ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
ADM-Assisted Breast Reconstruction vs Micro-Polyurethane Foam-Covered Implants in the Prepectoral Space: A Monocentric Study.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) or micro-polyurethane foam-covered breast implants have emerged as commonly used surgical techniques. Although the use of both ADMs and micro-polyurethane foam-covered implants in prepectoral breast reconstruction are widely described in literature, comparative data remains limited.
objectivesOur goal was to compare the short-term and medium-term clinical outcomes as well as the patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing direct-to-implant (DTI) prepectoral breast reconstruction using ADM versus micro-polyurethane foam-covered implants.
methodsA retrospective matched cohort study was conducted on 64 patients (32 ADM-wrapped and 32 micro-polyurethane foam-covered breast implants). Patients were matched based on prior surgery, adjuvant radiotherapy, and implant volume. Demographic and oncological characteristics, surgical variables, short- and medium-term outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe micro-polyurethane group had significantly older patients (median age 53 vs. 47 years; p = 0.036). Periprosthetic fluid collection (31% vs. 3%; p = 0.006) and need for percutaneous fluid aspiration (38% vs. 9%; p = 0.016) occurred significantly more often in the ADM group. The indication for further surgery was also higher with ADM (47% vs. 19%; p = 0.031). Patient satisfaction showed a non-significant trend favoring micro-polyurethane implants in satisfaction with outcome domain (mean: 89 vs. 82; p = 0.060).
conclusionsBoth ADM-assisted reconstructions and micro-polyurethane implants demonstrated high performance in the short and medium term, and they were associated to high patient satisfaction with reconstruction. However, micro-polyurethane implants were associated with fewer periprosthetic fluid collections and a lower need for percutaneous fluid aspirations compared to the ADM group. These findings suggest a potential advantage in terms of reduced postoperative complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
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.