ReviewJPRAS open2026
The use of porcine acellular dermal matrices in implant-based breast reconstruction: A systematic literature review.
Review in JPRAS open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic literature review was conducted to assess outcomes reported with the use of porcine acellular dermal matrices (ADMs), Strattice and Artia, for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Methods: Articles were identified using multi-string searches of PubMed, Embase, and Medline and targeted searches of recent reviews. Hits were screened against prespecified criteria to identify those reporting adverse events or complications with Strattice or Artia in IBBR. Proportions of breasts affected were determined for implant loss, major and minor complications, and necrosis based on cohorts reporting those outcomes and analyzed descriptively. Results: A total of 14 studies were identified; of those, three studies reported multiple cohorts, for a total of 18 observational cohorts (Strattice only, 13 cohorts; Artia only, two cohorts; both products, three cohorts). Follow-up for all cohorts ranged from 3.0 months to 51.6 months. The overall pooled proportion of breasts with implant loss was 7.6% (range, 0% to 27.5%; n = 1572 breasts, 15 cohorts). Among seven cohorts (n = 704 breasts) reporting major and minor complications, pooled rates were 9.8% (range, 0% to 28.6%) and 10.8% (range, 7.5% to 27.5%) for major and minor complications, respectively. The pooled rate of skin necrosis was 4.0% (range, 0.9% to 20.4%; n = 796 breasts, seven cohorts). Pooled implant loss and necrosis rates for Strattice procedures were lower than the overall pooled rates. Conclusions: In this systematic literature review, pooled rates of implant loss, major complications, minor complications, and skin necrosis for IBBR using the porcine ADMs Strattice and Artia were comparable with previously reported rates for ADM-assisted IBBR. Additional studies are needed to assess outcomes with Artia in IBBR.
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.