mean follow-up was 27.8 months. The complication rates varied. Porcine ADMs had the highest rate of seroma formation (10.3%) and of haematoma formation (2.7%). AlloDerm FD had the highest rate of wound dehiscence (3.1%). Implant failure was highest in AlloDerm FD ADMs (11.8%), followed by Porcine ADMs (11.2%). Infections were most common in Porcine (11.2%) and AlloDerm FD ADMs (11.0%). Capsular contracture was rare across all ADM types, with no significant differences observed. In the NMA, AlloDerm FD showed significantly higher risks of infection, explantation, and wound dehiscence compared to AlloDerm RTU.
conclusionThe overall complication profiles of ADMs used in IBR are similar, except for the higher risks associated with AlloDerm FD compared to RTU. These findings suggest that the choice of ADM may not significantly impact overall outcomes, except in specific cases like AlloDerm FD. Further high-quality, long-term, double-arm studies are necessary to confirm comparative profile of specific ADM types and to account for potential confounding variables through multivariable regression analysis.
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.