Reflections on hADM — what the places that used this material before the face can tell us
When I explain Re2O or CellREDM, I am often asked: “It is made from human skin, so does it rebuild my skin?” To answer that properly, the facial studies alone are not enough — there are still only a handful. So I read the human studies published in 2026 from the fields that used this material much earlier and much more: shoulder tendons, neck spine surgery, foot wounds and breast surgery. This column is the judgement I reached after reading them. It contains no prices and no photos.
The short answer
hADM fills a space and holds it while the body’s own tissue grows into it. It is hard to call it a material that makes new skin. Put five human studies from outside the face, all published in 2026, side by side and the picture is fairly consistent. Of two shoulder-tendon studies, one showed better results on part of the MRI and the same pain and function scores as the comparator (atelocollagen); the other showed no difference on any measure. In neck spine surgery, foot wounds and partial breast removal it did its job without major problems, but most of those records have no control group or short follow-up. I do not read this as disappointing. I read it as an honest picture of what the material is. Miso Clinic in Daegu (4F Bombom Building, 125 Dongdeok-ro, Jung-gu, +82-53-428-2700) therefore uses hADM for dermal density, texture, pores and hydration, not for lost volume or sagging, and tells you first that the source is human skin.
Why look at records from outside the face first?
Human studies of injectable hADM in facial skin are still few. Re2O has a split-face double-blind randomised trial at Severance Hospital, Yonsei University — 20 people over 20 weeks, an exploratory size. That is not a criticism of the trial; the numbers are simply small for judging the nature of the material.
Acellular dermal matrix, on the other hand, has a long history in the operating room: burns, breast reconstruction, gums, tendons and wound care. Those fields have more patients and more studies with a comparator alongside. Seeing how the same material behaved elsewhere in the body gives a sense of what can be expected in the face.
Animal histology, the Re2O split-face trial and the gum and breast meta-analyses are covered in hADM: how far it is established. This column looks only at the new 2026 records that are not there.
Shoulder tendons — same year, same journal, different conclusions
The most interesting reading for me was two Korean studies that injected hADM into partial rotator cuff tears. Both appeared in Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery in 2026, and both compared hADM with atelocollagen injection.
| Study | Size and follow-up | MRI | Pain and function scores |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lee et al. (Aug 2026) | 41 vs 49, two injections 3 months apart, MRI at 6 months | Coronal improvement 48.8% vs 34.7%; tear size −2.31 mm vs −1.02 mm (significant); sagittal no difference | No difference |
| Baek et al. (Sep 2026) | 40 vs 45, 1 mL, mean 14.1 months | Improvement 32.5% vs 35.6% (p=0.821) | No difference |
Both are retrospective. One showed a little more on imaging; the other did not even show that. In both, the pain and shoulder function that patients actually feel were the same.
What I take from this: when hADM goes in, something fills the space and imaging can sometimes show a difference. That does not automatically mean “better”. Against a collagen-type comparator, “similar” is the more common result.
Neck spine surgery — as an anti-adhesion layer
When a cervical disc is operated on from the front, adhesions around the oesophagus can make swallowing uncomfortable. A 2026 study in Medicina compared 54 patients who had hADM placed there with 54 matched patients who had a different anti-adhesion material.
At three months the swallowing discomfort score (SIS-6) was 0.26 vs 0.68, lower with hADM. Other outcomes were the same, and there were no material-related complications. The authors wrote that the clinical meaning of the difference needs further study.
The same shape again: it held its place safely, was slightly better on one measure, and the same on the rest.
Foot wounds — as a material that fills empty space
In 2026 the International Wound Journal published a record of 52 patients with foot wounds that reached bone and were filled with hADM. 48 healed, taking 5.6 weeks on average. Five had mild early infections.
What caught my eye was how the authors described the material’s role: not replacing bone, but managing dead space and shaping the contour. With no control group, it cannot be said that the wounds healed because of hADM.
Partial breast removal — as a paste that fills the gap
The same year, Gland Surgery compared 73 patients who had paste-form hADM placed in the gap after partial breast removal with 94 who did not. There were minor seroma and haematoma, and in one patient the hADM was removed because of infection. Follow-up is still short.
I read this record for safety more than effect. It shows that a fairly large volume inside the body usually goes without trouble, and also that it is still a foreign material that has to come out if infection develops.
What the five studies show when read together
Each one is small. Read together, they make the nature of hADM fairly clear.
- It is reliable at filling space. It fills empty space and becomes a scaffold for the body’s tissue to grow into, consistent with the fibroblast ingrowth and new vessels seen in animal histology.
- It rarely beats the comparator by much. Against collagen-type materials or other membranes the result is mostly “similar” or “better on one or two measures”.
- It is usually well tolerated, but it is a foreign material. If infection develops it may have to be removed.
So I try not to call hADM “an injection that turns your skin back”. The word “regeneration” that marketing attaches to it is bigger than what the material actually does. The phrase I use is “an injection that adds material to thinned dermis”. That is useful enough, and promising more would be untrue.
What changed on the way to the face — form and particle size
Surgical hADM comes as sheets or paste. Facial hADM is the same material broken into very fine particles: Re2O about 100 μm, CellREDM about 75 μm and Re2O Fine about 50 μm (manufacturer figures).
When the form changes, the evidence does not automatically follow. A 2026 paper in J Appl Biomater Funct Mater tested ultra-fine hADM of about 70 μm in a mouse pressure-ulcer model and in observational human use, but it was not a controlled human trial. Smaller particles are easier to place in thin areas, but may also be absorbed sooner. No one has yet compared how long different particle sizes last in facial dermis.
There is also no clinical study comparing Re2O and CellREDM directly. We keep both not because one is better but to match the area and skin thickness, as explained in CellREDM and Re2O in Daegu: what differs.
How we use it in the clinic
Reading these records did not change what I do. If anything, it confirmed the way I was already working.
- We use it when density, texture, pores and hydration are the main concern — skin that feels thin and weak without having lost volume.
- We do not use it for hollow volume, a sagging jawline or deep expression lines. hADM does not create volume; other treatments fit those concerns.
- We tell you first that the source is human skin. If that bothers you, a plan with non-human-derived products is entirely possible, and we respect that choice.
- We do not recommend a bundle of sessions from the start. There is no study that sets a standard number, so we review progress and decide the next step together.
We also set expectations in advance. As the shoulder studies show, something does change where it is placed, but I do not say it will be very different from another good booster. I choose hADM not because it is “stronger”, but because it offers another route for skin that does not tolerate boosters that work by provoking a foreign-body reaction.
What we do not yet know
Here is what I could not confirm.
- There is no long-term human study of how many months hADM lasts in facial dermis.
- There is no study that sets how many sessions, or how many weeks apart.
- There is no study comparing Re2O, CellREDM and Re2O Fine in the same people.
- Korea pre-announced an amendment to the human tissue enforcement rules in July 2026; I could not confirm whether it had been promulgated as of October.
When this list gets shorter, I will update this column. Until then I will say only this much: hADM is a material that fills a space and holds it.
Frequently asked questions about hADM
Does an hADM injection regenerate skin?
I do not describe it that way. hADM adds material to the dermis and becomes a scaffold for the body’s tissue to grow into. In the 2026 human studies from shoulder tendons, neck surgery, foot wounds and breast surgery it was reliable at filling space, but rarely beat the comparator by much.
Where was hADM originally used?
In surgery — burn skin reconstruction, breast reconstruction, gum surgery, tendon reinforcement and hard-to-heal wounds — as sheets or paste. Facial products are the same material broken into very fine particles.
Which is better, Re2O or CellREDM?
There is no clinical study comparing the two directly, so there is no basis to say one is better. Miso Clinic chooses between them by area and skin thickness.
Can hADM fix hollow cheeks or a sagging jawline?
hADM does not create volume, so it does not fit those concerns. We use it when dermal density, texture, pores and hydration are the main issue.
I am uneasy that it is made from human skin.
That is an entirely understandable concern. Cells and DNA are removed from donated tissue and its history is tracked, but it remains human-derived. If it bothers you, we plan with non-human-derived products instead.
How many hADM sessions do I need?
No study has set the number or interval. Miso Clinic does not recommend a bundle from the start; we review progress and decide the next step together.
Where can I get an hADM consultation in Daegu?
Miso Clinic is at 4F Bombom Building, 125 Dongdeok-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, in front of Exit 1 of Kyungpook National University Hospital Station. +82-53-428-2700. Weekdays 11:00–19:00, Saturday 10:00–16:00, closed Sundays and public holidays.
Read next
Product pages
Who wrote this
Written and reviewed by Lee Chi-Hak, MD, director of Miso Clinic, Daegu. The treatment standards and injection design set out here are the ones we use in practice.
| Medical director | Lee Chi-Hak, MD |
|---|---|
| Address | 4F Bombom Building, 125 Dongdeok-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, South Korea · Exit 1, Kyungpook National University Hospital Station |
| Phone | +82-53-428-2700 |
| Hours | Weekdays 11:00–19:00 (lunch 13:00–14:00) / Saturday 10:00–16:00 (no lunch break) / Closed Sundays and public holidays |
| Columns | All clinical columns |
| Reference library | All booster and device references |
References
- Partial rotator cuff tears, hADM vs atelocollagen (1) — Lee KG et al., Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2026 (online 2026-08-04), PMID 42876866, DOI 10.4055/cios25167. Retrospective, 41 vs 49, two injections 3 months apart, MRI at 6 months. Coronal improvement 48.8% vs 34.7%, tear size −2.31 vs −1.02 mm (p<0.05), sagittal no difference, clinical scores no difference.
- Partial rotator cuff tears, hADM vs atelocollagen (2) — Baek JY et al., Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2026 (online 2026-09-16), PMID 42877261, DOI 10.4055/cios26122. 1 mL, 40 vs 45, mean follow-up 14.1 months. No difference in any clinical outcome; MRI improvement 32.5% vs 35.6% (p=0.821).
- Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), anti-adhesion — Kim DH et al., Medicina 2026, PMID 42356175, DOI 10.3390/medicina62061163. 54 matched pairs. SIS-6 at 3 months 0.26 vs 0.68; other outcomes the same; no device-related complications. Authors state clinical significance needs further study.
- Foot wounds with bone defects — Nam HJ et al., International Wound Journal 2026, PMID 42242892, DOI 10.1111/iwj.70974. 48 of 52 healed, mean 5.6 weeks, 5 mild early infections. Role: dead-space management and contour, not bone replacement. No control group.
- Paste-form hADM after partial mastectomy — Cha YJ et al., Gland Surgery 2026, PMID 42164680, DOI 10.21037/gs-2026-1-0002. 73 vs 94. Minor seroma and haematoma; one hADM removal for infection. Early follow-up.
- Ultra-fine hADM (about 70 μm) — Jin H et al., J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 2026, PMID 42308451, DOI 10.1177/22808000261460977. Mouse pressure-ulcer model and observational human use. Not a controlled human trial.
- Re2O split-face trial — Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, split-face double-blind randomised trial (NCT07155278), International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2026, PMID 41828422. 20 people, 20 weeks, compared with hyaluronic acid only on the other side. Exploratory size.
- Particle size — CellREDM about 75 μm (Hans Biomed published figure); Re2O about 100 μm and Re2O Fine about 50 μm (L&C Bio product information).
- Human tissue rules — Korean Act on Safety and Management of Human Tissue. Amendment to enforcement rules pre-announced by MFDS notice 2026-340 on 16 July 2026. Promulgation not confirmed as of October 2026.
- Korean Medical Service Act — Article 56(2) prohibits treatment-experience testimonials, comparisons with other clinics and superlatives in medical advertising. This is why the column carries no reviews, before-and-after photos or prices.
- Miso Clinic treatment criteria — From the Re2O and CellREDM pages: human source disclosed first; main aims dermal density, texture, pores, hydration; does not address hollow volume, sagging contour or deep expression lines; sessions decided after reviewing progress, not bundled; no direct comparison data between the two products. Source of the sentences written as “I” or “we”.
Everything in this column is general information and does not replace medical diagnosis or treatment. Effects and side effects vary with individual skin condition, age and underlying illness, and the same result is not guaranteed for everyone. Any decision to proceed should be made in an in-person consultation with a physician.