ArticleSystematic reviews2025
AlloDerm® versus Cortiva® in implant-based breast reconstruction: framework for a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and economic outcomes.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Essence Human Acellular Dermal Matrix Compared With Other Products in Prepectoral Direct-to-implant Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Safety and optimal timing of staged nipple-sparing mastectomy following nipple repositioning in ptotic breasts: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcellular dermal matrices (ADMs) such as human-derived AlloDerm and Cortiva are widely used in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) to provide soft-tissue support. AlloDerm is considered a standard ADM, while Cortiva (and its thinner variant, Cortiva Silhouette) is a newer alternative that may offer cost advantages. Individual studies including a recent randomized trial suggest Cortiva is non-inferior to AlloDerm in terms of clinical outcomes, with some evidence of lower seroma rates, and reduced material cost with Cortiva. To date, no comprehensive synthesis has focused specifically on comparing AlloDerm versus Cortiva in breast reconstruction. This protocol describes a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in surgical complications, patient-reported outcomes, and cost between AlloDerm and Cortiva.
methodsWe will search MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing AlloDerm to Cortiva in implant-based breast reconstruction. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies (cohort or case-control designs) will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts against predefined inclusion criteria, and extract data using a standardized form. Outcomes of interest include complication rates (seroma, infection, capsular contracture, implant malposition); patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q scores); revision or explantation surgeries; and cost measures. Study quality will be appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. We will perform meta-analysis using random-effects models if ≥ 2 studies report comparable outcomes. Risk ratios or odds ratios will be pooled for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity will be assessed with the I DISCUSSION: This review will synthesize the available evidence comparing AlloDerm and Cortiva ADMs in breast reconstruction. Given that a high-level RCT found no significant differences in overall failure or complications and multiple cohort studies indicate equivalent safety profiles, our meta-analysis will clarify if any true differences exist in complication rates or patient outcomes. We will also quantify any advantages of Cortiva in lowering costs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2025 CRD420251078451. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251078451.
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.