ReviewGland surgery2026
Complications associated with acellular dermal matrix use in implant-based breast reconstruction.
Review in Gland 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has become an established adjunct in implant-based breast reconstruction, improving implant coverage, pocket control, and soft-tissue support and hastening the adoption of prepectoral techniques. Notwithstanding its more than two decades of use in breast reconstruction, breast reconstruction remains an off-label indication for ADM use in the US. Human, porcine, and bovine sources have all been used to provide ADMs. They undergo distinct processing and sterilization methods that may affect matrix architecture, host integration, and clinical performance. Following implantation, ADM serves as a biologic scaffold for cellular infiltration and neovascularization. However, its use remains associated with important complications, including seroma, infection, red breast syndrome (RBS), mastectomy skin flap necrosis (MSFN), implant exposure, and reconstructive failure. Reported outcomes vary widely across the literature, likely due to differences in reconstructive technique, mastectomy flap perfusion, ADM characteristics, perioperative management, and patient risk factors. Elevated body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, prior radiation, larger ADM burden, and compromised skin flap vascularity consistently emerge as contributors to adverse outcomes. From a clinical standpoint, successful ADM use depends on judicious application, meticulous technique, and early recognition of evolving complications. Despite its off-label status, ADM use in breast reconstruction remains widespread and an important tool for plastic surgeons.
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.