ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2025
Handling and Associated Material Properties of Porcine and Human Acellular Dermal Matrices.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Pliability, handling, and drape characteristics are important material properties of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs). There are few in vitro techniques that quantitatively assess these characteristics. Objectives: The aim of the authors of this study is to compare data generated using a novel drape assay with surgeon handling of porcine-derived ADMs and evaluate material properties of human- and porcine-derived ADMs. Methods: Three commercially available ADMs (human-derived AlloDerm [hADM], porcine-derived Strattice Pliable [pADM-S], and porcine-derived Artia [pADM-A]) were assessed. Eight prototype variations of pADM with varied mechanical properties were used for the handling assessment. Drape testing was conducted using a novel mechanical test fixture coupled with quantitative image analysis. Surgeon handling assessments of prototype pADM pliability were compared with quantitative drape measurements to establish a correlation. Commercially available ADMs were tensile tested mechanically at clinically relevant and higher loads to determine maximum strength. Results: Benchtop testing demonstrated similar drapability for pADM-A and hADM; pADM-S had significantly less drapability than pADM-A, despite both being porcine derived. Surgeon semiquantitative ranking of pliability of prototype pADM samples positively correlated with drape measurements ( Conclusions: The novel drape assay introduced here correlated with surgeon handling assessment of ADM pliability. Material testing and handling assessment demonstrated various mechanical properties (ie, strength, strain/elongation, drapability, and handling/pliability) for the ADMs evaluated, providing several unique options that may meet different surgical mechanical needs. Level of Evidence 5 Therapeutic:
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.